• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

December Stundie Nominations

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
It's the season of "giving" so please serve us up some nice juicy December Stundie nominations with extra gravy.
 
Damn, fitzgibbon. you guys are too fast for me. That's a delightful stundie nomination ;)
 
Video stundie nomination?

Can I submit a video stundie nomination?

From the video in this thread
From part 3
"When my proof of a slip up actually is shown to be something that proves the opposite, it then proves my proof is even better than I had originally thought...." :confused:
 
CTer: They do screw up, and on of them did, calling his mother ... Bob Brigham. He calls his mother and he says "Hello this is Bob Brigham."

Host: Actually it wasn't Bob Brigham, it was Mark Bingham.

<explanation to viewers who this is on flight 93>

CTer: Mark Bingham, whatever, yeah, right. That's right. "Hello mother this is Mark Bingham." Uh OK? ... Now, does he usually say that to his mother? Probably not.

Host: Have you been in touch with his mother?

CTer: Nope.

Host: Her name's Alice Hoakland, and she says in fact that was one of the things that they would do on the phone, just kidding, because he was the up and coming young businessman.

CTer: ( :confused: )

Host: And when he called her, she says, that's the way he sometimes introduced himself.

CTer: Well, then that just means that they've done a better job.

It's stundiferous. The guys evidence proved exactly the opposite of what he said, therefore the conspiracy is getting better. Or something.
 
Nice. The classic two-way proof: anomalies are proof of a conspiracy, but the absence of anomalies is proof that the anomalies have been covered up, therefore also proof of a conspiracy. A neat example of the form.

Dave
 
carlitos said:
CTer: They do screw up, and on of them did, calling his mother ... Bob Brigham. He calls his mother and he says "Hello this is Bob Brigham."

Host: Actually it wasn't Bob Brigham, it was Mark Bingham.

<explanation to viewers who this is on flight 93>

CTer: Mark Bingham, whatever, yeah, right. That's right. "Hello mother this is Mark Bingham." Uh OK? ... Now, does he usually say that to his mother? Probably not.

Host: Have you been in touch with his mother?

CTer: Nope.

Host: Her name's Alice Hoakland, and she says in fact that was one of the things that they would do on the phone, just kidding, because he was the up and coming young businessman.

CTer: ( :confused: )

Host: And when he called her, she says, that's the way he sometimes introduced himself.

CTer: Well, then that just means that they've done a better job.

It's stundiferous. The guys evidence proved exactly the opposite of what he said, therefore the conspiracy is getting better. Or something.
Click to expand...

Oh. My.

You can close the nominations for December. Carlitos has a sure-fire winner.
 
carlitos said:
It's stundiferous. The guys evidence proved exactly the opposite of what he said, therefore the conspiracy is getting better. Or something.
Click to expand...


That one has always had that connotation. If you were faking a conversation of that nature, the last thing you'd do would be to have the son contact his mother using his full name like that. Nobody would assume that would be a natural way of speaking. So nobody faking it would do it that way.

[.... Unless that's what they want you to think.... :eek: ]

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
That one has always had that connotation. If you were faking a conversation of that nature, the last thing you'd do would be to have the son contact his mother using his full name like that. Nobody would assume that would be a natural way of speaking. So nobody faking it would do it that way.

[.... Unless that's what they want you to think.... :eek: ]

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

Or, of course, that other possibility, always refreshing - that it was an "easter egg" put there to give a clue to the people who take up those types of clues as to what was really going on...

Or that some beleaguered little cog tried to blow the whistle by leaving us these little bread crumbs...

If you are crazy, you can rationalize anything. :boggled:
 
One more from the above article

John Coker says, "Our government has absolutely taken over this country. We the people don't matter anymore."
Click to expand...

The nerve of the U.S. government for taking over the country.
 
Last edited:
Actually consulting a textbook is so passe:

hoi.polloi said:
So we have discussed the ability for the perps to completely fake the footage and photos of nuclear bomb explosions, but now we must answer other questions.

Imagining we remove the shape of our mushroom cloud from the picture, remaining is:

1. Nuclear "fallout" and poisonous radiation
and
2. The spectral, highly-publicized difference between a nuclear facility and a nuclear bomb

If the hypothesis is that our science is wrong about nuclear bombs, what can we answer about the existence of these two phenomena? My guesses would be so:

1. Nuclear radiation is a series of unstable metals developed under specific laboratory conditions - and which sometimes necessitate NASA-type outer space travel, possibly to "collect" radiation. Any way it is developed, "nukes" are basically just normal explosives with radioactive poisonous metals as shrapnel contained within
and
2. The apparent difference between weaponized radiation and radiation used to heat water in nuclear energy facilities is just that: an apparent media difference which is a contradiction/paradox kept in the public eye in order for people to never grasp that there is no difference


But the joke's on me if my science is just so horrible that all I can come up with is the above.
Click to expand...

http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shack/index.php?showtopic=57&hl=
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom