david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 22, 2007 14:05:03 GMT -4
Well, you just destroyed your credibility.
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Jan 22, 2007 14:17:09 GMT -4
So you think Oswald did not do it? Or that he was part of a group of snipers present that day?
Ranb
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2007 14:19:51 GMT -4
Again, Dave, you seem to be using words differently from the rest of us. "Credibility" for instance, seems to you to be directly related to the "number of conspiracy theories a person expressess belief in," wheras most people on this forum would hold the exact opposite opinion.
Would I improve my credibility if I told you I believed in Big Foot?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2007 14:21:56 GMT -4
I don't actually believe in Big Foot by the way - it's a hypothetical.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 22, 2007 14:31:19 GMT -4
Well, you just destroyed your credibility. I am heartbroken. Your belief in me was the only thing that kept me going. When have you ever believed anything I posted? You have your own little world where stars are easy to photograph and a very blurry object is "unquestionably" a fighter and not a 757 and your ignorance of optics is "irrefutable" proof that Apollo was faked, and nothing that I or anyone else has said has dented it one iota, because you can always invent some ludicrous excuse to ignore any evidence that conflicts with your opinions.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 22, 2007 14:43:43 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jan 22, 2007 14:52:28 GMT -4
Your photo of that the plane is either blurry or out of focus. From my guess, it's because it's been magnified from the original view.
I recall that I mentioned about the larger object in front of the white object you claim is a nose cone. I don't recall you answering that. A "before and after" picture was shown to you by PhantomWolf on BAUT. Something is there, obviously.
BTW, it's ironic you mentioned physical evidence in an earlier post in this thread:
We told you of physical evidence that shows that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon, but dismissed it as being planted, without any evidence of such a thing being true.
I have to wonder if you really do speak your own mind David, or if you simply are a salesman for CT sites, as you seem to love to link to them.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 22, 2007 15:05:02 GMT -4
If you think it's sharp, I'd hate to see your face after you've shaved
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jan 22, 2007 19:07:43 GMT -4
Ah yes, the picture that somebody on BAUT analyzed and determined that it was not too short for the angle it came in. Now that you've shown that you've completely ignored that analysis, you've shown that you are not objective in the least. Thanks for clearing that up.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 22, 2007 19:08:51 GMT -4
David, have you looked at the evidence in the Kennedy assassination?
I don't mean conspiracy websites. I mean, for example, have you read the entire Warren Report? Have you gone over the ballistics reports of people who have tested the Single Bullet Theory? Have you examined the autopsy report? Have you looked into the testimony of doctors who have? Have you seen the tests done to recreate the assassination which confirm the Warren Report's findings? Have you looked into the Tippit murder? Have you read the unanimous eyewitness testimony that Oswald killed Tippit? Have you read the eyewitness testimony of at least one person who saw Oswald shooting Kennedy? Have you looked into Oswald's KGB file and seen that he was a crazy little man with delusions of grandeur?
In short, how much research have you put into Kennedy on your own, that you are willing to state that someone else's opinion of it invalidates their opinion of anything else? Or did you just watch JFK, a film with over 100 historical errors?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jan 22, 2007 19:16:02 GMT -4
What David will most likely answer is "all that other stuff could have been faked". It is his mantra.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 22, 2007 19:27:50 GMT -4
Actually, he'll probably say "this was faked/planted" and then provide five links to conspiracy websites that make the claim.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 22, 2007 20:40:35 GMT -4
Even when specifically asked not to.
|
|
|
Post by smb on Jan 22, 2007 22:15:30 GMT -4
Say what you like about him, Noam Chomsky believes in verifiable truth and standards of evidence. [/B] "I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission. (...) "I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel." blog.zmag.org/node/2779[/ul]Chomsky is least persuaded that President John F. Kennedy was murdered as a result of a conspiracy. Everything was supposedly rosy and then the forces of evil just had to come along and kill Kennedy, he mocks. He even wrote a book Rethinking Camelot: JFK, the Vietnam War, and U.S. Political Culture in which he pulled no punches. Put simply, Chomsky hates conspiracy theories.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 23, 2007 4:44:59 GMT -4
OK, but you also said Maybe that gave me the impression that you believed everything he said, including the star photography stuff.
|
|