|
Post by turbonium on Oct 13, 2005 2:23:21 GMT -4
Thx, peter...I guess I should have started a separate thread, but it didn't seem to me like it would be an issue by itself that would spark much interest.... Do you have any thoughts on the matter? If you don't, maybe I was right - it may not be interesting enough to justify it having its own thread! j/k!!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 12, 2005 23:50:38 GMT -4
This topic is capable of veering off on many tangents, but at the risk of doing just that, I thought i'd throw another wrench into the works.
I have often wondered about evolution in terms of how it could explain the very non-scientific issue of spirituality. I don't want to make this a religious issue, but for those who believe in the human spirit, or soul, it would make evolution a difficult theory to accept. The physical, biological and chemical processes discussed in evolution theory have no basis for allowing concepts that don't readily seem to exist, or at least are not detectable, in our three-dimensional, five sense world.
I don't want to make too much out of this point, and I'm not a religious type in the least, but it makes for something that I wonder about, at least. I thought about posting this because I've had a a couple of "premonition"- type experiences in my past, that don't readily fit into the world of scientific analysis. So, it makes me definitely aware that there are phenomena that can't be simply put under a microscope or typical analyses.
In the same way, the emotions are another higher level trait that humans have, which are non-existent or more primitive in lower life forms.
Just putting in a little twist - I don't necessarily expect any replies on the topic. But I'd be interested in what others here think about it.....
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Nov 1, 2007 2:51:23 GMT -4
Caught a clip of Bill being interrupted by one while speaking for his wife's campaign. After a few quips, he says "An inside job? How dare you...how DARE you". Not a big BC fan but it was good to see him call them on this foolishness. They just spout off and havew zero accountability. Maybe someone should introduce them to the legal system via the term "slander". ETA: Incidently, when BC made the above comment, the crowd went absolutely wild...so much for the 9/11 insiders capturing the heart of the populace. Sorry guys, folks aren't buying it. And there isn't a more impartial group of people than a bunch of Clinton lickspittles. A true representation of the American populace, if ever there was one!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Oct 11, 2007 3:15:23 GMT -4
I think the first picture of Madison has been altered.
To me, he looks like he's been pasted into the snowscape. His back lacks fine hairs and appears unnaturally "snipped" along the edge. It also looks like there is unnatural blurring along the outside edges of Madison in some places, like at the right side edge of his neck.
It's just my first guess after looking at the pics for about 5 minutes, so I'm probably off the mark!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 12, 2007 3:02:52 GMT -4
But if they ever do decide to hire someone for an "OBL" video, I hope they get one of those guys from ZZ Top!
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 12, 2007 2:56:36 GMT -4
Answer me this - why resort to silly video fakery when you could hire your own OBL look-alike (especially in that heavy beard) and simply have him say whatever you wanted him to? Why bother hiring an OBL look-alike when you can simply resort to silly video fakery? I like it when a question can be answered with a question...
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 13, 2007 3:42:11 GMT -4
Do you have some kind of problem with a guy cashing in on the recordings of his dead dad?
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 6, 2007 4:51:09 GMT -4
No there are people that claim that Hunt was one of the three Tramps that were arrested near the scene (they were actually some distance away.) These same people totally ignore that a) those they claim were the tramps were not in Dallas and that it is provavble that they weren't there, and b) the three tramps were identified and the one they claim is Hunt is a guy named Gus W. Abrams. The other two were Harold Doyle and John Forester Gedney. I don't know if E. Howard himself mentioned his whereabouts that day in either the LATimes video, or the recently released audio. But at least one witness (Marita Lorenz) said she saw Hunt in Dallas on an occasion unrelated to the tramps. And Hunt's son says his mother Dorothy told him that his father was in Dallas at that time. As I said, we simply don't know. There is no way to actually prove it either way.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 6, 2007 4:28:04 GMT -4
According to the Posion Planet article it was an audio tape, if you have evidence to the contary let us know. That makes it a bit suspect if he wanted to 'come clean' why not do it on video? An LA Times article refers to a video with Hunt.... Was JFK plot buried with Hunt?[/b] Hunt answers questions on a videotape...www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007703210323AFAIK, the LA Times has not yet released the video. I think this is different material than the confession tape, which is said to be from an audio cassette.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2007 4:02:27 GMT -4
Apparently, the confession was made on video, which would most likely prove it was genuine.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2007 2:01:06 GMT -4
Do we even know for sure that it really is Howard Hunt on the tape and not a hoax? Does anybody know what his voice sounded like? The confession tape was apparently released by his son. It should be easy enough to verify whether or not he is the son of E. Howard Hunt.. One would think it quite likely that other recordings do exist somewhere (of Hunt speaking), considering he came into high profile because of his involvement with Watergate. Since the confession tape has only come out recently, it may take some time before we know for certain whether or not it's authentic.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jul 5, 2007 1:39:57 GMT -4
... we knew that Hunt was not in Dallas at the time of the assassination..... No, we don't know that. There were witnesses who said he was in Dallas, and others who said he wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Jun 23, 2007 3:50:19 GMT -4
Thanks for the link, Lazarusty. It's an excellent report.
Not that Lone-Nutters will ever think anyone but Oswald did it, just like the Warren Commission said he did.
Deathbed confessions? I can already hear them saying they're "worthless", "not the slightest evidence ", etc.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 9, 2007 9:30:57 GMT -4
I mean that the steel samples that could be identified as to where they had been and were tested to see what temperature they reached, did reach the temperatures that the computer models predicted that they would. Now because I know your response to this will be "But those bits of steel never got hotter then 600°C", I'm going to deal with this right now. The computer model predicted that they wouldn't, the parts that were used were out lying from the main fires. One of the main reasons for this is because the columns in the main fire were unidentifiable as far as determining where they came from. While all the columns were marked with their location, these marks were done in a paint that was destroyed by exposure to flames over 250°C. That meant that most of the core columns in the main impact area had their identifications burn off and so while NIST could find the damaged and broken pieces they could not identify where they were from. This is the critical point. If they can't determine where they are from, they can't compare the temperature the steel reached with the position their model predicts, therefore it was not worth testing those pieces for temperature. The pieces they could identify were from the cooler parts of the fire where the identifiers still remained intact and they used those pieces to validate their models. That is the reason those pieces of steel were much cooler, and the computer models predicted that they would be found to be much cooler. There is no conflict between the low temps of the tested steel and the high temps of the model because the low temps in the steel matched the low temps in the model, the high temps in the model were elsewhere. Nonsense. The ID numbers were stamped right into the metal of the core columns... Where you got the idea that all the numbers were painted on, and that the numbers burned off if exposed to high temp fires, is beyond me! The only pure rubbish is what you are saying. I never said the videos and photos showed the core columns of the damage to them, I said that the videos and photos showed the progression of the fires. They were able to track the fires by seen where the fires were burning in the images, by looking at which windows had been broken by the heat and by where the smoke was coming from. Try learning to read what was said. I know exactly what you said. You said that the photos and videos helped validate their models. I'm saying that what could be seen of the fires, and the progression of the fires, in those photos and videos does not validate core columns being exposed to the intense fires, as depicted in their models. Even the fires we did see were not accurately modeled by NIST. Look at this fire model... Temperatures up to 1000C along the perimeter of one wall?!? Where did they come up with those figures? It sure wasn't from the photos and videos. Validation, my butt.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 8, 2007 6:26:00 GMT -4
The fire models were validated against both the test samples which were used to determine if the fire temperature in known points agreed with the what the computer models predicted (they did) The "test samples"? Do you mean the second series of physical tests (with the workstations)? If you do, then perhaps you are aware that NIST does not list the temperatures attained during those tests. They only list the heat release rates and mass loss profiles. wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5.pdf (pg.104 of 240) If you're referring to something else, then please specify what you mean, and which part of the report I can find it in. and with photos and video of the fire progression through the buildings. That's pure rubbish. First of all, there are no photos or videos which even show the core columns! There is no way of knowing whether any of the core columns are even damaged or severed, let alone determining where, or how many, of those columns are exposed to fires, let alone knowing or guessing what the temperatures of those columns are!! And even the steel we could see (perimeter columns, etc.) showed no evidence of reaching temperatures anywhere near 600C. None of this validates the fire simulation modeling results.
|
|