New Member

[scooby]

Correct. The statement is that if I can use assets, hardware, software whether that be DoD, NASA, HST, KH-11, Keyhole, etc, etc, then I could obviously resolve if something haywire was amiss on 911 day as claimed by the 'Truth' movement.

Such as:

1. All the You Tube videos of birds, camera artifacts, lighting flaws, reflections, video flaws, etc.

Claimed to be planes, stealth aircraft, orbs, etc, etc, all false.


2. Explosives, trace of blasts, explosive signatures, etc, etc.

As claimed: False. Thermal and infrared imaging shows that there were none of these events save for heat from fire and impact thermals.


And so on. My point was that I do visuals on a professional level, under contract, all types, and I have done so in analysis, FX, digital, film, failure, with and for DoD, NASA and other vendors for some 26 years now, and I would be able, and can tell, if there is such validity made by ALL of Strange regarding ALL of these charges in an amateurish attempt to instigate or suggest conspiracy.

Hope that is better.

RAMS

Ipse dixit!

He's trying to sell us an appeal to authority.
I see a lot of this ...

Appeal to authority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it.
It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ipse dixit!

He's trying to sell us an appeal to authority.
I see a lot of this ...

Appeal to authority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it.
It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

An appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority is not relevant to the matter of discussion, to wit, if I say, "I have a PhD in basket weaving, therefore you should listen to what I have to say about black holes..." is a fallacious appeal to authority (note similarity to Judy Woods). If you feels RAMS' experience is not relevant, please explain why.

Furthermore

Argumentum ad vericundiam
This is a move in argument that may or may not be fallacious, depending on the circumstances. It means an appeal to authority, an example of which could be thus:

You say philosophy is important, but Professor X says it's a waste of time.​

Here the speaker refers to the authority of the professor to counter the claim that philosophy is important. The problem is that the presumed authority may or may not be relevant: if the professor is (or was) a lifelong student of philosophy and decided after years working in the field that it really is a waste of time, then perhaps we should look into his reasons for saying so? On the other hand, if he is a professor of mineralogy, say, then—on the face of it—his opinion bears no more or less weight than anyone else's. It may be that additional factors are important: perhaps this professor has also studied philosophy or is known to us to be a particularly trustworthy and astute individual whose opinion we have come to value?
In short, appealing to authority where the authority does know (or is expected to know) what he or she is talking about is a legitimate move in argument, but when the authority's expertise is not relevant then it is fallacious—indeed, a fallacy of relevance, as before.
Matters are not always so clear-cut, though. Even if the authority in question really is an authority in the field, it may be that the question under consideration is one of much controversy among his or her fellow academics. In our example, other philosophy professors may be found who say that philosophy is important, so that appealing to authorities on one or other side or an argument does no more than appraise us of what they think. Take another instance:

Professor Y, a highly respected biologist at a prestigious university, says that the likelihood of live evolving on Mars is so small that, for practical purposes, we can assume it didn't; therefore spending money on searching for life on the red planet is a waste of valuable resources.​

Here the implicit idea behind the criticism is that with only a finite amount of money to go around and other deserving causes in need of support, why should we support a quest that academics like Professor Y agree is very likely to fail? Is this argument fallacious? It depends: we would need to know more information, such as whether the professor is an expert in the appropriate area of biology and if there is any controversy among similar experts. If the professor's opinion is indicative of the relevant biological community, then perhaps this is information we should keep in mind when forming an opinion on the issue? On the other hand, if the professor is something of a maverick and the weight of biological opinion goes against him or her, then appealing to him or her as an authority could be seen as fallacious, distracting us from the point at issue. In general, we need to be careful in assessing the value of expert testimony, as well as its relevance.

(bolding mine)

 

[Gravy]

I took RAMS off ignore to see what this was about. I remain highly skeptical of his claims.

Robert, you said, "I have the ability and software to resolve through HST a license plate number on a car at 100 miles from low earth orbit."

HST is the Hubble Space Telescope correct? And the HST, which is in a high-speed orbit around Earth, is not used for Earth observation and cannot be used to read automobile license plates, correct? You do not in fact have the ability to read license plates with the Hubble Space Telescope, correct?

You said

Explosives, trace of blasts, explosive signatures, etc, etc.

As claimed: False. Thermal and infrared imaging shows that there were none of these events save for heat from fire and impact thermals.

Are you saying that satellite(s) capable of high-resolution imaging were aimed at lower Manhattan between 8:45 and 10:30 am on 9/11/01, and that you had access to those images? Or are you referring to some other imaging system in use that day?

Can you explain how these satellites or other systems can distinguish between the absolutely enormous thermal output of the fires in the towers and any demolition devices within those towers, which would produce relatively miniscule amounts of heat?

Edit: You mentioned thermal and infrared imaging. Is there a difference?

Are "Explosives, trace of blasts, explosive signatures" all the same thing, or three different things?

Also, in addition to the Hubble, you mentioned Keyhole and KH-11 satellites. All Keyhole satellites are KH-class, hence the initials, or do I have that wrong?

Finally, do you have a security clearance?

Thanks for your time.

Yours confusedly,
Mark Roberts

 

[RAMS]

Ipse dixit!

He's trying to sell us an appeal to authority.
I see a lot of this ...

Appeal to authority
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument in logic, consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it.
It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin: argument to respect) or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

It is an 'appeal' to nothing. Reverse it. Why does a common cell phone photo-video, taken from a bystander, take precedent over someone trained to observe same visual, with software and telescope data along with hardware, not available to the hystander and non professional, have less credibility for what they report after analysis?

That is the point. (then, of course, a counter offered with a 'link' on the net for validation--'wikipedia', no less..........)



RAMS

 

[tonicblue]

I took RAMS off ignore to see what this was about. I remain highly skeptical of his claims.

Robert, you said, "I have the ability and software to resolve through HST a license plate number on a car at 100 miles from low earth orbit."

HST is the Hubble Space Telescope correct? And the HST, which is in a high-speed orbit around Earth, is not used for Earth observation and cannot be used to read automobile license plates, correct? You do not in fact have the ability to read license plates with the Hubble Space Telescope, correct?

You said
Are you saying that satellite(s) capable of high-resolution imaging were aimed at lower Manhattan between 8:45 and 10:30 am on 9/11/01, and that you had access to those images? Or are you referring to some other imaging system in use that day?

Can you explain how these satellites or other systems can distinguish between the absolutely enormous thermal output of the fires in the towers and any demolition devices within those towers, which would produce relatively miniscule amounts of heat?

Edit: You mentioned thermal and infrared imaging. Is there a difference?

Are "Explosives, trace of blasts, explosive signatures" all the same thing, or three different things?

Also, in addition to the Hubble, you mentioned Keyhole and KH-11 satellites. All Keyhole satellites are KH-class, hence the initials, or do I have that wrong?

Finally, do you have a security clearance?

Thanks for your time.

Yours confusedly,
Mark Roberts

Gravy, this might not be related but I thought I should tell you.

On a recent radio interview, Judy Wood and her lawyer were interviewed, during the course of which they talked about hubble being pointed at the earth and even being used to deflect a beam.

Might not be related as I say but I have had the impression since I first saw RAMs that he is here for some very nefarious reason.

 

[Gravy]

I don't get the impression that RAMS is here for some nefarious reason. Judging from your other posts, I think you're a wee bit paranoid.

I hope you know, really know, that Judy Wood is barking mad and should not be taken seriously except as an object of curiosity and pity.

The Hubble sometimes points one of its wide-field cameras at the Earth to use it as a flat-field light calibration source. It doesn't spy on us or reflect energy beams to blow up buildings.

 

[RAMS]

I took RAMS off ignore to see what this was about. I remain highly skeptical of his claims.

Robert, you said, "I have the ability and software to resolve through HST a license plate number on a car at 100 miles from low earth orbit."

HST is the Hubble Space Telescope correct? And the HST, which is in a high-speed orbit around Earth, is not used for Earth observation and cannot be used to read automobile license plates, correct? You do not in fact have the ability to read license plates with the Hubble Space Telescope, correct?

You said
Are you saying that satellite(s) capable of high-resolution imaging were aimed at lower Manhattan between 8:45 and 10:30 am on 9/11/01, and that you had access to those images? Or are you referring to some other imaging system in use that day?

Can you explain how these satellites or other systems can distinguish between the absolutely enormous thermal output of the fires in the towers and any demolition devices within those towers, which would produce relatively miniscule amounts of heat?

Edit: You mentioned thermal and infrared imaging. Is there a difference?

Are "Explosives, trace of blasts, explosive signatures" all the same thing, or three different things?

Also, in addition to the Hubble, you mentioned Keyhole and KH-11 satellites. All Keyhole satellites are KH-class, hence the initials, or do I have that wrong?

Finally, do you have a security clearance?

Thanks for your time.

Yours confusedly,
Mark Roberts

Mark,

Through lensing, along with many other hardware on orbit, and not HST exclusively (since HST cannot resolve things on earth, as is), and many other low-high orbit vehicles and such, along with available visuals from DoD, NRO, NSA, NASA, NOAA, etc, one can resolve many things better than a bystander can with a cell phone camera.

I did not see or use any hardware for resolving anything on 911 day as I was out of the country. I should have stated, and assumed to be understood as such, that I 'can' use what is not publicly available look down assets to use and counter the 'Strange' claims of alleged conspiracy or coverups or other illegalities, they use as the same source imagery.

Some things regarding high end visuals that contractors use in aerospace work are classified. Some results from these hardware are not, some are available as public domain.

What I stated, and remains as such as true, that with such things as mentioned for hardware associated with organizations above there is the capability of resolving a license plate number from orbit. True. Janes confirms this. Whether that data is available on 'wiki' or other online sourcing or not, I do not know.

Further, as trained in such, by looking at what is available on the net, as referenced, ad infinitum, by that stated by the conspiracy movement as 'fact', can easily be explained for what it really is, by those trained to do such, such as myself in visual interpretation.

That is the point.

I believe my examples and my website visual data verifies this along with my background. As much, at least, as the YouTube videos used to claim of 'orbs', and 'stealth aircraft', demolitions, explosions, secret beams, etc, and other such nonprofessional assessment claimed by the 911 conspiracy movement.

Nothing more or less.

Thermal imaging determines heat, which you know, infrared determines red shifting for other non visual light spectrum.

Hope that is less 'confusing'. At least less so than the conspiracy claims of stealth aircraft (birds) and such.

Thank you for the questions. Hope that is helpful and better explained.


RAMS

Edit: Security Cearance? Cannot say.

 

[tonicblue]

I don't get the impression that RAMS is here for some nefarious reason. Judging from your other posts, I think you're a wee bit paranoid.

I hope you know, really know, that Judy Wood is barking mad and should not be taken seriously except as an object of curiosity and pity.

The Hubble sometimes points one of its wide-field cameras at the Earth to use it as a flat-field light calibration source. It doesn't spy on us or reflect energy beams to blow up buildings.

Yes I know Judy is mental.

By nefarious I meant I think he is a truther trying to make JREF skeptics look bad. Just trying to help.

I know the hubble doesn;t do that, that is exactly my point.

 

[RAMS]

Yes I know Judy is mental.

By nefarious I meant I think he is a truther trying to make JREF skeptics look bad. Just trying to help.

I know the hubble doesn;t do that, that is exactly my point.

Whatever you are (another anoynmous 'orb'), please re-read my immediate answer just above your post above, to Mark on this topic.

I notced that not only does the 'Strange' movement have the inability to collate, they appear to not be able to read English as well.

What in the answer-post to Mark, above, in any way puts the JREF-sketpic community in a bad light?

Odd this. Talk about confusing..............

RAMS

 

[Gravy]

Hope that is less 'confusing'.

It is. You invented a story about what you could do and what you did do in terms of determining foul play on 9/11. This fits in with your mock-heroic lawsuit nonsense. You are either delusional or a very poor liar. My guess is the former. Back to "ignore" you go.

 

[Gravy]

What in the answer-post to Mark, above, in any way puts the JREF-sketpic community in a bad light?

Nothing, because it's obvious that you're just making stuff up.

 

[tonicblue]

It is. You invented a story about what you could do and what you did do in terms of determining foul play on 9/11. This fits in with your mock-heroic lawsuit nonsense. You are either delusional or a very poor liar. My guess is the former. Back to "ignore" you go.

LOL

Gravy you amuse me. You are so straight.

By the way, which posts of mine gave you the impression I was paranoid?

 

[scooby]

An appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority is not relevant to the matter of discussion, to wit, if I say, "I have a PhD in basket weaving, therefore you should listen to what I have to say about black holes..." is a fallacious appeal to authority (note similarity to Judy Woods). If you feels RAMS' experience is not relevant, please explain why.

Furthermore (bolding mine)

No I don't believe that this is the case ...

"It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

No I don't believe that this is the case ...

"It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge, but a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Restating your claim is not fulfilling, "If you feels RAMS' experience is not relevant, please explain why."

Argumentum ad vericundiam
This is a move in argument that may or may not be fallacious, depending on the circumstances

http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_vericundiam

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
...
1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
...
2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
...
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
...
4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
...
5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
...
6. The authority in question must be identified.
...

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes.
At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad verecundiam

Now, stop relying on Wiki's summary introduction to the article on appeal to authority and address the actual means whereby it can be demonstrated that such has occurred.

 

[Gravy]

LOL

Gravy you amuse me. You are so straight.

By the way, which posts of mine gave you the impression I was paranoid?

The ones in which you seem to think that because a couple of people were confused, reality for the rest of the world was actually altered. You seem eager to entertain wild absurdities (NORAD didn't scramble, truck bomb painted with aircraft hitting city exploded) as long as they shout "conspiracy!"

You wouldn't do this with mundane subjects, would you? Suppose a traveler asked you for directions to Main Street, and you told her it was five blocks north. Then, after she left, you realized that in fact Main Street was five blocks south. The way you've been acting, your confusion would mean that Main Street actually moved 10 blocks and was now to the north. In reality, the traveler would not find it there. Ever.

 

[tonicblue]

The ones in which you seem to think that because a couple of people were confused, reality for the rest of the world was actually altered. You seem eager to entertain wild absurdities (NORAD didn't scramble, truck bomb painted with aircraft hitting city exploded) as long as they shout "conspiracy!"

You wouldn't do this with mundane subjects, would you? Suppose a traveler asked you for directions to Main Street, and you told her it was five blocks north. Then, after she left, you realized that in fact Main Street was five blocks south. The way you've been acting, your confusion would mean that Main Street actually moved 10 blocks and was now to the north. In reality, the traveler would not find it there. Ever.

I await the mainstream news sources you claim covered the mural van incident.

I didn;t make that up, Gravy. There is audio of police describing it and oplanning to beat the men up and arresting them. There is a government report which cites the incident as a fact.

Now could I have the sources that used this to show confusion. You make a claim, you back it up. Fair enough?

 

[RAMS]

It is. You invented a story about what you could do and what you did do in terms of determining foul play on 9/11. This fits in with your mock-heroic lawsuit nonsense. You are either delusional or a very poor liar. My guess is the former. Back to "ignore" you go.

That above is a pathological lie. I have 'invented' nothing. I have stated fact of what I can and cannot do visually. I even clarified same for you in the above posts. What in my post(s) in any way alludes to counter to the JREF communtiy and that the 911 conspiracy movement is not nuts. That I did not see anything on 911 day? (since I was out of the country). And what is stated by me that you fail to understand in clear English of abilities for visual interpretation for those thus trained to do so, such as myself?

What is it about that statement(s) do you not understand?

I have stated categoricaly with the assets available within the realm of my work, that beyond even yourself, those assets used, have revealed nothing to support the 911 conspiracy movement. What is in that statement you do not understand?

Additionally, there have been untold admonisment of me to not mention any litigation regarding anyone so harmed by the 911 conspiracy movement. I have complied.

Too, how does my answers to you, in any of the above posts stated by me, to your post-questions, suggest 'delusional?'


RAMS

 

[scooby]

Restating your claim is not fulfilling, "If you feels RAMS' experience is not relevant, please explain why."

You explained why, with the list you posted ...

Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
...
1. The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
...
2. The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
...
3. There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
...
4. The person in question is not significantly biased.
...
5. The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
...
6. The authority in question must be identified.
...

We've got some galute turns up in his ten gallon hat, who paints for NASA, and you assume all the above? I don't. Based on the fact that we can't even be sure of 6 - anyone could pretend to be this person and post here, we're looking at a stunningly decisive zero marks.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
We've got some galute turns up in his ten gallon hat, who paints for NASA, and you assume all the above?

Where did I say, or imply, that I felt RAMS met the criteria listed there?

I don't. Based on the fact that we can't even be sure of 6 - anyone could pretend to be this person and post here, we're looking at a stunningly decisive zero marks.

So then push RAMS to substantiate his claims. Then you'll have one of three situations:
1) He does/can not substantiate his claims. For which you point out that his appeal to authority has no value since it can not be substantiated.
2) He does substantiate his claims, but in doing so demonstrates that his "authority" on the subject is false.
3) He does substantiate his claims, and in doing so demonstrates that his "authority" on the subject is genuine.

 

[Gravy]

I await the mainstream news sources you claim covered the mural van incident.

I didn;t make that up, Gravy. There is audio of police describing it and oplanning to beat the men up and arresting them. There is a government report which cites the incident as a fact.

Now could I have the sources that used this to show confusion. You make a claim, you back it up. Fair enough?

And there we have it. Is this supposed to be your defense against charges of paranoia?

So you think that a truck bomb actually exploded on King Street on 9/11, far from the World Trade Center, without a single person noticing. You think that cops "planned" (you made that up, by the way. You shouldn't do that.) to beat up the perps who drove the "truck bomb" that had a mural of a "radio-controlled" plane crashing into New York City?

Apparently you do think these things are true, despite the fact that the "government report" that you quoted says the truck was an innocuous delivery vehicle. No bomb!

Don't take my word that this patently absurd event didn't happen. How many times do I have to ask you to call the NYPD? Or you can write to them! They have email! They're open for business right now!

Good lord.