Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,060 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 50,213
Pageviews Today: 66,931Threads Today: 17Posts Today: 270
12:27 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 988786
United Kingdom
06/01/2010 01:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I am leaving now for several hours . . . I will return late this evening. Hope I have some interest in my proposal. Thanks!
 Quoting: George B


Why do you want to have a rational debate about an irrational subject?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/01/2010 01:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
CHEMTRAIL TRIAL Proposal

1. I propose a new Thread entitled "Chemtrails on Trial" . . . I think they exist . . . I (George B.), I am the Advocate. I need at least one Opponent who will debate in a trial like format. I need either one or three Judges to make the final vote on who is the winner . . . the Advocate or the Opponent.

I propose a three day event which does not have to be done on three consecutive days.

 Quoting: George B



Well, good luck George.

I know I'm a glass half empty kind of guy, but I don't think this place is anywhere close to well behaved enough to make that work.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
06/01/2010 01:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You just shot your argument down before it started.

Opponent Exhibit #1: Contrail definition by NOAA: A contrail is the condensation trail that is left behind by a passing jet plane. Contrails form when hot humid air from jet exhaust mixes with environmental air of low vapor pressure and low temperature. Vapor pressure is just a fancy term for the amount of pressure that is exerted by water vapor itself (as opposed to atmospheric, or barometric, pressure which is due to the weight of the entire atmosphere above you). The mixing occurs directly behind the plane due to the turbulence generated by the engine. If condensation (conversion from a gas to a liquid) occurs, then a contrail becomes visible. Since air temperatures at these high atmospheric levels are very cold (generally colder than -40 F), only a small amount of liquid is necessary for condensation to occur. Water is a normal byproduct of combustion in engines. [link to www.wrh.noaa.gov]


Case closed.

I in no way feel the above definition by NOAA limits my chances of winning. Why don't you observe the Trial and see.
 Quoting: George B


The point is that the "normal" definition of contrails explains everything observed perfectly well. Why bring un-needed complexity into something that is really very simple.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/01/2010 01:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I'm a 9-11 SURVIVOR.
 Quoting: ***ZetaMaX***



Yeah, right, "Bridget."

And no doubt you only smelled cordite and personally carried 47 people down from the top floor.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 02:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Jesus Christ...

These are your words, "mclarek":

"...may have..."

"...Who knows..."

"...or whatever..."

"...The rest is guessing..."

"...Either they were..."

"...There MAY have been..."

"...this is some unclarity..."


Meanwhile, you said before the evidence was "beyond a reasonable doubt" that 9/11 was an "inside job".

Fantastic, the language you use to back that up.
 Quoting: "...Sing, I'll sway.


Does anyone here read properly? Why do so many here pick on specific phrases which people -- not just I -- use to make things palatable, readable, show other points of view? In what context was each phrase used?

If I were to pick on your language I would find it overconfident about a subject you know far less about than I do. And no, I don't mean I KNOW EVERYTHING. I have, however, spent a long time looking very deeply into the issue. After a wile, one gains some familiarity. And if, like a good (and I mean decent) FBI agent, you let things STICK where they should ... and this is many people here's problem, you look at info but you don't let things stick, for comparative analysis ... you will come to see that the case stands.

Of course, if a fact cannot be absolute, it should not be treated as such. But if it is, or is nearly, you have to let it stick and do comparisons. THEN you will know if you have done your work as a jury (or lawyer, but you do have to be a lwayer for both sides at first, so I chose jury as the more total example).

So many here look at facts in some kind of jumble, especially new facts,; things are to be hit in isolation. And sure, if something CANNOT be so, then it can be dispensed with.

But some facts trump others. For instance, one impossibility means FAKING WAS GOING ON. (E.g., the Moon photos.) There don't have to be multiples.

But if there are, and you get some familiarity with what kinds there are, then you can judge the extent of the problem: one nice faked replaced image, or a set for publication in embarrassment over not being able to take proper shots possibly on the Moon, or maybe a whole faked journey?

But one way or another, faked images (or rather, to be neutral, STUDIO images) are part of the NASA Apollo record were they are not CLAIMED to be by NASA.

So, re. the planes issue: If one fact makes the planes highly unlikely, or absolutely contrary to the gov't claim (absolutely), or one aspect is physically impossible, the whole issue bears looking at.

The only reason you think it's absurd is that you were told (in various ways) there were planes. If they'd come out and said, "The perps got a hold of the media and ran a feed through, but really couldn't use planes and onlly used CGI and explosives" would you have such a problem? No.

So let's get to it: Your attitude on this thread -- not necessarily yours, but it seems so too -- means you guys generally might remember specific physics arguments around it, or a photo claim -- but what I am talking of required excitement to learn and lots and lots of not just "listening to arguments" as if all are equal in the end. You listen at first as if all are equal, and yes, you keep listening, but if certain facts HAVE to trump others, if true, you stick them on your mental board and find out more.

So what of the passengers and children? They have nothing to do with the required events of the day.

Nothing.

Unless they made real phone calls, but other evidence points away from that (of dozens of reasons).

So, if there were flyoves, bombs instead of planes, etc., what does it matter if there were children on board or not -- unless you want to work out what could have happenend to them.

A typical problem (and it's happening here in your comments) is the assumption that because one aspect is being discussed -- say, the passengers -- it is in isolation. But the blackbox info and flyover, plus the lack of jet fuel and the parallax and othe issues and so on STILL STAND.

They are not in isolation. While you are discussing one area and delving into it, keep all other areas in mind.

I hope you can recognize key, trumping arguments, and consider, with respect for expertise, but not authority positions, where they hail from. In other words, if the gov't experts are excellent, so be it; but they've been shown if you use your mind, not to be telling the truth.

It is citizens of professional (and non-professional familiarity with the case, such as Griffin, and soem even smaller names who have done direct research on names, places, claims) who must be doing the better work in most instances.

But if one is going to poke holes in anyone's arguments, it must be done excellently. And the gov't story doesn't add up in any key area at all. I wish it did, in some way, for then we might really not have rogue elements ruling -- only disgruntled people from Saudi Arabia (the hijacker patsies were mostly from SA) wanting to blow a couple of things up.

Well. Griffin has argued admirably (in "Debunking 9/11 Debunking") that Pop. Mech. was lying, by showing obviously how it was done, point for point. So when I say reasonably argued, I mean excellently.

So that's key. And that stands no matter what others say repeating the arguments which HAVE been debunked -- and it's the official conspiracy theory which is debunked.
David Ray Griffin did a masterful job of showing the cross-talk (usually considered debunkithere more dependent on other factors such as much familiarity with other aspects of the case, so people have acted as if they are not sure; in other words, they have been stretched so far, as if one could make them unsure; because of that, and the fact some are, as I first mentioned, not sure, too, I only use the absolute parallax issues.)

If the parallax in some vids was fake on NYC coverage, this does not mean of itself the planes were fake, of course, by itself. So THAT is not a sure thing, but the parallax problems are. This casts the planes and other aspects of the events into serious doubt. (But in combination with the other aspects I'm not getting into, such as butterplane into building leaving perfect 14-floor hole with wingtips and all, but no hole on video as it goes in), faulty soundtracks, and other physical aspects of the "planes" themselves and clean-up and witnesses, carefully combed through, then yes, the video fakery evidence is conclusive too.

Now, even with this short run-down, the case is beyond a reasonable doubt EVEN WITH CLAIMS BODIES WERE FOUND AT THE PENTAGON.

Unless those really were found -- and wo controls those labs? No. Why would the gov't give the wrong black box? And so on. And on. ...



As to the following:

Every single one of the passengers had government/military connections which qualified them as candidates for being "disappeared" in some "not nice way"...???

All of them? I bet you couldn't even connect a small percentage of them to anything remotely governmental/military.
 Quoting: "...Sing, I'll sway.


If I said "every one" of the passengers, I slipped. Did I, or are you paraphrasing? I know I *have* said before, that MANY passengers were, or "almost every one" was (intended to show a high pecentage). It was. There is work on that. I don't have it at my fingertips right now. I don't keep this stuff on hand. I worked through it and moved on. Now I know it, but not the original work anymore.

But when you say gov't military, you can count working for privat efirms linked to gov't/military too, as being suspicious (not conclusive).

Whatever you do, realize -- at least in the hypothesis here, a picture of the totality where there was fakery and sloppiness and cheap laziness from perps -- the passengers don't matter to the plane issue any more than the planes matter to 9/11.

You can follow them and know as much as you want, and yes there are a lot of probs with the official account of the passnegers. But if there were no planes, then the passengers were elsewhere. One trumps the other, in the hypothesis. And the lack of planes is physically more reasonable on all fronts, with specific witnesses in good positions to know coming out with not "just contradictory" but saliently contradictory -- specific situational contradictory -- testimony. This is key. So is the black box, the silliness in Shanksville, and the whole aura from media fakery known from NYC parallax lies.

They simply trump the other things. The other things your mind tells you from what the gov't says CANNOT be right if these are, which they are. These are SALIENT facts. Do you know what that is? They REQUIRE the hypothesis to trump the plane hypothesis.

This was long because I think you're interested AND I am tired and so not the best right now. Sorry for the length bt I was trying to be helpful, not angry.

Cheerio!
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 02:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
George B: I am leaving now for several hours . . . I will return late this evening. Hope I have some interest in my proposal. Thanks!


988786: Why do you want to have a rational debate about an irrational subject?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 988786 and George B

Since Britain admitted they sprayed ... it is not implausible.

Nor, since the beginning of aircraft, was it impossible.

Thus, it is not, prima facie, irrational.

But even if it were, every question must be aired, for us to discover new things we didn't think were there -- where do you think they have been found in the past? Usually in areas some people thought were silly, but a few kept asking and trying to see what might be there.

Not to mention, if they're doing it, it may be harmful and we should know. Urgently.
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
06/01/2010 02:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
My apology doesn't even rate an acknowledgement?

I'm crushed. I may even take to strong drink.

That's actually not a bad idea.

But one thing I will NEVER do is debate chemtrails -- oh, the horror...
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 02:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
After seeing some of Lear's other "work", I don't think I'd use him as any sort of "reference"!
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 218281

Ad hominem fallacy (and straw man). Someone could be a kook in one thing and an expert in another.

Do you know what a jury must do? Consider only the evidence testimony and expertise at hand, not the prejudices you have of the person from other fields.

If a bartender saw a murder, a bartender saw it; if you think bartenders are ignorant about mechanics, you must discount that.

Lear is one of the US's the most experienced and well-rounded pilots. His testimony on aircraft is weighty for that reason, not if he believes (or was told by intelligence ops) that UFOs exist, etc.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 960518
United States
06/01/2010 02:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I predict that Clare will brush off John Lear's more amusing claims with her customary 'Just because a person believes dogs make Doritos with magic and rain is caused by the sorrow of three-legged goats doesn't mean *everything* they believe is false' line.

She seems to lack any kind of discernment -- or, put more bluntly, she lacks a bullshit filter. If someone (Lear) says the Moon is a mechanical soul collector, I suspect Clare's first response is 'Hmmm, it might just be!'

I'll bet Clare pays a lot for cars. With special undercoating packages. And extended warranties.

But Clare, I do owe you an apology, for accusing you of being Nancy and the Nancy sock-puppet Volar. You are clearly neither, and I was wrong to say so, and I'm sorry.

But John Lear? Really? If the guy told me it was noon and my watch agreed it was noon I'd still check with a third source just because Lear is a freaking lunatic and anything he says in suspect. "Expert?" Hardly.

You really need a bullshit filter.
 Quoting: Returner 997


Haaaa....excellent post, Returner...

First: "'Just because a person believes dogs make Doritos with magic and rain is caused by the sorrow of three-legged goats doesn't mean *everything* they believe is false'"

...haaaaa, That was really funny. I laughed my ass off. Did you make that up? Well done.

And then what I admire is the shift in gear- you go from absurdism, to kind of dry observational humor:

"I'll bet Clare pays a lot for cars."

This made me laught out loud also. Because it's probably true. Being "easy-to-influence" as well as lacking bullshit filters leaves an individual mortally vulnerable to the wily ways of a comission-hungry car salesman...

Oh, man...That 9-11 shit, claiming the passengers on all the planes were "disappeared" in a "not-nice way". I'm still waiting for her to explain all the telephone calls made from United 93 (many of them made one).

And all this talk of "bulldozers" in Shanksville. Where are all the bulldozer tread-marks? Shanksville is a very isolated farming community. No one noticed a bulldozer being trucked into town? What about the guy who's fuckin' farm the bulldozer was cutting up?

Because that's the kind of shit most farmers don't exactly "appreciate". They tend to notice and "resent" it.

I suppose "mclarek" will say either the bulldozer was possibly flown in and out? Or, and this is the "9-11-Truther's ace card", the farmers were "warned" to keep their mouths shut.

And why all this big deal, "mclarek", about the plane flying upside down before crashing? You almost make it sound like this is an impossible arial maneuver...???

When you've got half-a-dozen guys all fighting, literally like their lives depend on it, for control of the stick, airplanes tend to fly in many assorted "nonsensical" ways.

But anyway, again, good post, Returner.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
06/01/2010 02:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
But some facts trump others. For instance, one impossibility means FAKING WAS GOING ON. (E.g., the Moon photos.) There don't have to be multiples.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Thus far, you've shown not a single impossibility with anything about the lunar landings.

But then you go and try to use a kook like John Lear as a reference. Priceless! What do you think of his "soul collectors" on the moon idea? How about his submarine tunnels from the Pacific under Nevada? How about your statement above...how does it apply to John Lear?

So, re. the planes issue: If one fact makes the planes highly unlikely, or absolutely contrary to the gov't claim (absolutely), or one aspect is physically impossible, the whole issue bears looking at.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


But yet you try to use John Lear as a reference?

The only reason you think it's absurd is that you were told (in various ways) there were planes. If they'd come out and said, "The perps got a hold of the media and ran a feed through, but really couldn't use planes and onlly used CGI and explosives" would you have such a problem? No.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


So, you say that all the eyewitnesses were lying? All the hundreds of experts, including the forensic scientists who matched the passenger remains DNA are lying? That the USA Today article about passengers being found still strapped in their seats is lying? The pilot of the cargo place who followed the 757 as it crashed into the Pentago is lying?

No, Clare, your claim IS patentaly absurd.
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 634208
United States
06/01/2010 02:19 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Ad hominem fallacy (and straw man).
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

Nonsense, his credibility is shot by his own claims, not by some personal attribute assigned to him independent of those claims. Furthermore, as he refuses to defend his own insane claims against evidence that directly contradicts them, there is no way to debate the man.
Someone could be a kook in one thing and an expert in another.
 Quoting: mclarek

You used him as an appeal to authority, we have shown he has no authority; he has no credibility because his frequent and insane claims have no merit and because of his refusal/inability to defend those claims.
Do you know what a jury must do? Consider only the evidence testimony and expertise at hand, not the prejudices you have of the person from other fields.
 Quoting: mclarek

His field is irrelevant, his credibility MUST be considered by a jury. He has no credibility, therefore his testimony is to be disregarded. Others called it before you even opened your mouth; you have no BS filter, you accept the testimony of those who have no credibility by their own doing.
If a bartender saw a murder, a bartender saw it; if you think bartenders are ignorant about mechanics, you must discount that.
 Quoting: AC

If the bartender is shown to be a pathological liar given to making ridiculous claims about other people committing murders that they clearly didn't commit, the jury should disregard the bartender's testimony. Lear is as far from a legitimate "expert" on anything as one can get, he's mentally unsound and he has zero credibility.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 06/01/2010 02:22 PM
astrobanner2
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 969583
United States
06/01/2010 02:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
If I were to pick on your language I would find it overconfident about a subject you know far less about than I do. And no, I don't mean I KNOW EVERYTHING. I have, however, spent a long time looking very deeply into the issue.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



You obviously knew nothing about the team of over 100 forensic investigators who identified all but one of the flight 77 passengers by DNA testing.

If you had known about that and had any rational reason for rejecting that claim you would have said something because if you can't rebut that, your lose the debate hands down.

You are only looking at "research" that confirms your belief. You're apparently not even familiar with the other side of the case.
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
06/01/2010 02:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Maybe we'd better take a moment and explain to Clare that all those emails she gets from Nigerian princes who need help moving boxes of cash to the US are not real!

Don't send them any money, Clare. It's a scam.
***ZetaMaX***

User ID: 659599
United States
06/01/2010 03:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Maybe we'd better take a moment and explain to Clare that all those emails she gets from Nigerian princes who need help moving boxes of cash to the US are not real!

Don't send them any money, Clare. It's a scam.
 Quoting: Returner 997

noshill
The best advice we can give on this matter is to read with your heart as well as your mind. Follow the flow, let the nuances lie unanswered and unchallenged in your mind. Treat this as a garden you are walking through for the first time, and experience it fully without trying to categorize it! Much of what you will learn will be processed in your subconscious, and influence your conscious mind later. If you must dissect each phrase, and correlate it with each piece of information taken from another source, you will trash much of what you could otherwise gain. Live in the gray, not always insisting on black and white and strict compartmentalizations.

ZetaTalk: Oahspe Note: written Apr 15, 1997.
 [link to www.zetatalk.com] 

ZetaMax
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
06/01/2010 03:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
After seeing some of Lear's other "work", I don't think I'd use him as any sort of "reference"!

Ad hominem fallacy (and straw man). Someone could be a kook in one thing and an expert in another.

Do you know what a jury must do? Consider only the evidence testimony and expertise at hand, not the prejudices you have of the person from other fields.

If a bartender saw a murder, a bartender saw it; if you think bartenders are ignorant about mechanics, you must discount that.

 Quoting: mclarek 986233


No, you would not dismiss the testamony of the bartender simply because of his vocation. But if he had published writings claiming that there were "soul collectors" on the moon and submarine tunnels under Nevada and all the other patently absurd claims Lear has made, the jury would throw his testamony out in a second. The jury does not have to take into consideration the claims of a loon.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
06/01/2010 03:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It is citizens of professional (and non-professional familiarity with the case, such as Griffin, and soem even smaller names who have done direct research on names, places, claims) who must be doing the better work in most instances.

 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Why would you consider Griffin, a professor of THEOLOGY, to be an "expert" on 911?
Returner
User ID: 997
United States
06/01/2010 03:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I love the bit about the subterranean submarines. Very 1960s James Bondish.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 03:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
 Quoting: "...Sing, I'll sway."


When I said to you in my earlier post, that the passengers are to the planes, as the planes are to 9/11 ...

I didn't mean the passengers don't exist (though that would have been one way to do 9/11), but rather, the hypothetical distinctions are in that ORDER.

We can follow the incongruities with the phone calls, the passengers, the witnesses who said they saw something and what they claim they saw and who they are, and so on ...

But if key witnesses (in the best position) agree the flight came from the north, and they conflict on what kind of plane it was (it could have been painted to resemble AA),

and the black box data show a flyover,

and witnesses inside and outside the Pentagon said no jet fuel smells originally (some witnesses changed their statements but April stuck to hers and said she'd had a visit to make her change her mind),

and there was no environmental disaster clean-up ...

Then the Pentagon case falls.

The rest is filling in details: the passengers' lives become details to figure out: what happened to them? Were they killed elsewhere, or are they -- some of them -- in a new identity somewhere?

And that's just the Pentagon.

That is my point about the passengers: we have no proof they were there except a claim bodies were found from them at the Pentagon. And the claim of bodies has no other supportive proof, as you can see above.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 03:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You obviously knew nothing about the team of over 100 forensic investigators who identified all but one of the flight 77 passengers by DNA testing.

If you had known about that and had any rational reason for rejecting that claim you would have said something because if you can't rebut that, your lose the debate hands down.

You are only looking at "research" that confirms your belief. You're apparently not even familiar with the other side of the case.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583


No, I know of that. But WHERE WERE THE REMAINS FROM?

Most of those investigators got the remains from others ...

They could have come from anywhere. I know it SOUNDS wild but there had to have been a flyover at the Pentagon, from the gov't's own black box data, the trajectory lie, and the lack of jet fuel.

Forensics are easy to re-label. The whole thing was a set-up. Just as with JFK: people had the same objections! "What! The police lost and relabled data? Kept things in drawers for years? ALL of them had to know? Nooo."

Well, not all know. Most get the falsified data from others. Some knew.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 03:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
It is citizens of professional (and non-professional familiarity with the case, such as Griffin, and soem even smaller names who have done direct research on names, places, claims) who must be doing the better work in most instances.



Why would you consider Griffin, a professor of THEOLOGY, to be an "expert" on 911?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 218281

You guys are back on your appeal to authority fallacy:

He can THINK. (And he's an academic, in general, which you should like.) He presented an excellent, lawyerly argument regarding the crosstalk.

Are you so enamoured of specialties that you don't recognize a thinker is a thinker when they think?

Or was Leonardo da Vinci a "jack of all trades" (note the aspersion)? No. He thought and knew in many fields.

This is the problem with the appeal to authority fallacy: it is not that when you appeal to someone's authority (real knowledge) you are committing a fallacy; it is over-trusting the labels.

Nicholas of Cusa, Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin, etc. -- these were men of letters. Did their specific degrees mean they could only think capably on one topic? Of course not.

However, they did (as anyone competent can) make mistakes, and they did not have expertise in all details of all fields they wrote on capably.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
06/01/2010 03:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
David Lee Griffin...

[link to screwloosechange.blogspot.com]

This is an excellent article rebuking his foolishness...


[link to www.publiceye.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
06/01/2010 03:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
[link to www.publiceye.org]


Here are two from news media staff who are not connected to the government or the military:

From the transcript of an early 9-11-01 CNN story:

"I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter. "There is billowing black smoke."

This was Dave Winslow, an AP Radio reporter...not a government employee or agent.

A year later, Winslow told the Washingtonian magazine:

"I heard this enormous sound of turbulence. . .As I turned to my right, I saw a jumbo tail go by me along Route 395. It was like the rear end of the fuselage was riding on 395. I just saw the tail go whoosh right past me. In a split second, you heard this boom. A combination of a crack and a thud. It rattled my windows. I thought they were going to blow out. Then came an enormous fireball."

Or consider this first-person commentary by a reporter for USA Today:

'Tomorrow always belongs to us'
By Vin Narayanan, USATODAY.com
09/17/2001 - Updated 02:43 PM ET

"At 9:35 a.m., I pulled alongside the Pentagon. With traffic at a standstill, my eyes wandered around the road, looking for the cause of the traffic jam. Then I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet. The tail of the plane clipped the overhanging exit sign above me as it headed straight at the Pentagon. The windows were dark on American Airlines Flight 77 as it streaked toward its target, only 50 yards away. The hijacked jet slammed into the Pentagon at a ferocious speed. But the Pentagon's wall held up like a champ. It barely budged as the nose of the plane curled upwards and crumpled before exploding into a massive fireball."

Even if we discard Narayanan's assumption that the plane he saw was American Airlines Flight 77, he still saw a large American Airlines commercial jet, not a guided missile.

Some of the sources relied on by Griffin claim to have debunked ten or twenty eyewitness accounts they found on the internet; but there were, in fact, hundreds of eyewitnesses to the commercial jet hitting the Pentagon. Scores gave their accounts to reporters and investigators. Some of their statements can be found at:

[link to www.geocities.com]
[link to www.criticalthrash.com]
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 03:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
After seeing some of Lear's other "work", I don't think I'd use him as any sort of "reference"!

Ad hominem fallacy (and straw man). Someone could be a kook in one thing and an expert in another.

Do you know what a jury must do? Consider only the evidence testimony and expertise at hand, not the prejudices you have of the person from other fields.

If a bartender saw a murder, a bartender saw it; if you think bartenders are ignorant about mechanics, you must discount that.



No, you would not dismiss the testamony of the bartender simply because of his vocation. But if he had published writings claiming that there were "soul collectors" on the moon and submarine tunnels under Nevada and all the other patently absurd claims Lear has made, the jury would throw his testamony out in a second. The jury does not have to take into consideration the claims of a loon.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 218281

No, they would not.

Even a manic-depressive can witness a murder. OR BE A D.A.!

You would have to ask if he could be shown to have problems identifying THE KINDS OF THINGS ASKED. If so, his nutty (or any socially unacceptable) concepts would not count.

Same with physical disabilities: if a person's eyesight were bad but their hearing excellent, and it was what they heard which was the point, then you take their testimony.

P.S. You don't get around much if you don't know that all kinds of ideas were considered nutty at one time which are not now AND many brilliant minds had what we still call nutty concepts, for some fields of their interests.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
06/01/2010 03:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
That is my point about the passengers: we have no proof they were there except a claim bodies were found from them at the Pentagon. And the claim of bodies has no other supportive proof, as you can see above.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


You forget about all the DNA evidence that matched passenger's families according to 100 forensic scientists.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
06/01/2010 03:59 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
P.S. You don't get around much if you don't know that all kinds of ideas were considered nutty at one time which are not now AND many brilliant minds had what we still call nutty concepts, for some fields of their interests.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



Do you put "soul collectors on the moon" in this category?
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 04:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Lear presented testable backup, and experiential facts about planes.

If these facts LED him to have "another crazy idea" in your estimation, YOU are not making the distinction between ideas he holds which are -- possibly -- crazy and ideas which he came to BECAUSE OF EXPERTISE, but which you consider crazy as conclusions.

Look at the testimony only. And realize he has high expertise in the field.

He didn't just claim a conclusion. He backed it up.

LOOK AT THAT not his other ideas.

Besides, what's so crazy about not using hulking aircraft to risk missing targets? They're messier, too. No, control it all as a set of Hollywood military stage tricks: som smoke here, some parts there, some dead people (yup, no morals, to kill them) here, and a flyover, etc.

Easier. Simpler. More elegant at the planning level.
AstronutModerator
Forum Moderator

User ID: 634208
United States
06/01/2010 04:03 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Look at the testimony only. And realize he has high expertise in the field.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233

There you go again, appealing to authority using a nutjob as an expert. And you accuse US of being guilty of appealing to authority? You're unfrickenbelievable clare. You just don't get it.

Last Edited by Dr. Astro on 06/01/2010 04:03 PM
astrobanner2
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 04:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
P.S. You don't get around much if you don't know that all kinds of ideas were considered nutty at one time which are not now AND many brilliant minds had what we still call nutty concepts, for some fields of their interests.



Do you put "soul collectors on the moon" in this category?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 218281

I put it (personally) in the level of what we still call nutty concepts. In other words, I, too, think they're nutty.

But:

a) it's irrelevant to his physics experience: he is arguing not from conclusion but from expertise.

b) technically speaking we don't know what happens after we die, so on that, though I think he's gone overly credulous on such things, I don't technically know. THIS is radical philosophical doubt: I don't believe it but I know what I can test and what I can't.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 218281
United States
06/01/2010 04:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
They could have come from anywhere. I know it SOUNDS wild but there had to have been a flyover at the Pentagon, from the gov't's own black box data, the trajectory lie, and the lack of jet fuel.

 Quoting: mclarek 986233



Nope.

[link to arabesque911.blogspot.com]
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
06/01/2010 04:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Look at the testimony only. And realize he has high expertise in the field.

There you go again, appealing to authority using a nutjob as an expert. And you accuse US of being guilty of appealing to authority? You're unfrickenbelievable clare. You just don't get it.
 Quoting: Astronut

You're the self-proclaimed "nut", Astronut.

:)

And no, you have no knowledge how real wonderful people hold all kinds of other theories than you'd accept --- but here, it is his flight experience at that level which counts.

He is an authority on AIRCRAFT and FLIGHT.

He backs up what he says and concludes the planes couldn't do the manoeuvres.

...........

Plus, the other pilots and aircraft personnel, who do NOT all believe there were no planes, have discovered there was a flyby at the Pentagon, per the black box data, and other things.

And we have a witness who refused to be cowed, only 40 fet away, saying no jet fuel. So did early reporters.

And that's just the Pentagon.

Argue not from firm conclusion, and you will see Lear is not arguing from conclusion either. He has the experience and he backs up his argument.

Hypothesis is a temporary conclusion to discover all lines of reasoning; but one does not argue from "final conclusion" in the sense of a notion which one does not back up and refuses to test.

News