reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Apr 29, 2007 14:50:45 GMT -4
Somehow, I just don't believe your intentions are innocent. Believing in one conspiracy theory, I can accept that as innocent. Believing in two, just maybe. But three or more, I don't think so. It becomes clear once you start believing in multiple conspiracy theories that you are predisposed towards them. You can deny it all you want but you have a disposition to defend conspiracy theories without questioning them fully beforehand. You may think you don't, but it's impossible. You are too emotionally involved in some conspiracy theories to objectively analyze others. You lack skepticism. Nobody here is surprised when you bring up yet another conspiracy theory. Why do you think that is? Because you are a conspiracy theorist. You always choose the side of conspiracy. You rarely choose the side of skepticism. One or two conspiracies, fine. Three or more, unacceptable. Indicates a predisposition to believe any conspiracy without question. I was really quite happy back in the early days, when I just questioned Apollo and 9/11. But later on, after I read some stuff about JFK and the Fed, I just couldn't resist the urge. At first, it was a brief comment here and there. Within a few weeks, I progressed into hardcore - and began to start up my own threads! Now I'm going to CTA - Conspiracy Theorists Anonymous. In time, I know I can get back to believing in just one or two conspiracies. It won't be easy, but hey, what is? There isn't a day that goes by when I'm not tempted by new conspiracy sites that crop up from googling. It's pure hell resisting the urge to "click" onto them! Btw, you say it isn't reasonable to believe in more than two conspiracies. Is that because three conspiracies couldn't exist? Does it matter which two conspiracies I keep believing in? Or can I pick any two of them I want? You lack skepticismSkeptic: One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. I don't question generally accepted conclusions? Who's the skeptic? Uh huh. There are certainly conspiracies that actually exist, but they are smaller, less spectacular, and, I assume, not touted by armchair detectives such as yourself. What I am simply saying is that you are disposed towards believing conspiracy theories. A skeptic is a person who does not predispose themselves to an answer. Do you have a problem with that definition? Etraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have never seen a popular conspiracy theory provide such evidence. And before you claim that I predispose myself to not believe conspiracy theories, I would like to remind you that I used to believe Apollo was faked until I looked at all the evidence. I wisely chose to look at both sides of the issue before I got emotionally invested. You and most other CT's foolishly got emotionally invested before even looking at the other side.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 4, 2007 3:26:59 GMT -4
Uh huh. There are certainly conspiracies that actually exist, but they are smaller, less spectacular, and, I assume, not touted by armchair detectives such as yourself. Why do you think conspiracies can only exist if they are on a smaller scale? Or, only if they are "less spectacular"? They must have some sort of size limitations? What I am simply saying is that you are disposed towards believing conspiracy theories. You are incorrect, although there's probably nothing I could ever say would change your mind. A skeptic is a person who does not predispose themselves to an answer. Do you have a problem with that definition? Nope. Etraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have never seen a popular conspiracy theory provide such evidence. Logical fallacy, as I recently pointed out to another member here.... apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=othertheories&thread=1174542258&page=3All claims (whether deemed "extraordinary" or not) must meet the same standards of proof. And before you claim that I predispose myself to not believe conspiracy theories, I would like to remind you that I used to believe Apollo was faked until I looked at all the evidence. I wisely chose to look at both sides of the issue before I got emotionally invested. You and most other CT's foolishly got emotionally invested before even looking at the other side. You didn't read my post about Apollo, it seems. I used to believe Apollo was genuine, until I looked into all the claims on both sides. After many months, all the best evidence convinced me it was a hoax. I have no "emotional investment" in believing in an Apollo hoax whatsoever. None. Same as with any other "conspiracy". Furthermore... I have no financial investment. No personal gain in any way. No desire for fame or attention. And, I have nothing to lose if it were ever proven that Apollo was genuine. (In my opinion, obviously - you and others may argue it already has been proven.)
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on May 4, 2007 12:51:53 GMT -4
This is obviously a pointless argument to have, but I'll continue anyway because it's fun. When it comes to something as massively complex as 9/11, yes I do believe conspiracies don't get that spectacular. I didn't say it was not possible for conspiracies to be big and spectacular, I just don't think anything that big has happened recently.
You most likely believe this statement is true, but that doesn't mean it is.
Extraordinary usually just means physical. It would be extraordinary if we found unambiguous physical evidence that Apollo was faked.
And even if I agree with you, that doesn't change that there is not even standard evidence towards any of these conspiracies. There is rampant speculation and interpretation of events, but no actual evidence. Ordinary evidence towards an extraordinary claim becomes extraordinary.
I have a hard time believing you have no emotional investment towards the apollo hoax. You argue for it too passionately. And it is unneccesary to point out your lack of financial investment. But I doubt you would ever admit Apollo was real. What would convince you? What would convince you 9/11 was not an inside job? I think your true nature would emerge if such proof came to light. I predict some goalposts shifting.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 7, 2007 8:52:04 GMT -4
According to a website run by Liberty survivors . The letters ‘GTR’ on the ship’s bow were 4 feet (1.2 meters) high and the number ‘5’ eight feet (2.4 meters) high [ www.usslibertyinquiry.com/arguments/american/hullmarkings.html ]. According to the captain his ship maintained a bearing of 283 degrees and the Israeli MTB’s approached at 135 degrees. If I’m not mistaken the Israelis were approaching the liberty at about a 148 degree angle (283 – 135) only 32 degrees off of head on. The captain also testified that when they were about 2000 yards (1800 meters) from the American ship they tried to signal it but it was impossible to understand the signal because the view was blocked by smoke and flames. Two of the Liberty’s machine guns started firing at the MTB which led them to fire their machine guns and torpedoes in response. www.ussliberty.org/ncitext.htm My question for those of you with the relevant math skills is, how visible would the Liberty’s hull markings have been give the distance and angle? Can we equate that with seeing smaller numbers and letters at a closer distance? The ship’s bow seen from a more favorable distance and angle And from a similar angle
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 7, 2007 12:34:43 GMT -4
Actually, your first photo is from about 30o off the bow, and the second from almost directly astern.
Of course, white pennant numbers on a grey background aren't exactly unique to US Navy vessels...
... and from 1,800m they would barely be visible, far less legible.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on May 8, 2007 8:31:15 GMT -4
According to this Angle Size Calculator and 8 foot high object 6000 feet (2000 yards) away would measure 0.076394 degrees and from 12 feet (3.6 meters) away a 0.016 foot (0.19 inch, 0.5 cm) object would take up the same angle. www.1728.com/angsize.htm So I propose an experiment for Turbonium 1)copy the ship’s hull number (below) to your word processor 2)adjust it so that the 5 is twice as tall as the numbers and is 0.5 cm tall 3) make the background color light gray (40% gray is pretty close) 4) turn your screen sideways to the appropriate angle 5) step 3.6 meters away. You can adjust the font size and distance proportionately i.e. if you can only get 1.8 meters from the screen make the ‘5’ 0.25 cm tall. Tell me how clearly you can make out what’s on your screen. Don’t forget to bob up and down and side to side a bit to simulate the motion of both ships. Another option would be to adjust one of the photos of the ship above so that the 5 is the right size and skip steps 1 - 3 Presumably some one on the MTB’s had binoculars (typically 7X) so you can repeat the test with the ‘5’ 3.5 cm tall but you’ll have to ‘bob’ a lot more to replicate hand shake and the magnification of the ships movements or better yet if have a pair of binoculars handy use them and leave the ‘5’ 0.5 cm tall. This still wouldn’t be a realistic test because the ships were approaching each other GRT5 I have questions for those of you with military aviation knowledge, several people have said (including “Obviousman” on another forum) that the ordinance used by the planes, bullets, napalm and according to some sources small rockets and the presumed planes (Mirage fighters) weren’t really appropriate for sinking a ship especially one as big as the Liberty. Do any of you concur or disagree? If you could mention what your expertise is on the subject that would he helpful. Also on the quarter master’s log there is an interesting entry at 1507 (i.e. AFTER the MTB’s were IDed as Israeli “Helicopter identified as enemy Russian made Sacouskey model approached ship port side 500 yards” www.usslibertyinquiry.com/evidence/logs/qmbook.pdfI looked at a few sites covering Soviet helicopters and saw no mention of any helicopters with names remotely like that, are we to assume that Ensign Lt. Lucas meant it looked like a Russian imitation of a ‘Sikorsky’? Funny that people (including members of the ships crew) insist that mistaken identity of the ship was impossible from much greater distances but that an experienced officer from the Liberty misidentified a helicopter. Do any of you know what kinds of helicopters the Israelis used at the time do any of them likely to have been sent to reconnaissance and/or rescue members of the Liberty look like Russian (or even American) made “Sikorskys”.
|
|
|
Post by bazbear on May 10, 2007 23:19:40 GMT -4
I have a hard time believing the Liberty was a pure accident. I've read what virtually everyone has to say (edit-and by that I don't mean just these forum posts), and I'm not buying it....unless those poor US sailors were lying out their rear ends. But is there evidence of a conspiracy? Not that I can see, I think it's a case of the fog of war and overzealous Israeli commanders and airman....they didn't WANT to see (and not out of malice either...more tunnel vison) it wasn't Egyptian.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 11, 2007 7:38:16 GMT -4
That's probably most likely: similar events have happened before: in WWII, the Fleet Air Arm had a go at sinking HMS Sheffield before realising she wasn't the Bismarck. Fortunately they missed...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on May 12, 2007 8:50:39 GMT -4
This is obviously a pointless argument to have, but I'll continue anyway because it's fun. When it comes to something as massively complex as 9/11, yes I do believe conspiracies don't get that spectacular. I didn't say it was not possible for conspiracies to be big and spectacular, I just don't think anything that big has happened recently. Hitler wrote this in Mein Kampf.... All this was inspired by the principle -- which is quite true in itself -- that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper stata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. The neocons couldn't have written it any better. Grandpappy Prescott Bush became Hitler's financier soon after, as many of us know. Extraordinary usually just means physical. It would be extraordinary if we found unambiguous physical evidence that Apollo was faked. It would be much more extraordinary if unambiguous physical evidence that Apollo was faked ever changed any of your opinions. And even if I agree with you, that doesn't change that there is not even standard evidence towards any of these conspiracies. There is rampant speculation and interpretation of events, but no actual evidence. Ordinary evidence towards an extraordinary claim becomes extraordinary. That perfectly describes the official conspiracy theory. "It's true because they say it's true, and I believe them." Bin Laden says he did it on video. "Whaddaya mean, this guy has too big a nose? It's Bin Laden for sure!" And finding that video to begin with? What an amazing stroke of luck! I imagine they searched thousands of houses and buildings, and sifted through countless VHS tapes. And then, just when they were about to lose all hope, one lucky soldier finds a tape - labelled "Bin Laden's 9/11 Confession"!!! "Terrorist" passports fly out of flaming planes, out of flaming highrises, then flutter 1000+ feet down onto the sidewalk, no worse for wear. Bush, on two different occasions, says he watched the first plane hit the tower on live TV. First thing he thought...."That's one terrible pilot!" "Hi, mom. This is Mark Bingham. You believe me, don't you?" "Let's roll!!" The thing that really puzzles me is how anyone can't see how hilarious the official conspiracy theory is. I have a hard time believing you have no emotional investment towards the apollo hoax. You argue for it too passionately. And it is unneccesary to point out your lack of financial investment. But I doubt you would ever admit Apollo was real. What would convince you? What would convince you 9/11 was not an inside job? I think your true nature would emerge if such proof came to light. I predict some goalposts shifting. Well, I have to confess - I tend to hold out for actual evidence before I make up my mind, or change my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on May 12, 2007 18:11:07 GMT -4
The IAF didn't have many helicopters during the 1967 war. They had: Aerospatiale Aloutte II Aerospatiale Super Frelon Bell 47G Sikorsky S-58 The S-58 should have been recognised clearly by any USN bridge officers. I did note though that the Super Frelon was used during the LIBERTY incident, and it has a vague similarity in appearance to the Mi-8 HIP - which was used by the Egyptians, Syrians, and other Soviet client-states. Super Frelon Mi-8 I think the person who reported a "Russian sikorsky" got mixed up. They probably saw what they thought was an Mi-8 and reported it as a 'Sikorsky' because that sounds like a Russian name.
|
|