- A teacher on the front line as faith and science clash: from the New York Times, a tale of teaching evolution in Florida schools.
- A short, illustrated history of the nerd.
- The Amateur Scientist stops in at cool scifi site Pink Raygun to debunk palm reading.
- 10 people with unbelievable medical conditions.
Mmm the woman who is allergic to modern technology… truly unbelievable.
In fact are any of them believable ?
..as for the man who can not feel cold ,surley a contender for photoshop disasters
http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/
Unfortunately, the illustrated history of the nerd doesn’t answer the basic question: am I who I am because of nature or nerdture?
Hi guys and gals. I am a newbie here.
I stumbled upon some of these “skeptic” sites by accident doing various reading on-line. One of the sites has a very good summary of logically fallacious argument techniques, employed as a substitute for critical thinking. None of this is new to me, as I have a degree in physics and philosophy from a top University. It’s funny how way back when many of the top physicists were also top philosophers, because it was all about what you could prove or not prove. Of course proving the existence of god was a hot topic to these historic, great minds.
They never could quite pull that off. It was hard enough for Descartes to prove the existence of himself – let alone god.
What I find interesting about these skeptic sites is that it seems that this crowd is dutifully skeptical of all kinds questionable claims on the one hand, and yet on certain topics you exhibit a blind faith that would make a run-of-the-mill fundamentalist envious.
You do this even though the gods that you bow down to have proven themselves throughout history as unreliable and deserving of skepticism and critical thinking.
The two examples that stand out prominently is a remarkable uncritical acceptance of:
1. The “truth” emanating from the government.
2. The “truth” from the western medical community or even the science community.
Such blind faith in these institutions over the course of history leads to acceptance of such things as bleeding as a remedy, the earth is flat, and the North Vietnamese really did attack us in the Gulf of Tonkin – our government’s ruse for authority to wage the Vietnam War.
Am I missing some here?
Because I see an awful lot of blind, uncritical faith on these skeptic sites when it comes to authority figures, who are not only fallible from time to time, but also – believe it or not – abuse authority and power for their own purposes on occasion.
I just don’t see how such blind faith and acceptance is compatible with this claim to be skeptics.
the emf article in the Daily Fail quotes, “the pathology is now established. It has a huge detrimental physical effect and stops people living normal lives.'”
Really?
That paper doesn’t have its wonderful scientific reputation for nothing.
TrueSkeptic, please provide examples of how we, on this site, justified either the outline of 1 or 2 in your mind and we will defend that position, but please don’t generalize. If you read this site, you won’t see that we are all peons for the g’ment, since we have outlined many things that we see as wrong with it, but when it comes to things like the Moon Landing, Kennedy and 9/11 then all of the evidence is on their side.
As for Western Medicine, then I will simply say, it is the only medical establishment which requires and provides information on its efficacy. You don’t get that from Eastern Traditions, so we don’t say it doesn’t work, just that we have no evidence of it working.
I look forward to an open dialog with you.
@TrueSkeptic
Which top university graduated you? What branch of physics and philosophy did you study?
I don’t want to be rude but something about the tone of your post seems a little higgildy piggildy to me. I’m a bit skeptical of your statements.
The amateur scientist piece on palmistry was great. Was he making it up or did egyptian women really stuff their vaginas with aligator dung? Do aligators even have dung?
Gabrielbrawley: I think it was slightly more complicated than that (at least, I hope so, for those women’s sakes), but I do happen to know that the ancient Egyptians did use dung as a contraceptive.
Don’t ask me how I know that. I’m uncertain myself, and I’d like to stay that way.
Protesilaus,
I’ll just start by choosing one from your list: the JFK assassination, because it provides an easy example. One of the prominently featured “proofs” in the FBI’s case was their claim to have developed a new scientific investigative technique of being able to match the bullet fragments that hit JFK with the unspent cartridges allegedly left behind by Oswald, by means of microscopic analysis and comparison of the lead in each. This technique was created for that investigation, but was then commonly used for decades thereafter.
Now within the past few years, a whistleblower in the FBI came forward and has admitted that it was hoax. It was complete junk science. They just flat out made it up. Imagine that? In my line of work, you pull a stunt like that and you find yourself in a very, very big credibility hole where every other claim you make should be viewed with a very healthy dose of skepticism. Now for you to accept the government’s position on the rest of the story, which is improbable on its face, these people who employed junk science are the same people you have to trust in order to assert that the “evidence is all on their side.”
So there is just one example of government proffered science that you seem perhaps too willing to accept on blind, religious-like faith.
There are many other examples that I have seen on this site that appear to fall a little short of proper skepticism. A little short of proper critical thinking. But I’ll let you chew on this one first.
So do I take it that you defend the Warren Commission Report? Really? Wow. I personally know one of the US Attorneys who worked on the Challenger crash investigation. He related how at the outset the head of the investigation told the team: “We are going to do this right – this will not be another whitewash like the Warren Commission.” I mean for anyone in the know – including some of the actual Commissioners in later confessions – that investigation was a complete joke. This was all conceded before the FBI was caught fabricating scientific claims.
So Protes — are you “skeptical” yet on this one?
To quote from the Princess Bride: “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.” : )
“Skeptic” … hmm … where is my dictionary? It’s not that any one conclusion is mandated on JFK, but that’s the whole point. The skeptic sites ridicule those whose skepticism prevents them from blindly following a discredited (and now admittedly fraudulent) investigation. Such irony.
JFK is not the example I would chosen, but since you did – there it is.
TrueSkeptic, all Protesilaus mentioned was the word “Kennedy.” I think you made more than a few assumptions about his exact opinions on the issue, and that’s not quite fair or polite.
You’ll find a LOT of different opinions on this site. Sometimes you might find opinions, definitely not excepting my own, that could use a bit more skepticism and critical reasoning. We’re open to discussion and correction – but why not try do it in a less aggressive way.
I don’t know very much about the JFK deal, but from your argument alone, it doesn’t make any more sense to me why I should be on your side of it. And I’m one of the most anti-government people on this site.
“Which top university graduated you? What branch of physics and philosophy did you study?”
Rice University. Just go on-line and look at the curriculum requirements for a degree in physics. I studied quantum mechanics, electrodynamics (the real tough stuff) as well as all the classical stuff. Of course there is a lot of rigorous math involved as well. Branch of philosophy – it was pretty much the Western tradition from the Greeks up through the 2oth century. Plato through Bertrand Russell and everyone in between.
My main purpose was to see if there was anything that was beyond my understanding put out by the greatest minds in history. There was nothing.
TrueSkeptic,
Cool, good university. Like I said, I’m not trying to be rude but whenever I see some one claim something like “top university” it makes me feel a little funny. Sounds like you did the hard work. Congratualations.
As for Kennedy, I don’t think there was a conspiracy. I’ve been to the book depository. You can look out the window and see the two x’s that mark the position of the limo when Kennedy was shot. It isn’t a hard shot. I could do it with a rifle with iron sights. The scope would just make it a lot easier. Also I am very skeptical about any conspiracy in general. People can’t keep secrets. A conspiracy to pull this off would need a lot of people and would leave a lot of evidence. It wouldn’t have worked and it wouldn’t have stayed secret.
Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy by Vincent Bugliosi
is a very good book on the subject. It is long and isn’t the easiest read but I found it very interesting.
Jen,
Sorry if I was less than polite. : )
I think Protesilaus’s point on JFK was pretty clear – you really don’t think so? I guess he can correct me, but it was pretty obvious he was referring to the government’s explanation. Look at the sequence – I mentioned trusting the government and he responded with the issue of the JFK evidence being all on their side. You think I made a bad assumption?
“I don’t know very much about the JFK deal, but from your argument alone, it doesn’t make any more sense to me why I should be on your side of it.”
Really – what is my side? You criticized me for making assumptions.
The only “side” I put forth was that one should be skeptical of the government’s side on this issue, after he offered up JFK as an exemplar. And you say I did not advance this case with my argument? Interesting.
I established that the Commissioners themselves who wrote up the government’s side derided it, as well as other insiders, and that the FBI fabricated evidence using bogus science.
But all of this does not, in your view, advance my point that the government’s story should, in fact, be viewed with skepticism – not blind faith. Once again – I find the use of “critical thinking” and “skepticism” to be curious on these sites.
Maybe the partying is good? : )
“Maybe the partying is good? : )”
Really?
You’re being very passive-agressive.
TrueSkeptic
“My main purpose was to see if there was anything that was beyond my understanding put out by the greatest minds in history. There was nothing.”
Arrogant much?
spurge: Arrogant, pretentious, and passive-agressive, all at once!
Thanks for the kind words on my palmistry article at PinkRaygun.com and to Skepchick for linking to my site, AmateurScientist.org, in the past.
I feel I must agree with TrueSkeptic on the government question. While it’s true that maintaining a massive conspiracy of silence between thousands of self-interested individuals over several generations becomes less and less possible with every passing minute after the conspiracy is born, you “skeptics” must understand that the government is not, in fact, a mass of self-interested individuals. Indeed, this is the greatest scam the powers that be have pulled over on the public since President Taft told America he had a 32″ waist.
The word “government” is actually a watered-down version of “Guvmat”, the name of the Sumerian tentacle demon that currently controls all of society. I won’t go into all the details (they involve lots of controversial claims, not least of which being the Pope-as-Guvmat-sperm-pod Theory), but you must understand that all of those government “employees” and “elected officials” you so naively believe exist are actually products of Guvmat’s ancient glamour magicks. (You know it’s ancient when it’s spelled with a “k”.)
Sadly, Ron Paul (or Ruanpol the Illuminator) is the only one who knows the truth of Guvmat, but due to prehistoric law these truths must be hidden between the lines of badly Xeroxed, semi-racist newsletters.
“Arrogant much?”
It’s really not as hard as might think. In the end, it really all breaks down to 2 + 2 = 4 and then building upon that.
To help pay my way through school, I use to tutor inner city kids, who were having trouble. They would tell me they did not understand the the class material. So I would just keep going farther and farther back until we reached a point in the subject that they did understand. And I would then tell them “Oh you understand this? Well if you understand this – then the rest will be easy.” You just find their confidence level and take as small as steps as you need to get where you want to go.
If I cannot teach you everything that I learned, then that means that I probably really do not understand it myself. Since I think I do understand it – that means I think you could too.
So I am not really separating myself from you. It’s just a question of confidence and interest.
Trueskeptic
I chose the Moon Landing, FBI, and 9/11 because they are the big 3 of government conspiracy. Now as for the bullet fragments, information that you are claiming, can you sight what you are talking about please. It will be much easier to analyze what you are saying. I’m not sure if you are talking about Neutron Activation Analysis, Bullet Fingerprinting or what have you.
Second, you say a whistleblower came forward, and it was complete junk science, one question, if it was used in a lot of other cases, why haven’t they been overturned?
Thirdly, do you make any claims about the events of that day. You seem to point to a second shooter, by the stance in your previous statements, but the Zapruder Film clearly shows a gunman in the Book Depository.
As for the Warren Report, I will not defend the project as a whole, but if you wish we can debate the individual claims made in it. My only assertion is that, there was a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald who fired the shots that struck and killed JFK.
I likewise am suspicious of this woman who’s allergic to EMF. You can find people who claim it all over the place, but to my knowledge most cases that have been investigated fail a simple blinded test. That sort of allergic reaction can be just as easily caused by a psychosomatic response as being an actual result of EMF.
But if she is really allergic to EMF, we should be able to determine it easily with a blinded test. Furthermore, it should be possible to determine the parameters of the allergy. Is there a specific frequency band that triggers the allergy? What’s the signal strength threshold to the allergy?
Also, what’s the connection with the BMW? Why does the BMW trigger her allergy when supposedly it’s EMF she’s allergic to? It’s only a suspicion, but I’m willing to bet the BMW has a GPS receiver mounted in it. That doesn’t emit any EMF, but it’d trigger an “OMG TECHNOLOGY” response from her.
Also, note that the problem began when she moved into a new apartment. Another possibility is that she was genuinely allergic to something else in that apartment. I know from personal experience that it’s possible to be allergic to one species of dust mite but not another, so that’s one possible explanation. Or it could have been an additive in the paint. Either way, once she got it in her head that EMF was the “real” problem, it was inevitable that, after moving, the improvement in her condition would be attributed to the anti-EMF regimen rather than to change in location.
P.s.: AmateurScientist wins CoTW, hands down.
“Second, you say a whistleblower came forward, and it was complete junk science, one question, if it was used in a lot of other cases, why haven’t they been overturned?”
There is a project in place to review all criminal cases where the fraudulent lead matching technique was a substantial factor in criminal convictions and many of these convictions are being overturned and innocent people being set free. The last I heard on it — the review process is suppose to be comprehensive. There are FBI admissions and scientifically peer-reviewed papers on the topic. It’s not hard to find. You really need me to help you on this?
“You really need me to help you on this?”
It is not our job to back up your assertions.
As am I. My first stop shop on extraordinary claims is generally Carroll’s Skeptic’s Dictionary. He’s got a good writeup on EMF, and quite a lot of other things as well.
The hardcopy is excellent as well, for those that don’t own it.
I am looking into it now, and its baring on the case as a whole, but so far I see no bearing on how this proves a conspiracy or another gunman. Listen, you seem to be doing anomaly hunting, please, if you want to make a claim make a claim. I will ask you to take an actual position here. Do you think there was another gunman?
I will restate my position:
My only assertion is that, there was a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald who fired the shots that struck and killed JFK.
Also, please don’t be so testy that I am asking you to defend your position or to take an actual position. I have made no claims to my intelligence/greatness nor said anything about your position and I do not plan on doing that. If you want to have a discussion on all of the facts about the case, I am open to hear and review them. The case is over 40 years old and I am sure there going to be new evidence, which is why I will not defend the Warren Report as a whole, but I will only be defending the position that I stated above. At least let me know what your position is on the events of the day.
I think TrueSkeptic is referring to the now largely discredited Compositional Analysis of Bullet Lead (CABL) technique used by the FBI since the 1960s as proof that two or more bullets came from the same batch based on spectrographic analysis of elemental composition (stop yawning at the back). The “whistleblower” appears to be William Tobin, a retired FBI forensics expert specialising in metallurgy who co-authored a paper questioning the validity of CABL and was featured on a 60 Minutes report in November 2007, see: (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/60minutes/main3512453.shtml)
It should be noted that Tobin produced the report after he left the FBI and does not appear to have been or, to be fair, to have claimed to have been privy to any secret FBI cabals “flat out making up” flawed forensic methodology in order to cover up huge assassination conspiracies. Nor was Tobin “admitting” anything or at any point referring to a “hoax.”
The use of CABL was reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences (Board on Chemical Science and Technology) in 2004 and (summarising considerably here) concluded that whilst the technique may offer some value for analysis of ballistic evidence it was not sufficiently precise, due to the nature of bullet lead manufacture, to confirm that two or more bullets came from the same batch or the same box (or for that matter, the same factory). Those without a life can read the full report here: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10924&page=R1.
The link with JFK comes from an article in the Annals of Applied Statistics, co-authored by Tobin, which questioned the methods used by Professor Vincent P. Guinn in his evidence to the Warren Commission and concluded the recovered bullet fragments “could have come from three or more separate bullets and, therefore, more than one shooter.” Or to put it another way: could have come from one shooter firing three bullets. This study would appear to indicate that if there were multiple shooters in Deeley Plaza they were firing ammunition that could not have been definitely proven to have come from the same batch. It doesn’t prove that there were multiple shooters. An interesting point to note is that Tobin’s article claims that the possible second shooter (only two? In Oliver Stone’s JFK there were at least three) actually managed to miss Kennedy, too much foliage on the grassy knoll maybe. It seems odd the Mafia, the CIA or the industrial/military complex couldn’t find a second sniper who could shoot straight. You can access a Washington Post article on this here, along with a pretty detailed rebuttal that I can’t be bothered to summarise right now: http://aine.newsvine.com/_news/2007/05/17/723873-scientists-cast-doubt-on-kennedy-bullet-analysis-multiple-shooters-possible-study-says
I, of course, stand to be corrected. Maybe there’s another whistleblower I couldn’t find in my exhaustive ten minute google search.
“Also I am very skeptical about any conspiracy in general. People can’t keep secrets. A conspiracy to pull this off would need a lot of people and would leave a lot of evidence. It wouldn’t have worked and it wouldn’t have stayed secret.”
Well let’s test your theory about conspiracies:
1. I suppose you can tell me who killed Jimmy Hoffa and where the body is buried? Do you think that was a successful conspiracy? Or a random, unexplained act of senseless violence. Let’s not be too naive here. : )
2. The Pentagon engineered a “false flag” attack on American Warships in the Gulf of Tonkin that was a complete fabrication, which hundreds must have known about, and it was successfully concealed for about 40 years. McNamara has recently admitted it. — So are we suppose to wait a certain amount of decades before concluding that we would have heard something by now?
E. Howard Hunt – CIA – in a recorded statement taken by his son on his death bed admitted that Oswald did not kill JFK. Now I am not saying that he should be believed – but it is simply not true that people have not come forward.
Look – you cannot make blanket statements about “conspiracies.” I go after financial fraud conspiracies for a living. They often involve lots of people and they often succeed, without the protection of the government. If law enforcement agencies want to help them – which occasionally happens – then it can be very problematical to get at the truth.
Blind trust in the government is a very, very dangerous thing. The founding fathers understood this. One should be naturally skeptical of the government and none too quick to accept what it says on blind faith – particularly where the exercise of government power is involved. History has proven this over and over and over again.
I just find it strange that religious faith in the government should be a theme on a skeptics’ site. Just seems backwards.
1. No, I don’t know who killed Jimmy Hoffa but I don’t think this is quite the same thing. I am sure that Jimmy is dead and probably went through a meat processor and wound up in a pack of hamburger meat. But this wouldn’t have had to be a huge conspiracy. Two or three people could have taken out Hoffa and then one could have killed the others. This could leave you with a single person knowing the truth. Or it could be something else that I didn’t think of or know.
2. We know about this, we have known for a long, long time. We knew it years before that trajic joke of a “police action” was over. Heck, we knew it before LBJ was out of office. The same way that we know Bush deliberatly lied and mislead America and the rest of the world into the current trajic joke of a war.
What do you do for a living. This has nothing to do with the rest of this I’m just curious about someone who did physics working financial fraud. I went from criminal justice to accounting. Just curious you can tell me to fuck off if it is out of line. I won’t mind.
Also I agree that we shouldn’t have blind faith in government. I wasn’t advocating that. If it sounds like I was then that was poor communication on my part. Also I haven’t ever seen anyone advocating anything like religious faith in the government on theis sight. I have seen a lot of criticizim of the government. I just haven’t seen any convincing evidence that anyone other than Oswald shot JFK.
Appleman,
Excellent work.
And you make absolutely valid points about what Tobin did and did not conclude publicly about how the phony bullet matching science came about.
But let me do that on my own. You cannot accidently invent this false science, which they did for the first time in the JKF case. If they properly tested the theory at the time, they would have seen that it was invalid.
There are two possibilities – either they knew the science was wrong or they knew that they did not know one way or the other — i.e. did not do basic testing to back up the theory. In law, both are fraud.
So the FBI committed a fraud and the FBI otherwise predominately took possession of and controlled the evidence — time to start being skeptical.
There is a taped conversation of LBJ imploring one of the members of the Warren Commission to join, in which he states there won’t be any real work to do – the FBI has already figured it all out.
Oswald said he was a “patsy” — that’s on odd thing to say – don’t you think? Right before someone strolls up to him and executes him.
Any skeptics out there?
Yes,
Were just skeptical of the conspiracy hypothesis.
@TrueSkeptic posted
Who here claimed to trust the government blindly?
You made the accusation without any supporting evidence.
Tell us specifically what skeptical blind spots people here have and the evidence you have to support this assertion.
TrueSketpic,
There are two possibilities – either they knew the science was wrong or they knew that they did not know one way or the other — i.e. did not do basic testing to back up the theory. In law, both are fraud.
This is a blatant false dichotomy. There are hundreds of studies that are overturned every year by new evidence. Are you postulating all of them are committing fraud?
Also, I will no longer research any of the information you provide unless you start to provide references. I don’t want to keep jumping from one source to another. Trying to do the work you should be doing when you make claims.
Lastly, I will add, the “notes” were never seen by anyone other than “Saint John”, and the audio was broadcasts on Coast to Coast AM without any voice analysis. People make up your own mind about the E. Howard Hunt confession.
“Oswald said he was a “patsy” — that’s on odd thing to say – don’t you think? Right before someone strolls up to him and executes him.”
——————
Dude. You don’t seem to understand the nature of the question or of evidence in general.
The only issue on the table is whether Oswald was the only gunman who shot at John F. Kennedy. The available evidence is that he was. You have not offered any evidence that he was not.
Do you have such evidence? Or are you making a different claim, and if so, what is that claim, and what is your supporting evidence for it?
TrueSkeptic:
“Let’s not be too naive here. : )”
Please stop with the passive-agressive, arrogant, pretentious crap.
“What do you do for a living. This has nothing to do with the rest of this I’m just curious about someone who did physics working financial fraud. I went from criminal justice to accounting. Just curious you can tell me to fuck off if it is out of line. I won’t mind.”
That’s OK – I am not shy.
I am an attorney with my own law firm and we specialize in representing victims of financial fraud (and legal malpractice). In doing this for about 25 years, you get a heightened sense for BS, cover-ups, lying etc. I also conduct investigations all the time, and know what a proper investigation should look like. And I have a pretty decent background in science.
How did I go from A to B? Well – simple story really. As a freshman I knew that I would go into law. Always had a passion for justice.
When the pre-law advisor (who happen to be a Math Professor) addressed the pre-law students during freshman week – he raised the issue of what to major in. He quickly dismissed the popular notions that Polly Sci, Economics, sociology as somehow being pre-Law majors. He said that was rubbish.
He said there are no course prerequisites for law — unlike medical school. He said – you are in college – study what interests you. He said that what would be helpful in law school as skills – are reading and writing analytically. He said that English, History, Philosophy can be good for this but so can math and science. I come from three generations of doctors – so science was very much stressed growing up and physics was my favorite. And I was always interested in philosophy – sort of connected to the whole justice thing.
The physics department offered a “biophysics” curriculum as a major. This was good for me, because I had no interest in the labs, as I had no intention of staying in science. So instead of a number of labs, I had to take a year of Biology, Chem, organic Chem and Biochemistry.
All in all, I thought of it as a renaissance like education. It was good.
“I just find it strange that religious faith in the government should be a theme on a skeptics’ site. Just seems backwards.”
See. This is a big clue that you’re just trying to play Devil’s Advocate here, or stir crap up. No where on this site or any other related site has”religious faith” in the government.
“The only issue on the table is whether Oswald was the only gunman who shot at John F. Kennedy. The available evidence is that he was. You have not offered any evidence that he was not.”
Well your statement that the evidence only points to Oswald is just wrong. And you don’t really need me to tell you that.
And you don’t get to define a new issue different from what I raised. The question I raised is whether or not one should be skeptical of the government’s claim that Oswald was the only gunman. What’s your answer to that? Should you be skeptical of the government’s story?
Now your point about “available evidence” is a good one, because the government has admittedly taken great steps to keep the evidence sequestered from the public.
How does one in the scientific world regard claims by those who refuse to release the evidence in support of their claims? Maybe with skepticism?
The FBI fabricated evidence. How does one in the scientific world regard the claims of those who fabricate evidence. Maybe with skepticism?
I would tend to say “yes.” What about you?
TrueSkeptic,
I highly suspect that you are a troll, but I’ve been most impressed with other people’s responses so far. They have been very mature and engaging and the details they have provided have helped me learn a little about the JFK assassination that I did not know before.
“The FBI fabricated evidence. ”
You have provided no evidence to support this assertion.
If your only evidence, that the FBI fabricated evidence, is the Lead Bullet Analysis, then you are on thin ice.
Also, you just brought up the new issue. I would say of course we should be skeptical of the governments story, and that Oswald was the gunman, of course we should be skeptical of the moon landing, or 9/11…but being skeptical means looking at the evidence, and the evidence says, hey they were right on all of these issues.
Being skeptical about the government isn’t saying that the government story is incorrect; it is simply saying that you won’t take their word for it you will look at the evidence. And I never made it my point to say that the government did a good job in their investigation, or that the Warren Commission got it 100% correct. I stated that Oswald was the lone gunman who killed JFK. Nothing that you have said points away from that.
What I see from conspiracy theorists is they get hung up on one point and that one point in their mind proves everything else, even if it is incorrect or small. “9/11 Truthers” have their fire cannot melt steel garbage; “Moon Landing hoaxers” have their stars in the sky and shadow angles; you have the lead bullet analysis.
Along with everything else, because we don’t believe that your evidence is enough, we are ignorant and deserving of your chiding and condescending attitude. You have nothing to say of any value and added nothing to the discussion other than derision and pointless commentary while we did all of the work you should have done. If you want to have an adult conversation on the subject bring something to the table, if not then I am done here.
TrueSkeptic – is there a conspiracy theory you don’t believe?
Although I think quack medicine is the most clear and present danger deserving of Skeptical attention, the wacky world of conspiracy theory exerts a pernicious and dangerous influence on the public psyche. Some notable conspiracy theorists:
Adolf Hitler (and no, he wasn’t an atheist).
Heinrich Himmler (neither was he).
Osama Bin Laden.
The 9/11 hijackers.
The 7/7 London bombers.
Timothy McVey.
The KKK.
Please add your own.
Life is not an episode of the X-Files.
What’s your answer to that? Should you be skeptical of the government’s story?
———-
Yes. And I was. So far, it holds up. The best–in fact, all of the available evidence–points to Oswald as a single shooter.
Are you suggesting that you have new evidence I should consider? If so, what is it?
Kimbo,
What is a troll?
Sorry, that should be: “The best–in fact, all–of the available evidence”
“I highly suspect that you are a troll, but I’ve been most impressed with other people’s responses so far.”
I agree that the level of bashing and insulting that usually follows one questioning the government on certain hot-button topics is relatively restrained here.
I’ve seen this “troll” insult before, and I suspect it has some nuanced meaning beyond the ordinary definition, but I confess I am not hip to that one. : )
@Gabrielbrawley & TrueSkeptic
Internet Troll
TrueSkeptic,
I only expressed my suspicions…of which you were free to look up the definition, if necessary, and respond (incidentally, Gabriel, a troll is someone who stirs things up by posting aggressively and/or emotionally to goad others, but contributes little to the actual discussion).
I have this suspicion because, TrueSkeptic, you have not made any clear arguments supporting your point. You have asked question after question from the others without answering any yourself. You have produced non-sequiturs as responses. You have made sweeping generalizations with no evidence. You have let Appleman (and others) do all the research for you. You have made assumptions about people without them having said anything to support such assumptions. And you have generally contributed in an exceedingly passive-aggressive, blatantly aggressive, and arrogant manner.
My suspicion and skepticism of your intentions are based on all of the above. If you’d like to clarify your position by providing actual facts and evidence, rather than generalizations followed by demands for the others, I’ll read it.
Josh K,
Oh, that’s what it means. Thank you.
Kimbo,
Thank you also.
Seth –
I applaud you for being skeptical of the government’s story – there is ample cause for this.
As for the story holding up to date, let’s put that into perspective. Based upon the available evidence out there today, the government would not have one chance in 1000 of convicting Oswald.
The reason for this simple. Oswald effectively denied the crime. There is no eyewitness. The physical evidence linking his general location at the time of the shooting to the location of the alleged murder weapon was fabricated by the government. The government refuses to release the results of its investigation (which should be benign if it incriminates Oswald).
I could go further into the evidence regarding the rate of the shots, the “magic” bullet, the probable trajectory of the kill shot, but it would not be necessary to do so. Most judges would not allow the case to go to the jury and no jury would convict. You very simply cannot fabricate and conceal evidence and get a conviction. I have tried many jury cases. If you tried to put that case on – you’d get destroyed.
The case against Oswald is just bare speculation. It does not rise to the level of proof in a legal or scientific sense.
What I object to – and I would hope that people who espouse critical thinking and skepticism would agree – is that people who question the government’s conclusion should not be ridiculed with the meaningless label of being “conspiracists.” Governments have a very long and distinguished track record of lying to the people. So you do not start from the premise that they are telling you the truth, when the evidence is not there.
Pretty straightforward stuff. But the whole JFK thing is really not my issue. Protesilaus threw it out there and it supplied an easy example to work with.
“The physical evidence linking his general location at the time of the shooting to the location of the alleged murder weapon was fabricated by the government.”
Provide some evidence for your assertions.
“the wacky world of conspiracy theory exerts a pernicious and dangerous influence on the public psyche”
Appleman,
What does that mean? What are you referring to and what is your evidence of this psychological damage?
One of the all-time conspiracy theories is the belief in a benevolent, divine being. I’d have to check – but I am pretty sure that the evidence regarding this unverifiable conspiracy is that it often has a psychologically therapeutic benefit for individuals who believe in it. (Whereas in the hands of governments it has often supplied yet another convenient excuse for waging war.)
Would it have been a “pernicious and dangerous” conspiracy theory to have supposed that the North Vietnamese really did not attack our ships, but instead the government concocted the whole thing in order to take the nation to war?
I mean that was a government conspiracy. The people should not question the government on such matters? Is that what you find dangerous? Because I could quote to you the founding fathers who said the failure to question and challenge the government is what is dangerous. Not the other way around.
So where is the real danger and harm? Questioning the government or ridiculing those who do so?
I’ll get to your request for more examples. But your question – “Do I believe in all conspiracies?” – makes as much sense to me as asking – do you believe in all scientific theories? Do you believe that all defendants are guilty?
There is no proper generalization here. Each case stands or falls on its own merits – using critical analysis, critical thinking, evidence.
“Questioning the government or ridiculing those who do so?”
We question the fact that you have yet to back up any of your assertions with evidence.
No one has made anything like a statement that we should trust the government blindly.
No one is interested in your straw men.
Dude, did you really call out that tired old rate-of-fire crap? Why don’t you come on down to the rifle range with me, and I’ll pop out hits at the same rate and distance for you all day long. I wasn’t ever a Marine or anything.
“I could go further into the evidence regarding the rate of the shots, the “magic” bullet, the probable trajectory of the kill shot, but it would not be necessary to do so. Most judges would not allow the case to go to the jury and no jury would convict. You very simply cannot fabricate and conceal evidence and get a conviction. I have tried many jury cases. If you tried to put that case on – you’d get destroyed.”
Now we get some things:
Reenactments clearly show that Oswald could fire all of the bullets required on the day.
You got to be kidding me about the “Magic” Bullet theory, but make specific outlines of your claim and we will dissect.
Probably Trajectory:
Head moved back and to the left, based on the caliber of the round and the distance and Physics (which you should know) all of this is consistent with shots fired from the book depository, if you don’t think so cite your evidence and I will cite mine.
Now if a jury would convict, based on the knowledge of how many people buy into JFK conspiracy theories, if he had a lawyer like Cochran then I would believe you. As for fabricating evidence, you have no proof of that, other than baseless speculation which would be true to all of the scientific literature and population.
Oswald murdered a police officer. Was that the action of a patsy?
“This is a blatant false dichotomy. There are hundreds of studies that are overturned every year by new evidence. Are you postulating all of them are committing fraud?”
No – Protesilaus – I said it was fraud in this particular case. Not all scientific error equals fraud, but it does here. The false dichotomy applicable here would be to say that some scientific error is innocent – so therefore the error here must be innocent.
Suppose in the JFK case, they developed for the first time the technique of blood-typing. Types O, A, B & AB.
It would be like saying Oswald having type O blood and there being type O blood on the rifle in the book depository shows that it was Oswald’s blood on the rifle.
You cannot make that assertion until you have run studies to determine the statistical variation of different blood types within the population. This is so simple a proposition that it could not possibly have been missed by modern scientists.
The same is true for matching lead. The FBI claimed that it was able to match the lead in the impact bullets to the unspent cartridges to show one came from the other. You cannot possibly make that claim without first verifying it and if you attempted to verify it – it comes up false. Plain and simple.
You have any experience or background in science?
More assertions sans evidence. TrueSkeptic is a waste of time.
The case against Oswald is just bare speculation. It does not rise to the level of proof in a legal or scientific sense.
————
Sigh. You say that, and then you mention “rate of fire”, thus demonstrating that you won’t let go of false beliefs, even after proof has been offered. I think its clear who the skeptic here isn’t.
“Dude, did you really call out that tired old rate-of-fire crap? Why don’t you come on down to the rifle range with me, and I’ll pop out hits at the same rate and distance for you all day long. I wasn’t ever a Marine or anything.”
Really? On a moving target through a tree. I’d take that bet in a heartbeat and give you odds. You may not be a Marine, but the former governor of Minnesota was Navy Seal. I listened to him say that he stood in the window, surveyed what the shots would be, and said – “no way.” Between you and him … I’d put my money on him. But either way — the matter is clearly open to question.
And why does everyone on skeptic sites have the same opinion on such a topic? It’s not science vs. religion. Science vs. quackery. Science vs. vodoo. It’s an unproven criminal matter – where the government could, but refuses to put on it’s case.
How does a suspicious government criminal case become a cause for scientific skeptics?
Come down, then.
On another note, please, PLEASE… point out where the people on this site uncritically accept the word of “the government.”
Really? On a moving target through a tree.
—————–
Oh, come on. Again with that chestnut about the frackin’ tree? Are you high on crack?
Again: you are clearly someone who will not change his beliefs when confronted with actual evidence.
“You say that, and then you mention ‘rate of fire’, thus demonstrating that you won’t let go of false beliefs.”
Seth –
What false belief would that be?
Unless I am missing something – you are equating something being possible with something being true. There’s a big difference.
When performing scientific investigation, you don’t stop when you have determined that something is possible. The fact something may be possible – does not prove anything. It’s possible that god exists.
Believe me – the rate of fire issue does not favor the government’s case. We call this a weak point that must somehow be overcome. It’s not a point the government would even raise if it could be avoided — trust me, this is a point for the defense.
But like I said – you never get there, because nobody — and I mean nobody — makes false claims of evidence and conceals evidence and wins.
Government to Seth: “We’re not going to show you our evidence and our investigation results. Ok, and we also kind of screwed up on the whole lead matching thing that we invented for this case. But you trust us – right? You’re not skeptical of us – are you?”
Seth to Government: “Whatever you say.”
Government to Seth: “That’s a good Seth.”
That’s actually an example of an appeal to authority. A false dichotomy is when you make two independent claims and say that if one of them is false, then the other must be true. Independent claims must be proven true or false on their own merit.
In your case, you’ve made this claim:
The two claims are:
A) They knew the science was wrong, or
B) they did not do basic testing
But I read the summary of the report Appleman linked to, and it sounds to me like they actually confirmed, in 2004, that it is a valid technique, and the best available:
So when are you going to start backing up your claims with evidence? Or are you just going to keep making more wild claims and avoiding our questions?
My personal favorite is the appeal to the Governor of Minnesota, as if that’s not a government office. Why accept this guy’s comment without skepticism?
What false belief would that be?
———–
The belief that the rate of fire is impossible, difficult, or unusual for a trained gunman familiar with that weapon. It is not.
You insist that it is. Therefore, you are not a skeptic, you are a nutjob.
Actually, that is unfair. He may be a poorly informed skeptic. Mea Culpa.
“So when are you going to start backing up your claims with evidence?”
I have a better idea. Let’s start backing up what we say with money. It’s called putting your money where your mouth is.
Here’s the bet for you. The lead matching claims asserted by the FBI were false. They have been discredited and they are no longer in use, and convictions based upon its use are being overturned. The FBI claims were junk science.
Testing of lead is of some limited benefit — like blood type — per my above example. But it never was the match it was claimed to be.
I’ll bet you $1,000.
And Rystefn, if you have access to the same model rifle, and you can hit a simulated moving target at the same height and distance, within the same time frame – I’ll give you 3 chances (3-1 odds) and I won’t put a tree in your way. $1,000.
We can make it $10,000 if you like. We have an old saying, money talks and bullshit walks.
I think I see you guys walking.
Let’s not get into the JFK assassination. It is a never ending “I said, you said, I never said that.”
That’s why I don’t go there anymore. It is completely unproductive and humorless.
There are plenty of appropriate forums for discussing the assassination (fortunately, some of them are moderated). This blog is about science.
I don’t have access to it, but if you can provide one and allow me three days with which to familiarize myself with it (much less than LHO had), I’ll accept.
“And Rystefn, if you have access to the same model rifle, and you can hit a simulated moving target at the same height and distance, within the same time frame”
I saw it done on TV in a reenactment.
Were they part of the conspiracy too?
OMG it’s an old-fashioned shoot-off! Or something…
I don’t have access to it, but if you can provide one…
——————–
After all, providing a similar model rifle should be relatively easy for a guy with 10 grand to throw away.
I’ll judge, if this event is held in the continental US. Anyone here will tell you I am definitely NOT biased in Rystefn’s favor.
Now we just need to set up some kind of proxy to hold the money…
On another note, please, PLEASE… point out where the people on this site uncritically accept the word of “the government.”
Well I could give to you many examples, but why leave this one?
Why do you uncritically believe the government when it tells you that Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy?
Why do you uncritically accept this, when the FBI got caught falsifying evidence and the government will not let you see their evidence.
Under these conditions, why would you just accept what they say?
I have a lot of clients who get taken by financial frauds who are so trusting – but they tend to be elderly widows and they do not brag about their skepticism.
TrueSkeptic, why do you keep bringing up the lead analysis over and over again? We all know it is junk science. Of all the evidence in the JFK case, the lead evidence, if even it were accurate, was the least useful anyway.
And Howard Brennan saw Oswald in the window.
Crap. I just violated my own request.
What makes you think I do? I’ll be you $10,000 you can’t find a place where I’ve indicated such a thing.
Put your money where your mouth is. Money talks and bullshit walks, as you say. Let’s see who’s walking away now, dick.
Why do you uncritically believe the government when it tells you that Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy?
————–
I don’t. “Acting alone” is different than “being the only gunman.” He was clearly the only gunman. It is possible he was hired, or that he was given inside information, or whatever. But those are separate issues.
“Why do you uncritically believe the government when it tells you that Oswald acted alone in killing Kennedy?”
Who the fuck are you to tell people that they uncritical believe the government story?
You don’t know how people here came to think that LHO probably acted alone.
No one ruled out that others may have been involved.
All people are saying is that the evidence points to LHO doing it alone.
Nothing you have posted does anything to say otherwise.
For a science guy you sure don’t have the first clue how to evaluate evidence.
TrueSkeptic, you have accomplished the impossible. Rystefn and I are on the same side in an argument.
It’s a Skepchick miracle!
spurge, it’s his paranoid personality. If you disagree with anything he says then you are a government lackey, worthy of his insults and derision.
TrueSkeptic, get tested for TLE.
Damnit! I was fine until you said something. Now I HAVE to argue that it was a conspiracy of some kind.
Or that it never happened at all, and was some kind of mass hallucination. I think I can muster up a better argument for that one anyway, honestly.
“It’s a Skepchick miracle!”
FSM bless us, every one!
Chew –
You say everyone knows the lead match was junk science.
You need to go back and see that this is not true. I was challenged on the point and I was faulted for not providing authority citations, which I agree should have been unnecessary given all the professed expertise by this group.
I have a question for you.
You say this site is about science, which would make sense given its title and all.
Then tell me – why is the JFK assassination part of its theme? Look above. I asked that very question. I’ll quote myself:
“And why does everyone on skeptic sites have the same opinion on such a topic? It’s not science vs. religion. Science vs. quackery. Science vs. vodoo. It’s an unproven criminal matter – where the government could, but refuses to put on it’s case.”
I did not raise the JFK topic. And I have been responding to the others ever since it was first raised.
Here is what you posted
“What I find interesting about these skeptic sites is that it seems that this crowd is dutifully skeptical of all kinds questionable claims on the one hand, and yet on certain topics you exhibit a blind faith that would make a run-of-the-mill fundamentalist envious.”
Name the topics you were referring too.
TrueSkeptic:
‘You may not be a Marine, but the former governor of Minnesota was Navy Seal. I listened to him say that he stood in the window, surveyed what the shots would be, and said – “no way.” Between you and him … I’d put my money on him. But either way — the matter is clearly open to question.’
Will it help if I point out that the same governor is also a “9/11 Truther”. It was Jesse Ventura, he would be a conspiracy theorist. Also if I am wrong with my assertion then cite your source. Personally I would not put my faith on him.
Logical Fallacy, Appeal to Authority
“You need to go back and see that this is not true. I was challenged on the point and I was faulted for not providing authority citations, which I agree should have been unnecessary given all the professed expertise by this group.”
No you are wrong about that. Cite where we claimed to be experts in anything. Second, if you make a claim you must provide your evidence that is the rules of engagement. You have yet to do that.
TrueSkeptic, the assassination is a part of this theme because we started talking about it.
You are obviously a student of the assassination, as I was a long time ago. We know the lead analysis was worthless.
Do you believe Howard Brennan saw Oswald shooting from the TSBD?
“spurge, it’s his paranoid personality. If you disagree with anything he says then you are a government lackey, worthy of his insults and derision.”
Now can anyone spot the hypocrisy in this statement?
Anyone?
Bueller?
TrueSkeptic, do you believe Howard Brennan saw Oswald shooting from the TSBD?
Now can anyone spot the hypocrisy in this statement?
————
No. Perhaps you would care to explain.
TS, let me remind you, Rystefn has taken you up on your offer to prove he can make the shot. Why are you not eagerly arranging the details? What’s the issue? I’m sure that R will allow you to deduct any expenses you incur from his prize money. Hell, he’d probably prove you wrong for a six pack of beer and Skepchick t-shirt.
If that had been the original challenge, I’d have taken it up even on something I’m fairly sure I couldn’t do, just for kicks.
You are wrong Chew – I am not a student of the JFK assassination. As evidenced by my not knowing who Howard Brennan is. I do not claim to know what happened. I am just amazed that you so-called skeptics take on these government causes, without the evidence.
My attention was drawn to the JFK issue when I heard about the FBI creating the junk science to prove its case. I shouldn’t be shocked by such things anymore, but I was.
Maybe its just my background in law and science – but this should be easy.
If you try to prove something where you have falsified evidence and you have concealed evidence – no court will accept that and no respectable scientific outfit would accept that — but all these “skeptics” accept it. And it’s not just that they uniformly, in lock step, accept it – they ridicule anyone who disagrees with them.
Amazing. Can you explain that? I mean it’s like a religion to you guys.
If and when the government ever condescends to sharing its evidence with the American people – which it has not done – I’ll keep an open mind regarding its interpretation of the evidence, even though it was already caught in an outrageous lie. That’s just my scientific training and scientific bias.
But ask me for blind faith here – forget it. If others want to have blind faith – that’s OK. But to gather together a group that call themselves skeptics who universally have the same blind faith – that’s a little strange.
…and yet, for all that, you still refuse to answer my challenge. In case you missed it:
More pointless drivel from truetroll.
“I am just amazed that you so-called skeptics take on these government causes, without the evidence.”
What the fuck are you talking about?
Can I ask you an honest question, since I want to get something out of this dialog?
Why is it our job to look up information and find references on the information that you are claiming? Why do you think we are the ones who need to explain ourselves?
OK Bets …. I never welch on a bet.
Seth – Rys did not accept my shooting bet – he says he cannot get the gun. But Rys – surely you can locate such a gun – and I’ll get it for you. After you put up the money on the bet. Trust me Seth – he will not go through with that bet.
As far as your proposed bet Rys — you asked me a question about the PEOPLE on this site and when I responded, you said my comment did not apply to you personally. OK – so if I understand you correctly, you believe that Oswald was potentially part of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Doesn’t that make you a conspiracist?
And let me alter my question that you harped on just a little — why do you uncritically believe the government when it tells you that LHO was the sole gunman?
82 and 85, cotw…lol!
Protesilaus & Chew — let’s review.
I said the lead matching was junk science.
Chew said — “of course – everyone knows that.”
Protesilaus said “Prove it – cite your authority.”
Appleman cited the authority for me – so it was unnecessary for me to take the trouble to do something Chew says everyone already knows.
AND JSug says it’s not junk science — but rather was recently validated and still in use. JSug concluded this from reading the research that says exactly the opposite – now that’s impressive.
And you’re still faulting me on this? LOL.
Maybe… I haven’t worked in weapons for years, and I haven’t exactly stayed in touch with the boys. Regardless, I already stated the two conditions under which I accept the wager. If you’re amenable to my terms, all that’s left is working out the details.
What gave you the idea that I do? Again, ten grand says you can’t find a single instance of me saying that.
You’re wrong. It was still necessary for you to cite your sources.
So your point about the lead is that we are all government agents? No, no, wait! We’re not true skeptics! Is that it? Did I get it right?
TrueTroll, you’re the one saying it was a conspiricy and you don’t even know who Brennan is.
Seth – Rys did not accept my shooting bet – he says he cannot get the gun.
———-
Ah, refuge in technicality. And I notice that you, the guy with the ten grand, are really making an effort to make this thing happen.
Here’s my challenge to both of you: TS, you provide the gun. R, you agree to buy the gun if you lose. I’ll cover a six pack of your favorite beer and a skepchick t-shirt for both of you, win or lose, just for participating.
Who’s in?
No you are tying your whole case of a vast government conspiracy to one point when the FBI used lead analysis.
Firstly, that is not the only piece of evidence that ties LHO to the Book Depository. I will ask, are you disputing that he was in the building, or that he made the shots, or that his shots were the one who killed. Neither of those need be tied to the Lead Analysis. Do you postulate that he did not kill the cop while attempting to run? How far does your conspiracy go? My only stance was that and I am quoting myself:
My only assertion is that, there was a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald who fired the shots that struck and killed JFK.
I only ask you to cite evidence that is against this position. If you wish to change the topic, and then say so, but you have taken no stance other than that we are trusting the government story…This is of course beside the fact that there are other resources outside the government who also agree with us. You have also provided no evidence that we trust the government, as you have provided no examples apart from this debate.
To use your religion example, it would be as if I said that you don’t want to kill people so you are Christian. No one on this cite has blind faith in the government, and I could provide counter examples (although I wouldn’t even have to ask, because people would provide this freely). You are hung up on one point which for you is the whole truth about the issue, and you have yet to do any research on our side, and I make that statement because you have not asked for any of the references to anything that we claimed.
So, I have asked you to take a position on the topic that I could do research and look into. You have yet to even state what parts of the conspiracy theory you subscribe to and which you don’t believe in. Does your distrust in the government extend past JFK, how far does it extend? Everything must be taken with a grain of salt when it comes to something that is in the business of spin, but I don’t subscribe to the shadow government belief; because I am sure that either party would jump on any information of a conspiracy to ensure their position in power for another 4 years. Say I am a non-skeptic, but I am asking you for the one thing that above all else I ask for anything someone wants to sell me, which is evidence of their position.
You have went so far as to make no actual claim, take no position, yet pester everyone on this board about being naive patsy to the whole government agenda, while we never once cited a government source for our evidence. If you know anything about the skeptical movement or the “science” that you claim, and you have been the only one to make any claims of your intelligence or knowledge on the topic, then you should not come to the table with a claim, without evidence to back it up.
If you want specifics, please back this up:
“AND JSug says it’s not junk science — but rather was recently validated and still in use. JSug concluded this from reading the research that says exactly the opposite – now that’s impressive.”
“I am just amazed that you so-called skeptics take on these government causes, without the evidence.”
What the fuck are you talking about?
Fair question. Let’s have a demonstration.
What do you think about this one. The following are facts – I am interested in your reaction.
Shortly after 9/11 a number of key government and media figures were targeted with US Military-grade Anthrax originating from a US military facility.
The Administration pressured the FBI to find a connection to Iraq (can’t imagine why). There is plenty of historic precedents for the FBI or CIA succumbing to such pressure, but the FBI stood firm on this occasion to the pressure to scapegoat Iraq (you know what that means – using the FBI to blame someone for a crime they did not commit for political purposes).
The FBI investigation team was switched out though, and now the FBI has concluded that their most recent key suspect acted alone and they are closing the case. They claim they had the evidence to convict him, which they now will not release because the new key suspect killed himself with Tylenol and codeine. (You gotta love that.) Case closed. No evidence. No trial. Funning thing about trials — you have to produce your evidence at a trial. But when your lead suspect ends up dead (did that ever happen before?) – golly gee – no evidence needed. It was going to go public – but now we’ll lock it away.
So here is the question – do you accept the government’s conclusion about this case?
Or are you maybe a little bit skeptical of it?
And if you are just a little bit skeptical – does that make you a paranoid, whacko conspiracist?
I will answer your questions honestly, when you do the same to mine.
I guess that would depend on the price of the gun. Losing a bet through overconfidence I can live with. Buying an overpriced rifle, though? That’s a disgrace for someone who actually sold the things for a living once upon a time. :P
The bet is $1,000. You can keep the gun.
I don’t know enough about the evidence to answer the first question. And neither do you.
From the tone of your comment, it sounds like you believe he was set up. Wouldn’t be the first time, won’t be the last. But do you have evidence to support that theory?
The government claims to have evidence of his guilt. Can you refute it?
2nd question: I am always skeptical about everything.
3rd: No. What makes one a paranoid whacko CT is basing your beliefs of a massive conspiracy on a government agency that used bad science.
What? Not ten? I thought I heard ten somewhere…
Ah, I shaved that bit off of the quote when I accepted. Oh well. Guess that was my mistake, then…
Or is it still on the table? It’s been a while since I squandered that much money. Tell you what. You make it ten, and I’ll use the money to throw a party. You get free invitation. I’ll tell everyone who the money came from and how I got it. You’ll be a hero. I’ll introduce you as “the man who made all this possible” or maybe “the founder of the feast.” What do you say?
Also, do I still get my shirt from seth?
But come on – I want to hear how skeptical you skeptics are of your government — go back to 109 and sound off.
why do you uncritically believe the government when it tells you that LHO was the sole gunman?
——————
I don’t. Neither, I suspect, does anyone else here.
Your problem is that you assume that the government is the only source. Obviously, there are many sources (the government, CBS, the NRA, direct observation, Frontline, etc). And while I’m sure that I couldn’t make those shot, there are certainly people who can.
OK, so in principle, we have an agreement here. TS, can you provide either the gun OR a list of firearms that would make acceptable substitutes, to make it easier to obtain a firearm?
@TrueSkeptic
C’mon…seriously? If you’d led with Ivans, then sure, I might have taken you seriously, but when you led with Oswald?
@sethmanapio & Rystefn
The match sounds like fun…I’m interested in buying the rifle, with the caveat that it be a good manufacturer and chambered in 7.62/30-06 instead of the 6.5 Oswald was using.
This is kind of interesting… I mean, I have so much more to lose by walking away, but TS is the one that requires prompting.
I mean, I’m a known personage around here. Well, at least a recognized personage around here, and known by more than a few. Some in person. People here have my e-mail, my phone number, my address… Not all of them friendly. I try to walk away, and seth, as an example, will never let me live it down. TS, on the other hand, could walk away now, and be forgotten by Wednesday.
I have to wonder, then, why TS wouldn’t be pressing such an obvious advantage? Was this a game of chicken, and you were betting I’d swerve first? If it was, you’d have done better to push harder or ditch out sooner. See, even if I wasn’t so confident in my marksmanship (I am, by the way), I’d be fairly confident by now that my opponent is soft and squishy.
Tell you what… Let’s make it really interesting. If you’re so certain I can’t make the shot, why don’t you go downrange and drive around in a convertible? See that? I would have never said anything like that if you hadn’t played so timidly up to now. I’ve given you an out. Call me deranged psycho and get the Hell out. Realize that no matter how this plays out, if you go through with it, at the end of the day, you’ll be standing there making a financial transaction with a guy carrying a rifle who asked if he could shoot at you.
Yes, I am so utterly bored of you and your pussy-footing around, that I handed you an escape clause on a platter. Either walk away, or start taking this seriously, because I don’t have the time to fuck around with you anymore.
“The government claims to have evidence of his guilt. Can you refute it?”
That’s very funny – Drew. Refute what? They’re not producing the evidence — that’s the whole point. There is nothing to refute. Very revealing of your thinking though. I show up to a lecture and claim that I have solved cold fusion — the audience is skeptical and I reply — I claim I have the evidence — can you refute that?
They can just count on you skeptics to accept what they say without proof.
But let me answer your question. Yes. Based upon my experience – you give me subpoena power and I would rip their case to shreds. That’s my professional judgment. And I would put up every dollar I own to back that. I have taken on cases that put my net worth on the line – and I would take on that case.
BTW they claim to have just invented a new Anthrax DNA matching technique that provided the proof they needed. Sound familiar? Hey you guys bought it the first time – why not wheel it out again. This is more art than science, when you do not have access to the evidence, but you develop a sense for fraud after years and years of investigating fraud.
BTW – I looked up your witness. You believe him? He could not make ID’s in line-ups, and even the Warren Commission concluded that his description of what happened was physically impossible.
I guess that’s why I had never heard of him. That’s what it takes to convince you? Boy – you are some skeptic. Maybe you should try “gullible” – instead of “skeptic.”
Okay… so we have a buyer for the rifle (and I’m pretty sure we can find a rifle), and Rystefn is in.
I think the best target would be a watermelon wrapped in fiberglass tape. Nice big target. We can figure out the logistics of towing it at speed later.
So, TS, are you in or what? That six pack and skepchick t-shirt are calling you!
Wait… what’s to stop TS from claiming later that I ate the evidence? If we’re using a watermelon, I plan to. ;)
Oh that’s rich Rys.
You know and I know that you have to get multiple hits and get off 3 shots in how many seconds it was. This is what we were talking about – remember?
It’s the rate. It’s the hits.
3 shots in 8 seconds (or whatever) is not the same thing as one shot. It’s bolt action, multiple shots, multiple hits, moving target, very limited time.
It’s not one kill shot. Your proposal that you can fail miserably on the bet and still kill me is such a transparent dodge.
You could have just as easily said that you take the three shots and turn then around and shoot at me. What does shooting at me have to do with the bet? Nothing.
Hey TS, we are done playing with you. You want us to answer what we think about that case, you lost it with redicule and stupidity.
BTW you made 2 claims above, without reference, please cite it. I am not going to look up any of your information without it.
Rystefn, I will cover your traveling expenses, for this experiment.
@TrueSkeptic
Aw, now, you’ve been poking fun at the site regulars all day. A little turn about is fair play, right? :)
I’ll do $10,000 — I thought I was giving you a break when you complained about the cost of the rifle.
Excellent! We have traveling expenses, someone to buy the official TrueSkeptic skepchick challenge fake Oswald rifle, we have a shooter, we have a t-shirt salesman, I’ll find us a place to do this and all we need is the gun!
TS, absolutely correct. For this experiment, Rystefn has to fire three shots in under 8 seconds, two of which strike the target area. We’ll get more details together after we settle on a time and place.
TS, are you in or what? Will you provide the rifle?
Just to be clear about this also, he was offered 3 tries also.
Actually, no.
8 seconds (or whatever the time is) after the first shot is fired, the other two rounds have to go down range; that’s the only real requirement on time.
The first round can take as much time as it takes.
I was a marksmanship coach when I was at the Academy, just a stash duty gig, but if you want a spotter to take the rust off, Rystefn, I’ve still got my red ballcap. :)
Three shots; 8.3 seconds; two hits.
Before you go through with this, you should know that in a 1967 trial of the same nature, several people unaccustomed to the use of the weapon in question managed to make two out of three in 5.6 seconds. That’s a lot of money for me to duplicate something people have been doing for forty years and giving half again the time to do it.
Yeah, also there is a place in Vegas, I saw avertised while I was done there, where you can renact the impossible shot for a couple hundred bucks. Most people are able to do it.
You know after all of the fights we have on this site, I am glad TS could come in and bring us all together on this topic.
Hmmm … maybe I should make you shoot through the tree. : )
Former Navy Seal Ventura did say that was the most difficult aspect of the task.
It is obvious TS looked up Brennan on some kooky conspiracy website. Brennan is the litmus test for showing who is truly skeptical and who is a paranoid personality. I now know nothing will ever change his mind.
Rystefn, you will never get your money. I urge you to withdraw.
Tree? What fucking tree? Does the tree partially obscure the view or something? What is this about a tree? And you originally said NO TREE anyway.
So, are you in?
Hell, the shot was under 100 yards. The first one possibly as close as 175 feet. I’m not convinced I couldn’t do that with a good pistol. :P
Speed is the most difficult aspect of the task, since it’s a bolt-action rifle. At those ranges, shooting a quarter might be a challenge, shooting a person is not.
When the NRA ran the trial, five of six hit two out of three, and none had ever operated the weapon before at all. All fired without zeroing the rifle.
I know I’ll never see a penny of that money. I knew from the start. I gave TS a few opportunities to bow out, but deliberately made is as antagonistic as possible to try to bait him into playing it out. Let’s see how far he goes before he swerves.
Worst case scenario, it takes a couple of days before I get to look back on this and laugh. That’s ok, though, because I’m already laughing about it right now.
Rystefn, you will never get your money. I urge you to withdraw.
—————
But he will get the beer, the t-shirt, and the satisfaction of a good ass kickin’.
Well, there is that.
…and that’s what makes life worth living, isn’t it?
I find myself truly hoping TS strings this out long enough for me to go squeeze off a few rounds and hang out with some of the excellent people on this blog. I come for the hot chicks, but I stay for the… well, for the hot chicks, too. The rest of you are pleasant bonus, at best. :P
OK Protesilaus, I have neglected you. You state:
“My only assertion is that, there was a single gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald who fired the shots that struck and killed JFK. I only ask you to cite evidence that is against this position.”
Now here is how it works. You are making the assertion – not me. You have the burden of proof on your assertion – not me. I am your audience. I am the skeptic. I ask you to show me some reliable proof for your assertion.
Now you do not possess any proof – none. You have allegations by the FBI. That’s not proof. Not in a legal sense – not in a scientific sense – are allegations proof.
It gets worse – the FBI claimed to match bullets. That claim was false. When you make false claims – in court or in the scientific community – unproven allegations become even less credible.
And when you make allegations, but hide your investigation results and evidence, that’s bad too.
This is what any scientific investigator worth a damn would ask:
1. Why did they manufacture false scientific claims?
2. Why do they conceal the evidence?
If you had any experience in such things, you would know that 99/100 times – this is done because you don’t have the proof. You don’t have the evidence — otherwise you don’t do this stuff. Why would you?
For example — Chew referred to a supporting eyewitness. This eyewitness was thoroughly discredited. That happens all the time. He was discredited even without going through the rigors of cross-examination, which would have destroyed him.
You tell me how you would begin to prove that LOH was a loan gunman? It’s your case – not mine.
If, for authenticity’s sake, you’d like to do this in the Dallas area I would be happy to host a pre and/or post party at my house.
That’s not a bad idea… Texas gun laws would likely make the whole process simpler than it might otherwise be. It would also make the burden on Protesilaus much lighter (if the offer still stands for travel arrangements), since I live in Houston.
I can do Texas. Haven’t been there in years, and then only briefly. I’m in Cali these days.
TS! ARE YOU OR ARE YOU NOT IN??
Hello!! We got rules to discuss here! This was YOUR idea! What the hell, man?
Actually, TS I cited specific evidence to support my claims. I won’t be restating them now. I wonder how it took you 140 comments to realize that I was giving you the topic, yet you didn’t discuss it until now, even though I stated it multiple times. You are dishonest with you intent and I am not going to go any further. I was hoping for an intelligent discussion, but did not get one today.
Rystefn:
If this goes through I am not backing down. I will provide airfare or train tickets depending on the distance.
OK… So I hate to be the one to broach an unpleasant subject… Well, that’s pretty much a lie, let me rephrase. I hate to be the one to broach this unpleasant subject, but if TS utterly fails at follow-through (as I suspect will be the case), do we have a backup plan for getting together, maybe firing a few rounds at a watermelon, then kicking back with some cold beverages and laughing about all this?
I know it won’t be remotely anything like as much fun without TS there, but I’d hate to see all this discussion and planning go to waste just because bullshit walked after all.
Oh, get off it, TS. You’re the one that came in with “you should all be real skeptics, just like me!”, claimed a litany of credentials, and then pounced on a mention of Oswald. Burden of proof is on the claimant, sure…that’s you, not Protesilaus.
As I said, if you’d started with Ivans…or Jewell…or the Iowa…or SL-1…or Tonkin…or pretty much anything except Oswald, then maybe I’d have started off taking you seriously.
But you didn’t. You brought out the most over-thought, conspiracy-theorized event of the 20th century…and you expect any audience, let alone a skeptically inclinde one, to treat you on your merits? srsly? :)
I’m game, if we can tie it to another event like a con or something. I live out in the Bay area.
As for proof… no one knows for sure. But we do know, first, that there is no implausibility to the story. Oswald owned the gun or one just like it, had access to the snipers position, and witnesses place him at the book depository at the time of the shooting. He was a sharpshooter.
There is no implausibility to the theory that a single shooter shot Kennedy from the Book Depository. The best candidate for that shooter is LHO.
Yes, there is government evidence to consider. Did he have physical evidence on him that showed he fired a gun? The government says yes, but that evidence was never tested in court. Fine. But unless I hear a more plausible story, or a reason that I should NOT believe the LHO theory, I consider the LHO theory the best current candidate.
Josh:
I wouldn’t have gone that far. If he came on here and said Oswald was a patsy and the FBI, or Mafia, or Cuba, or Russia (USSR) killed JFK and he wasn’t a dick we would have listened and talked about it.
Well, it’s too late for DragonCon by far… What’s coming up?
Also, I learned more about this conspiracy theory tonight than everything I knew before combined. In fact, pretty much everything I knew came from the Penn and Teller BS episode about it. I guess that’s part of why I come here. There’s so much information in the world, and you guys aren’t shy about pointing it out.
@Protesilaus
True.
Carroll’s got a nice write-up on Ivans, if you haven’t seen the material before…heavily referenced, as always. Some rather not-so-nice things to say about the FBI in there.
The Iowa is an interesting story as well. A nice statement about what happens to an investigation under pressure.
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. now we just need a link to a physics topic, a link to some space pictures, a link to a funny comic, and a link to some pretty girls.
I can’t usually do links that say ‘pretty girls’ from work (just finished something up here). :)
I’m planning on trying to make Dragon con next year; cons aren’t so fun if you don’t know folks that are attending, “Places are just places” and all that. We could find a range in Atlanta…I used to play DDO with a couple ex-Marines out there, they might be able to find something else.
Really? That’s cool. I used to run the biggest guild on my server in DDO… Didn’t take long to get passed up… maybe 6 weeks after launch or so. Yes, I know, I’m a huge nerd.
I was on Argonessen.
My forum tag was SableShadow.
I couldn’t tell you the name of the server I played on now if my life depended on it. I ran the Knight of the Fallen Star. It’s gone now, but a few of them still play and bug me to get back into it from time to time. The only MMO that ever managed to hold my attention for more than two month is City of Villains, which I credit more to the fascination a certain beautiful young woman holds for it than anything else.
Yah, MMOs are a huge time sink; I’ve had to back away from them for that reason. The entire CoX series is better than most; I haven’t played that one in ages, but I’ve kept an account there…really some of the most creative work in the field.
I am actually in the market for a rifle, though I was leaning toward something in 5.56 mostly for nostalgia’s sake.
Ok, I’m out. The tests are run and looks like the server group is going to push updates even as I type, so…
I’m not a big rifle enthusiast. I don’t even own one anymore, truth be told… although I did come within a hair’s breadth of buying a .75cal Brown Bess carbine replica. Sometimes you want to shoot, and sometimes you want to put a three quarters of an inch hole through something.
Tx works better for me. I have family in Houston and Dallas. Remember I went to Rice, where I got my degree in physics.
And this JFK stuff got me curious – so I just checked out some interviews of a whole slew of experts — to the man they say the magic bullet theory is a complete and utter joke.
This included Connelly himself, Connelly’s physician. The Secret Service and the FBI. The Dallas physicians who treated Kennedy (at Rice – I dated one of their daughters), expert pathologists, Senate investigators.
They are brutal. They say it is just flat out absurd for multiple reasons. The evidence supports four shots, which eliminates LOH as a one gunman. Kennedy’s throat wound was a frontal entry wound – ruling out LOH on that shot.
So there is a ton of evidence excluding LOH as sole gunman, which is why almost 90% of the populace reject the sole gunman theory.
And yet 100% of “SKEPTICS” believe the other way???? How do you explain that? What kind of cult is this?
Anecdotal. Put up some evidence or shut your pie-hole.
And yet 100% of “SKEPTICS” believe the other way???? How do you explain that? What kind of cult is this?
———
How are you obtaining your 100% number? How do you define skeptic? Aren’t you selecting a group based on a position, and then acting surprised that they hold it? Why haven’t you presented your evidence? Perhaps we are simply unaware of this “evidence” that you insist exists, or perhaps we think it is total crap, based on our evaluation of your methods, but certainly you have not allowed us the privelege of examining it. Where did you get your 90% number? What do you mean by “almost”. Where are these interviews you speak of available? Which specific experts are they with? Can you quote the interviews, the experts, and indicate where I can verifiy this information? Why do you think that Connely is an “expert” on anything, as opposed to a witness? Why would Connelly’s physician be a balistics expert, or even a gunshot wound expert? Are you making any founded assertions, or do you just have the unfounded kind?
And most importantly, ARE YOU IN? DO YOU COMMIT TO PROVIDING THE RIFLE TO BE USED IN THE BET?
TruerTroll hasn’t even cleared up the bullshit in it’s first post.
On what topics exactly do we “exhibit a blind faith that would make a run-of-the-mill fundamentalist envious”.
Back up your claim you slippery little shit.
Coming in here claiming all shorts of education and crowing about how big a skeptic you are.
People have been more than kind to you considering your first post makes you come off as a condescending prick.
I am quite willing to help subside this rifle experiment.
I don’t know why it is necessary since it has been done a number of times already and there was little problem in duplicating LHO shots.
subside=subsidize
I need coffee…….
Seth,
You are right – Connelly is a witness. Connelly’s physician treated his wounds. They support, along with Connelly’s wife, what the experts said about the film frames: there is too much time between JFK being struck and Connelly being struck for the “magic” bullet theory to be possible.
And I suppose you just ignore all the witnesses who heard shots coming from in front of JFK and that the treating physicians in Dallas stated that the wound to the front of his throat was an entry wound.
Josh posted a link to a discussion of Ivans, where Robert Carroll was far too accepting of unproven allegations in a thoroughly discredited investigation, but at least he acknowledged that, in part because of a poor FBI track record in the matter, one should be skeptical of simply accepting its proclamations as gospel. If you apply this same minimal level of skepticism to the JFK evidence — you have to be skeptical of the rush to judgment to make LHO a loan gunman.
As far as what I looked at last night with experts weighing in — here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBX0FZn13Ao&feature=related
It is part I of five short parts. But it will prompt you on the other parts.
You need to understand the pressure and willingness to close some of these cases. It happens all the time.
You should never blindly accept the government’s case without sufficient proof.
That’s all – ye skeptics.
“You should never blindly accept the government’s case without sufficient proof.”
You keep posting this and yet no one here has done any such thing.
TrueTroll still has not even cleared up their original assertion.
What specific blind spots were you referring to in your first post?
Spurge – I was going to add a “Ps,” which sort of addresses your point.
The real issue is an exchange between me and Appleman, where he disappeared. Go back and look at it. He, and only he, attempts some explanation as to why skeptic sites attack “conspiracists” by ridiculing them as whackos.
There is no question that this is the protocol on these sites. There are subject tabs for “conspiracists” and we have seen the fervor with which you all have defended a completely and utterly unproven case, which lacks credibility due to withholding evidence and fabricating evidence — to say nothing of the contradicting evidence.
So the real question is why do these skeptic groups defend unproven government cases? Appleman suggested a reason, which I challenged. He did not respond. There is no good response.
NIST finally came out with its explanation for the collapse of WTC7. You gotta watch it. For a person educated in physics like myself and knowledgeable of proper investigations — it is laugh out loud funny. And guess what – once again – they theorize a first time scientific method, a first time ever event, will not reveal their evidence, and acknowledge they did not even perform basic tests that would be required if your house burned down – let alone a 47 story skyscraper.
Now there are legions of credentialed scientists around the world who can drive holes through the government’s analysis.
I suppose one can reasonably choose to lean towards acceptance or rejecting the government’s completely unproven analysis and theory. But to declare the government the winner without the proof and to ridicule the government’s skeptics is, from a scientific and historical perspective, indefensible. Especially for a group that calls themselves “skeptics.” But from what I can tell – that’s what these sites do.
And Appleman started to say it was necessary to ridicule these skeptics to protect the people’s psyche. Such an explanation is very revealing in itself. I said to him – “come again?” Explain that to me. He had no answer. Maybe someone else does.
And I suppose you just ignore all the witnesses who heard shots coming from in front of JFK…
—————-
ZOMG! I never considered the fact that sound doesn’t reflect off concrete!
True Troll if a 911 troofer too.
What a surprise.
“So the real question is why do these skeptic groups defend unproven government cases? ”
You have yet to show any evidence that any skeptic does this.
They look at the evidence and come to a rational conclusion.
They don’t anomaly hunt and claim vast government conspiracies.
That is what nutters like you do.
For a person educated in physics like myself and knowledgeable of proper investigations — it is laugh out loud funny.
——————————–
Dude, you misunderstand the term “skeptic.”
A skeptic is someone who doubts. A person like you, who pretends to knowledge without showing any signs of actually having it, and then uses their claim of authority as a means of supporting any crackpot, bullshit theory that applies to their preconcieved belief that the government must be lying, is what we technically call an “asshat”.
acknowledge they did not even perform basic tests that would be required if your house burned down
—————
Okay. The report is available online, so: Where do they acknowledge this? Are these tests required in general arson cases, say, in a skyscraper? What are they? Are there substitute tests that are generally accepted? Did NIST perform those? Would those tests have been applicable in this case? Was it possible to conduct those tests, given the state of the rubble? What is the new theory? Is it the only evidence, or does it support a larger case?
On your supposed expertise in investigation: Are you a fire, demolition, construction, or arson expert? Do you have special expertise in arson investigation? Where did you get your training? How can we verify your bonafides?
They support, along with Connelly’s wife, what the experts said about the film frames: there is too much time between JFK being struck and Connelly being struck for the “magic” bullet theory to be possible.
———–
Are you high? You seriously expect me to think that the subjective impression of a man who just got shot is a vaguely accurate gauge of the amount of time that elapsed between his being hit and the guy next to him being hit? Was that supposed to make me snort coffee out of my nose?
Holy jumping crap in a toaster, TS, you make Art Bell look like James Randi.
Fine. I’ll nominate my damn self.
COTW : 176 or 178
Seth,
FINALLY someone worked in the word “asshat” to this conversation.
Sounds like COTW: 176
I guess this means he won’t be coming to the renactment.
Wow,
You guys kept interest in this guy a lot longer than I could. You all must have amazing tolerances for pain and frustration.
Well, I am a masochist… Mostly I’m just hanging onto the thin thread of hop for that ten grand. ;)
What ten grand, is there a contest on the skepchick sight I dont’ know about?
He bet me ten grand I couldn’t hit a man-sized target twice in thee shots in 8.3 seconds at less than 100 yards. Of course, I doubt he’ll pay up, but hope springs eternal, yeah?
What a retard. I could do that. Did he specify the weapon? I qualified expert on the M-16 before I shipped to Kuwait back in 2005. I only had one day of classroom instruction and then off to the range. It was raining hard and I was laying in a puddle. I had a harder time cleaning all the wet sand and mud out of the rifle than I did hitting the target. But I’ve been shooting a rifle since I was 9. That’s 27 years.
Like I posted a lot earlier in this crapfest. I’ve been to the book depository. I’ve stood right next to the window Oswald shot from and looked at the X’s on the street. I could make those shots with a rifle with only iron sights. A scope only makes it easier.
He did specify, as a matter of fact. He specified a high-quality Italian rifle known to be extremely precise with a telescopic sight.
Idiot.
Yeah, that’s pretty much what I said.
I see that this back-and-forth has pretty stopped now so this might be a bit late, but just a reminder to spurge and a few others to tone down the name-calling. It’s a fine line between “asshat” and “slippery shit” but let’s just try to watch it.
Nutter or not, this was a highly entertaining thread.
Nutter or not, this was a highly entertaining thread.
——————-
And that’s what makes it all worthwhile. :)
Sure thing Rebecca.
Sorry
The best part is how much he bragged we would all back down and he ended up bailing.
I am quite sure he thinks that he proved that we are all unskeptical patsies of the “government”.
The best part is how much he bragged we would all back down and he ended up bailing.
————
I thought the best part was how he just clung to whatever piece of flotsam was available. Its funny how these “true” skeptic types, the denialists and conspiracy theorists, just refuse to let go of anything, no matter how stupid.
Its like when I heard Joe Rogan debate Phil Plait on the moon hoax… Phil demolished his science on day one… and on day two Rogan brought up the same points as if BA hadn’t addressed them.
Its accretive thinking… they can only add crap to the big ball o’bullshit, never take crap away.
Actually, my favourite part was when he pulled out the “Oswald said he was a patsy!” thing. As if a man who’s facing the death penalty is incapable of lying in an attempt to save his own ass…
Hey – do any of you people have jobs? : )
That’s where I was today, and I have a brief to work on tonight. So I’ll have to give it a rest. But feel free to continue with the name calling. It suits you.
And if you do have a job – let’s hear it. I shared.
: )
I’m a member of the idle rich. ;)
Ok, that’s a lie. If there’s anything I’m not, never have been, and will only become after my death, it’s idle.
Hey – do any of you people have jobs? : )
————–
No. I’m currently between jobs, which is why my posting has gone way up in the last two weeks.
Oh, and thanks for the dig, while you’re at it, why don’t you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice on it.
You shared? Please. Like anyone believes you. What do you think, we were born yesterday? Claiming super expert level knowledge is a constant tactic with conspiracy wingnuts. I haven’t seen any evidence at all that you have a more nuanced understanding of law, physics, or investigation than the average medieval peasant.
Before I settle in to write this brief (work avoidance) let me make a proposal to you – Seth.
It’s nearly impossible to discuss/debate these topics back and forth in these effing little boxes. Let’s have a little discussion on the phone with a moderator to keep it within accepted forms of logical debate. I propose – Rebecca. I have call-conferencing abilities. Hell – we could even put out more cash to let people listen in – using a conferencing service. And we’ll address this question of whether so-called “skeptics” are unduly trusting/gullible when it comes to government claims (particularly those used to start/expand wars) vs. I am a nut-job, as you argue.
Fair enough?
Ps.
Or pick another champion – anyone.
I don’t want to be unfair about this.
Let’s have a little discussion on the phone with a moderator…
——————-
I’m not really interested. I like written debates. Written debates allow us to demonstrate things clearly from the record. For example, in a spoken debate, we would have to argue about whether or not you had hung your hat on rate of fire. In a written debate we do not, and we can see from that that you are a wingnut.
In a spoken debate, you could skate past the fact that you claimed that Connelly’s physician could possibly make any claims at all about the spacing, in time, of bullet wounds that happened at most within seconds of each other on two patients, only one of which he actually saw.
You might as well say that the man has magic powers.
In a spoken debate, your big ball of shit is an advantage, because its easier to crap it out than it is to clean it up. In written debate, its a lot easier to point it out for the excrement it is.
So, as much as I appreciate that you want to run away into a different forum without looking like a total loser, thanks but no thanks.
We do it all the time. Some topics hit hot buttons, and a mix of evidence and logic is brought out to defend the particular positions.
I use an off-line text editor, if my post is particularly complicated or long.
Eh? This isn’t, believe it or not, us vs you. If you’ve got data, and deport yourself politely, people will listen.
If you’ve just got rhetoric, and aren’t willing to cite sources when you’re discussing claims, and talk down to people…then they won’t.
I just think the word “asshat” is inherently funny, unfortunately it’s also insulting. Such is life.
Incidentally, mt post above should say 83 and 86 (the skepchick miracle comments), not 82 and 85. I guess someone posted before me and I didn’t notice until now.
Hey, if you want to trust me to call my hits over the phone, I’m fine with that. Not sure how Rebecca would moderate that from Boston, but you can trust her implicitly to call me out if I claim to have hit and she sees the bullet land elsewhere…
Ok – the out of work guy, who does not trust Rebecca (the host of the site I am calling into question) to effectively monitor the debate, says “no.” I think that was a smart choice. There has got to be someone better than Seth.
Appleman maybe?
Or I could take Rebecca on and we’ll get a neutral moderator.
Critical thinking and science?
Oh you can believe everything I said about myself – Seth – that’s very, very easily proven.
That’s a bet you don’t want to make.
Please… son, you can’t even prove you exist, much less all these other claims about yourself. How do we know you’re not some persona I made up to try to make me look better by comparison?
@TS
Oh, c’mon, man.
*Now* you’re definitely just trollin’.
Ok – the out of work guy, who does not trust Rebecca…
————–
This is what makes you an asshat. I never said that I didn’t trust Rebecca to monitor the debate. You made that up. Is this how you “investigate” your big “cases”? Do you just make shit up and hope no one notices?
I’m already kicking your ass pretty handily here, so I don’t see why it’s in my best interests to let you squirm out of having your ass kicked here. It’s clear to me that you are desperate for some kind of an out. Too bad. You walked into my space. Take your lumps or get out, and take the big ball of shit that you call an argument with you.
And no, I don’t believe a damn thing you say about yourself. If you have a degree in physics, you wasted a lot of money. If you work as a lawyer, you’re a waste of other people’s money. If you investigate financial fraud, there’s a lot of happy embezzlers out there.
But hey, prove me wrong, if it’s so easily proven. The difference between you and I is that I don’t mind being wrong. My self opinion isn’t some inflated garbage bag that can’t handle even a minor pinprick from reality.
As much as I want to encourage you all to continue discussing and debating topics, I have to say that I have absolutely no interest in moderating an audio debate between two random blog commenters, but thank you for thinking of me.
I’m also not sure what TrueSkeptic refers to when suggesting he can “take Rebecca on and we’ll get a neutral moderator.” Are you saying you want to debate me? About . . . some topic I haven’t even weighed in on? My apologies but I have to say I don’t see the value or point.
I think he’s just trying to distract people from the fact that he’s never going to pay me.
Mea Culpa… everyone is kicking TrueSkeptics ass. But we shouldn’t be proud. Its not like he’s got anything to bring to the table.
Especially not my ten grand.
“Are you saying you want to debate me? About . . . some topic I haven’t even weighed in on?”
Oh we’d make it a topic that you have weighed in on Rebecca. We could just have you defend the statements you make in your little piece on Willie Nelson. Willie of course is not the point. It’s the scientific claims you put forward. I don’t believe you can defend them.
And we could do it in Boston. I’ll give you proof of who I am and my credentials in advance. And we could get a Harvard Professor to moderate it – I have more connections there. But MIT is nearby as well. We can film it. We can both bring the available evidence of our choosing. We can have a University scientist critique it afterwards.
It’s a lot easier to take pot shots at celebrities than to defend scientific claims using evidence. I’d even pay you for your time and the performance – it’d be worth it.
BTW – how do you make your living? Do you have a job? Live off your parents?
…or you could quit making up new issues in a vain attempt to squirm out of paying me my ten grand, boyo.
Still waitining on the $$ to start the shooting match.
TrueSkeptic: wow, I was trying to be polite and you just veered off into assholery, didn’t you? Let me spell it out for you, kitten: I have no need, desire, or reason to want to have a debate with anyone, let alone some random jackass on the Internet, and the idea that I would start calling up local professors to have someone moderate such a pointless endeavor is laughable to the extreme.
If you have a criticism of some specific point I’ve made, you’re free to post it here on the blog. What does my profession have to do with anything?
Now, now… Rebecca, feeding the trolls is beneath you. Leave it to us lowly (and sexy) peons to take care of the light work.
Ah well, I’m out; time to head home.
I know I’m as guilty of it as the next person (heck, it was fun!), but remember: DNFTT
Ok Rys – former gun dealer – locate the gun. We need the gun first. And we are going to give you the same moving target and the same line of sight. We reach agreement on that – then we’ll both deposit $10,000 with a neutral stakeholder. You okay on this so far?
And BTW – I just read somewhere that the government investigation concluded that LOH missed on the first shot. If that’s true – you think you can waste the first shot and get hits on the second and third shots in the time allotted? I.e. replicate what LOH is suppose to have done.
I’d even pay you for your time and the performance – it’d be worth it.
————–
Well, sure, to you! You’re a nobody. Rebecca is loved by 10’s of thousands, which is a hell of a lot more than you’ll ever have. Why don’t you do a little work on getting some recognition instead of begging for it here.
We’ve already set up a deal for you, and you’ve ducked out of it. Stop acting brave, captain skidmarks. You bore me.
One thing that’s come out of all of this is the possibility of a skepchick-con. TAM n.75, as it were (we’ve got n.25 happenin’ at D*Con, there’s a .5, we need a .75 for correct periodicity). What say ye, skepchick commenters?
TS: Step one is for you, the challenger, to put up the money. You find the neutral stakeholder, get the 10 grand set up (shit, you’re an attorney, you should be able to do this), show us proof that you’ve done it.
We already have committments to buy the gun. I’m not sure how easy this model is to get a hold of, but a similar model should do, yes? Bolt action, single fire, same caliber and x-scope?
Do you agree to these terms so far?
If that’s true – you think you can waste the first shot and get hits on the second and third shots in the time allotted?
——————-
Does being this stupid come naturally to you, or did you have to work to come up with this one? By your logic, 3 out of 3 hits wouldn’t count, because he didn’t “duplicate what Oswald did.”
Now, now… trying to change the stakes? No dice.
Three shots, two hits. Three attempts. While I’m fairly confident I won’t need them, I’ll take them just on the principle of not letting you wriggle out of anything. Same reason you won’t be adding a tree to the equation. See, as soon as I let you back up on one thing, you’ll just keep doing it until you’re making me shoot out the bloody window of the real Book Depository, with which I’m fairly sure the Dallas PD would have a problem.
Of course, I’m fairly confident that holding you to the terms you already conceded will also have you trying to back out, but I never really had any confidence in you going through with this anyway. But, pathological unpleasantness of character and all – I’m going with the one that lets me be a jerk about it.
Also, seth, it’s an uncommon calibur and kind of a pain to find sometimes. That’s why it was suggested before that a model chambered for the more common 7.62 round be used.
“TrueSkeptic: wow, I was trying to be polite and you just veered off into assholery, didn’t you?”
By challenging you to defend your claims? Isn’t that what Skeptics Inc. is all about? Your entire blog site is devoted to requiring proof of claims, and you are offended that you are asked to defend your own?
You don’t need to supply the professors – I’ll do that. When I am required to prove my claims in a court using evidence – I employ top experts all the time. I’ve used several from Harvard and have a professor emeritus at Harvard consulting for me right now on a case that starts trial in a few weeks. The WSJ wants to do a piece on the case.
Look I don’t want to pick on a little girl and embarrass you if you are not up to it. But getting your kicks out of picking on Willie Nelson when you have not a clue what you are talking about. You make statements that even NIST does not dare attempt to defend.
TS:
By challenging you to defend your claims? Isn’t that what Skeptics Inc. is all about? Your entire blog site is devoted to requiring proof of claims, and you are offended that you are asked to defend your own?
Me:
Since you came on this site, I have asked you to cite anything you have mentioned and you have failed to show one reference.
When Creationists challenge Evolution on School Boards, they make a lot of claims, like Evolution is not enough to explain all of the diversity of life, there must be a creator. They offer no evidence for this statement and say scientists must show evidence to counter this, such as filling all of the fossil gaps….Sound Familiar?
Ha ha! Amazing. You randomly and repeatedly insult me and when I point it out you claim I’m complaining about you asking me to defend my claims.
I’ll tell you just once more: if you have a problem with anything I’ve written on this site, quote it and tell me why I’m wrong. It’s that simple! You can stop wiggling your little Internet credentials around, I’m not impressed. I mean really, this is just sad.
Not by challenging people to defend their claims. By calling adults “little girl,” by referring to whatever she wrote (I must admit ignorance here) about Nelson as a “little piece,” etc.
The tone you take, you see. The use of the diminutive as a derogatory. The constant self-aggrandizing, as if we’re impressed by your anonymous claims. She was being overly polite in pretending you veered into assholery at any point, rather than appearing here in cloud of it.
You had one tentative defender here, and you immediately antagonized her. That was a mistake.
Your entire blog site is devoted to requiring proof of claims, and you are offended that you are asked to defend your own?
———–
You misunderstand, asshat. It’s offensive to refer to her as a little girl, and the reason that she won’t debate you is that you aren’t worth her time. You are a nobody repeating the same tired old conspiracy crap that every other nobody repeats. Bring something new, bring something worth discussing, and maybe someone will want to discuss it.
Since the round is hard to find, would you accept a 7.62 mm bolt action rifle as a substitute weapon? Something like this?
I’m fine with most rifles you might want to use, for the record, although a substitution rifle notorious for it’s inaccuracy will, of course, be dismissed out of hand.
For the record, I just had a birthday, and a Mosin-Nagant would do wonderfully well for me. I already have the bayonet for it and everything.
…sorry, I’m easily distracted, and that, sir, is an elegant and respected weapon.
Course, the downside is that you would need to find a scope. Whereas this weapon is ready to go out of the box…
Tell you what, TS… why don’t you have a look at the weapons on gunbroker, find one you’ll accept as a substitute. I’ll see if R agrees on model and Pro on price.
Then, after you post your $10,000 good faith, this side will buy the gun and we’re off to the races!
Do we all have a deal, here?
I can start looking for a novantuno through my own channels if it’s really necessary. I’m not sure I can find one, since I’ve never looked, but I’m sure we can come to some sort of agreement on this.
Since when does only one side put up their cash?
Are you telling me this gun does not exist anymore?
I have never shot a gun in my life, nor shopped for one and you want me to do this work – instead of you the experts?
I think the other half of the money was in the “off to the races” part. I couldn’t swear to it, since I don’t read minds, but let’s just put it in there at this point and move on.
The rifle in question has not been in production since 1945, so there are a few speedbumps in procuring one. The reason I’d rather not jump up and start proposing alternates is that I could later be accused of choosing one superior in some way to the Carcano reputedly used by Oswald in the shots I’m to duplicate. I mean, while I’d love to take up the challenge using the m1 Garand, it would hardly be an equivalent accomplishment.
However, if you admit to having limited knowledge of rifles, I must venture to wonder why you think the timing of the shots is suspect? Are you taking someone else’s word for it? Hardly the truly skeptical method, wouldn’t you say? A True Skeptic ™ would either go out and try it, or admit to not actually knowing how plausible such a feat actually is.
“I’ll tell you just once more: if you have a problem with anything I’ve written on this site, quote it and tell me why I’m wrong.”
OK Rebecca. You conflate the scientific skepticism of how the WTC towers failed due solely to airplane impacts with the US government planting bombs inside the building. That’s just a fallacy. There is no necessary connection there at all. Terrorists planted bombs in the WTC in 1993. Why could terrorists not plant bombs in 2001 as well?
So getting the US government out of the picture – let’s examine the case for the planes being the sole cause for bringing down the towers, which you state is obvious. NIST (after admittedly failing to follow proper investigative protocols) theorizes that the combination of the impact of the planes and the resulting fires weakened the structural support members in the area of the plane impacts, thereby initiating building support failures at those upper levels of the building.
Now, how do you account for the complete failure and destruction of the building levels beneath NIST’s theorized collapse initiation, given the manner in which this occurred? You need to explain/defend this given your statement that the obvious cause is the massive plane impacts.
Can you do that?
What part of that was a quote, again?
I have never shot a gun in my life, nor shopped for one and you want me to do this work – instead of you the experts?
——————-
It’s your bet. That’s why I want you to be comfortable with the model and make chosen. Yes, I’m telling you that the exact weapon might be hard to find.
Look, you have all this investigative prowess and stuff, figure it out. Yeesh.
how do you account for the complete failure and destruction of the building levels beneath NIST’s theorized collapse initiation, given the manner in which this occurred?
—————————-
What do you mean, “the manner in which this occurred”. What do you think happened that is inconsistent with the collapse beginning at or near the point of impact?
Just so we’re clear, I won’t be crashing a plane into a building to make a point about this one…
Here is the quote Rys:
“Willie Nelson just told a radio station that the World Trade Center was imploded by the US government on 9/11, instead of coming to the much more obviously correct conclusion that the towers fell due to the massive airplanes we all plainly saw crash into them.”
Now let’s see how Rebecca fares in this quote. First Willie said absolutely nothing about the American Government imploding the buildings. She just flat out made that up – just a lie.
In fact, Willie said that we were hit from people from Saudi Arabia – thereby accepting this government claim.
Willie expressed “skepticism” of how the plane impacts could cause the resulting total failure of the Towers in the manner that occurred — he is in very, very good company there, legions of experts, sans the skeptic sites.
He also questioned WTC7 – the lack of plane impact, the symmetry of failure in response to asymmetrical damage, and free fall failure – which he correctly noted are more characteristic of what you see in demolitions.
It is these collective observations by good ol’ Willie that Rebecca ridiculed. Not very nice – Rebecca – but that’s a separate matter as to whether you have any defense for what you describe as “obvious.”
This is another example of what a twerp you are, by the way. You say “manner in which this occurred” instead of explaining your problem.
Look, in this case, we know damn well that the buildings were hit by airplanes, that they burned for some time, that they were weakened by the fire, and that they subsequently collapsed. You want to add some new entity into this equation, and you seem to believe that it is needed.
So what entity is required and why?
Well, that one quote. It’s a start. Now provide the actual Willie Nelson quote before calling her a liar. Link to it so we can verify, of course. After that, go ahead and back up the rest of that you said. Name your “experts.” I mean, neither you nor Mr. Nelson are experts in demolitions, explosives, architecture, engineering, plane crashes, or any other relevant specialty, so your word carries exactly zero weight here.
Come on, stop making us have to demand the same stuff from you over and over.
Willie expressed “skepticism” of how the plane impacts could cause the resulting total failure of the Towers in the manner that occurred — he is in very, very good company there, legions of experts, sans the skeptic sites.
————
No, he isn’t. A “legion” is about 10 cohorts, and a cohort is about 500 soldiers. There are not 10,000 experts on your side. As far as I know, not a single person who has been able to analyze the evidence and has expert knowledge of demolition, construction, or engineering is on your side.
Is case you aren’t aware of this, 0 is less than 10,000.
Tell you what, TS. I feel nice.
You put the money up to the proxy (at least $1000, at most $10,000), so that we know you’re serious.
I’ll find the weapon, get your approval, get Rystefn’s approval. Then Rystefn will put up HIS money, same amount that you put up.
Then I’ll arrange the purchase of the rifle, the location for the test, and so forth. How’s that? You’re the expert lawyer, there’s no way you’ll have any trouble putting up a third party bid. Hell, there’s probably a service in Vegas that will do this for us.
“What do you mean, “the manner in which this occurred”. What do you think happened that is inconsistent with the collapse beginning at or near the point of impact?”
Seth – my starting point is NIST’s theory that the supports at the crash site at the upper levels failed due to the damage of the impact and the fires.
Accepting that theory as true, for the sake of argument, as what occurred at the upper crash site levels — the undamaged levels underneath the crash site fail and collapse straight down at close to fee fall speed. I ask her to account for that.
And I did not ask you. She invited me to put the question to her, and unless you think that she is a helpless and clueless little girl who cannot speak up for herself — why don’t you stay out of it – as well as the rest of you. And let’s see how she does on her own, after misrepresenting what Willie said, ridiculing him, and then baldly asserting that the science of what occurred is obvious: Plane hits – building falls.
Obvious – huh? This should be good. I want to see this critical thinking and faithfulness to science in action.
Actually, TS, you challenged all of us. Your presence here is an unrelenting challenge to all of us to not vomit on our keyboards.
I’ve said before, and I stand by it – deigning to argue with you is beneath her. Unless and until either you or I goes home $10,000 richer out of the other’s pocket, you are nothing anyone should bother to take seriously.
“As far as I know, not a single person who has been able to analyze the evidence and has expert knowledge of demolition, construction, or engineering is on your side.”
Well we can agree that you don’t know. But I am not going to give out any more clues until Rebecca responds – now that I gave her exactly what she requested.
Look – does Rebecca have any education in science at all?
If anyone knows the answer to that question – you can help with that while we are waiting for her.
I mean if Rebecca just flat out has no knowledge, education or analytical skills in science we can drop this. I mean, she was happy to lie about Willie – so what should we really expect from here?
Well I guess it takes time to copy and paste from the “debunker” sites she provides links to — but she’s wasting her time if that’s what she is doing.
Let’s put it this way — I’d offer the same challenge to a debate to the chief NIST investigator that I offered to her.
“deigning to argue with you is beneath her.”
Don’t you mean beyond her competence?
You said the same thing BEFORE she invited my challenge. She invited this — I think you are afraid for you.
Why don’t you let her handle this? Seems you think she is a helpless little girl.
Step aside Rys — enough of this tag team crap. Let Rebecca defend her lie if she wants to and her claim as to “obvious” science if she can.
Or do you really think she is that helpless – that she needs you to bail her out?
Considering her last post was 2 hours ago and she lives on the East Coast, she is probably asleep…You can wait all night if you want right by the computer waiting for her to respond if you want.
the undamaged levels underneath the crash site fail and collapse straight down at close to fee fall speed. I ask her to account for that.
————-
Okay, I’ll account for part of that. Thousands of tons of free falling matter fell on the lower floors, causing them to collapse in the order in which they were struck by the falling matter.
“Close to free fall” is an imprecise term. How close were they to free fall, and why do you think that the pancaking of the upper floors does not explain the rate of collapse?
Dude, you don’t get to pick your opponents on public forums. Get over it. You say something stupid to one person, you’ve said it to everybody.
Are you in this bet thing or what, by the way?
Well I gotta get to sleep. Due in court tomorrow. Maybe Rebecca can find someone to write something up for her – that she can post as her own.
Although there is no getting around her lying about an American Icon — Willie Nelson.
That’s low.
“In fact, Willie said that we were hit from people from Saudi Arabia – thereby accepting this government claim.”
Willie’s point was that if we were attacked by Saudi Arabia then why were we in Iraq and not asking them about it. Also that isn’t the government’s claim about what happened on 9/11. You didn’t make your case, he never said he accepted the governments story.
Come on Seth — let her answer for herself.
I’m reserving my response for her.
And she INVITED this. What are you – her father?
She wrote it – let her defend it.
Good night boys and girls — I am on the east coast too.
As for people’s education in science:
The only person here making an issue about their education and expertise is you. I’m perfectly happy to rely on actual experts to provide analysis of things I don’t have any expertise in. So, for example, if 100% of all structural engineers who observe the collapse agree that the upper floor fell on the lower floors, causing them to collapse, I’ll believe that contingent on new information. Do you have any new information, or are you just making shit up?
Due in court tomorrow
——————–
Yeah, but how awake do you have to be to plead nolo to a speeding ticket?
I love how this guy is now demanding to speak to the owner. He’s literally begging me to stop challenging him on his shit… tres, tres amusing.
When I mean to call someone incompetent, I use these words: You’re incompetent. Cuts down on confusion, you see. I don’t pull punches, as anyone around here will tell you. I’m not a nice person, and if someone gives me a reason to say something bad about them, I don’t do it in slantwise compliments, I fucking well come right out and say it in plain English.
Yes, I did. Then, when I said it again, I said “I’ve said it before.” It’s right there in the comment you quoted. While it’s a step in the right direction that you’ve just come out and stated a verifiable truth, I wonder why you chose that one… were you trying to make some kind of point?
What ill could possibly come to me over you arguing with Rebecca? I’m not given to irrational fears. Hell, I tend to ignore perfectly rational fears rather more than is good for me. I just don’t get what you’re trying to imply here.
Let? Dude, I couldn’t prevent her from it if I tried. She is neither beholden nor subservient to me (except in a few lurid fantasies).
Not in the slightest. I think she is above such petty nonsense as arguing with you.
I thought this was a scientific debate, not a fistfight. Numbers don’t matter, only facts.
Maybe you see the feminist nature of this site and hope to stir up some trouble with accusing a man of trying to protect her… Maybe it’s nothing more than schoolyard baiting. Either way, it has no place here, and is unlikely to work here. As you probably do not know, but Rebecca surely does, I’m far more likely to leap to defend men from a blanket statement by overzealous feminists than to leap to the aid of a random female out of misguided chivalry.
Also, where do you stand on the marksmanship challenge? If you’re content to let us pick the rifle, say so and commit yourself to it. If not, say that, and tell us what requirements to which the choice should be restricted.
Either make a concrete stand so we can move forward, or tie your hands behind your back and climb a wall of dicks, because that would at least be entertaining to watch.
Sorry, credit where credit is due: he’s begging everyone to please, please leave him alone…
Seth, he will never accept anything anyone says on the subject. He didn’t come into this with an open mind. He came in hurling insults and talking down to all of us with internet animinity.
I think he just proved one of my favorite theories:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/
Rebecca, I would be proud that your site is so popular we finally have griefers. I haven’t seen them around here before.
As for me I am also a East Coaster and its approaching 2AM.
Aw, did I forget to plan my sleep schedule around this high-priority Interweb debate with an anonymous, rude asshole? What was I thinking?? Scanning through the posts from last night, I see TrueSkeptic chose a quote from my entry on Willie Nelson. He didn’t include a link to the entry, probably because it rebuts his point, which is nice for me because I just woke up and have to hop in the shower before heading off to my job as President of the Ultra-Secret Conspiracy, for which I am paid $2 billion and am daily asked to use my knowledge gained during pursuit of my Masters in Stupid Conspiracy Theories from the Internet College of Blowhards. Here’s the link:
http://skepchick.org/blog/?p=937
TS said:
What he said was “The day it happened, I saw one fall and it was just so symmetrical. I said, ‘Wait a minute, I just saw that last week at the casino in Las Vegas’, and you see these implosions all the time, and the next one fell and I said, ‘Hell, there’s another one.’ They’re trying to tell me that an airplane did it and I can’t go along with that.”
So you’re right, TS, in that clip he did not say “the US government.” The “they” he was referring to could very well have been the Bilderberg Group, lizard people, or sexy Martians with three tits. 13,000 Internet debate points to you, sir!
““they” he was referring to could very well have been the Bilderberg Group, lizard people, or sexy Martians with three tits. 13,000 Internet debate points to you, sir!”
LMAO —- Oh that’s good. So Willie uses his own eyes to question an event that the lead NIST investigator has just admitted has never before happened in the history of the World, which is accepted uncritically by you (not that Willie would have the slightest clue what your opinion is) and the entire mass media, which reports on the story of what happened — that would be the “they.”
This is the story parroted by the “they” (mass media), instead of critically questioning this story, as many, many scientists have done (like myself) in reaction to a first time event never before occurring in the history of the World, as described (referring now to WTC7 – not the towers). This to Willie’s credit, causes him to be skeptical. You know — “skeptical” — that would be the opposite of “blind faith.” lol : )
So how does Rebecca employ those strict, logically acceptable modes of argument to address Willie’s righteous skepticism? Well, she takes it upon herself to put words in his mouth that he does not say, ridicules him and now says he believes in lizard people and martian aliens, because he questions a mass media story that flies in the face of his experience, his intuition and in fact, as described, has never, never happened — EVER.
Classic. Yes Rebecca – you don’t want to debate me. I am sure the Harvard Profs would be nice and polite to such a cute little girl …, but they would not allow you to get away that. “Ummm, Ms. Watson — excuse me, but lizard people and aliens is not the issue before us … and we here at Harvard sort of don’t really condone such methods of debate. Perhaps you could get back to the subject at hand. (Where did they get her from?)”
Now that you admitted to fabricating what Willie said in order to use ridicule of him to make your point, I guess you’re still working on forming a reply to my question as to what happens to 50+ stories of the undamaged structural supports of the Towers following NIST’s theory for how the upper floors failed. Given that these undamaged steel supports gave way at very close to free-fall speed, straight down.
Are you going to blame it on lizard people and alien martians?
Great technique — used by many — conflate the scientific skeptics with people who believe in aliens. Beats the heck out of having to resort to critical thinking.
I am sure the Harvard Profs would be nice and polite…
———–
Aren’t you supposed to be in court this morning? Or are you fighting crime in your super investigator suit?
I’ve already replied to your question about the towers supports. They couldn’t stand up to the energy created by the momentum of the collapsing floors above them. They were not entirely undamaged, fire spread to some lower floors, but even if they had been, they would not have stood once the top floor fell on them. Please explain why some other mechanism is needed.
now says he believes in lizard people and martian aliens
————-
Again: this is what makes you an asshat, just making shit up. She didn’t say that, and you know it. Your entire argument about everything, as far as I can tell, is pure fabrication and delusion.
* floor in post 264 should be *floors, as in “the top floors fell on them. “
Yes off to Court.
Good luck Rebecca. You’re going to need it after what you’ve shown us so far.
And BTW – once again – Willie referred to the attackers as being Saudis, accepting the official government story on that point – not lizard people or martians.