September Stundie Nominations

[332nd]

Its been a while since I nom'd anyone but the following really caught me and I thought all here would 'enjoy' it.
Its from the comments to a cbc.ca story about the possibility that a new telescope could detect volcanoes on planets around nearby stars.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/09/10/telecope-volcanoes-study.html#socialcomments

DennisRegan wroteosted 2010/09/10
at 12:56 PM ET




Yes, yes first we develop a phenomena that preferentially attracts only sulphur the way magnetism attracts,,, ummm, you know, some metals, then we make it more directional than a laser beam and also develop a way of not ending up with any elemental sulphur in the intervening 10 light years glomming onto our space ship

...I'm guessing Superman Kush.

 

[Elizabeth I]

You must admit that the phrase "sulphur-sucker" has a strangely compelling rhythm, though.

 

[jaydeehess]

...I'm guessing Superman Kush.

You must admit that the phrase "sulphur-sucker" has a strangely compelling rhythm, though.

Which would go a long way to supporting Retail's thought.

 

[Mongrel]

How's about this for good, honest Truther research.

Context (paraphrasedi);

"This book supports da Twoof movement"
"Have you read it"
"No, a summary was posted on an 'alternative' news site"
"Try reading the book"

I looked at both sides and shared my investigation with you. This book written by a student of Condi is as official as it gets. I will learn nothing from reading it.

 

[Oystein]

I am discussing a YouTube-user named "OneMoreVoice" via comments on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cwO8loSeaA

Minutes ago (on 9/11/2010, 4:34p.m. ET), he wrote this:

PapaOystein said:
Maybe you want to claim that red-grey chips found by Harrit ed.al. are nano-thermite or whatever?

I make no claim that Harrit doesn't claim. He doesn't say that directly. He does make a decent case for it, while remaining scientifically impartial.

Uhu. Translate: Harrit makes a decent case for a claim he doesn't make, while having no opinion on the results of his own research.

 

[Oystein]

Oh, and it's NUH-tsee, by the way

 

[Horatius]

Oh, and it's NUH-tsee, by the way

Nuh-uh!

 

[triforcharity]

nuh-uh!

shill!!!! :d

 

[Athyrio]

A newbie joins LCF on 9/11/10 and asks why with each progressive version of Loose Change that specific facts - facts that the newbie had been using to convince others - have been dropped.

These "facts":

Condoleezza rice warning mayor of chicago not to fly
Phone calls from airplane
Black boxes found at WTC but not acknowledged by FBI
Testimony of WTC janitor
"boom-boom-boom" clip from NY fire fighter
Windows not shattered at pentagon beside and above impact hole
Equipment on lawn in front of pentagon still there after impact
Analysis of video from pentagon, proving frames being missing
Analysis of damage path inside pentagon
Turbine parts found at pentagon from military equipment, interview with experts
Telephone poles pulled from ground
Tests by nasa of boeing crashing into poles
Photograph of fissure in ground shanksville before crash
Slanted cuts on beams at WTC
Analysis of metal from WTC being of military standard, being able to withstand intense heat
And testimonies of engineers about metal from WTC that cannot melt at given temperatures
Flight 93 landing at airforce base and being emptied quickly

He got this response from JFK, the admin who lurks here on JREF:

I suppose you could call it evolution...

Could LCF possibly evolve into a rational website?

In the next 100 years?

 

[cyclonic]

After a truther posted about the moon landing hoax he was asked if he thinks bigfoot shot JFK from the grassy knoll.

mentalst88 replied: "actually JFK was shot from a person in a street storm drain for the most part................... and crooked VP Johnson had the most to gain... so most definitely he had his hand in ordering the hit. And for the record because of the "Van Allen Radiation belts" and the intense heat (270degrees) from the sun hitting the moon we then never landed on the moon and still have not safely had a "person" come home from a moon landing. how is it that these "FACTS" make me a "hoaxer?!" what r u defending"

obviously it was mr hankey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1LYNPECjNU

 

[MarkCorrigan]

After a truther posted about the moon landing hoax he was asked if he thinks bigfoot shot JFK from the grassy knoll.

mentalst88 replied: "actually JFK was shot from a person in a street storm drain for the most part................... and crooked VP Johnson had the most to gain... so most definitely he had his hand in ordering the hit. And for the record because of the "Van Allen Radiation belts" and the intense heat (270degrees) from the sun hitting the moon we then never landed on the moon and still have not safely had a "person" come home from a moon landing. how is it that these "FACTS" make me a "hoaxer?!" what r u defending"

obviously it was mr hankey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1LYNPECjNU

I kid you not, the bolded was used in The X-Files. He was shot by Cancer Man.

 

[Horatius]

Yeah, the guy in the storm drain is one of the typical JFK claims.

 

[cyclonic]

I kid you not, the bolded was used in The X-Files. He was shot by Cancer Man.

unbelievable, its the first time i have heard it, how far away would the car have to be to get a line of sight on the target?
its just another twoof fairy fantasy.

 

[Horatius]

unbelievable, its the first time i have heard it, how far away would the car have to be to get a line of sight on the target?
its just another twoof fairy fantasy.

Google about a bit and you'll find it. Here's one discussion:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread313169/pg1

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Its been a while since I nom'd anyone but the following really caught me and I thought all here would 'enjoy' it.
Its from the comments to a cbc.ca story about the possibility that a new telescope could detect volcanoes on planets around nearby stars.
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/09/10/telecope-volcanoes-study.html#socialcomments

DennisRegan wroteosted 2010/09/10
at 12:56 PM ET




Yes, yes first we develop a phenomena that preferentially attracts only sulphur the way magnetism attracts,,, ummm, you know, some metals, then we make it more directional than a laser beam and also develop a way of not ending up with any elemental sulphur in the intervening 10 light years glomming onto our space ship

Or we could just build a ramscoop and power it by hydrogen.

 

[grmcdorman]

Or we could just build a ramscoop and power it by hydrogen.

You mean a Bussard ramjet^WP.

 

[Horatius]

This is both a Nom, and a bit of bragging.....


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6327754#post6327754

Since you are claiming that the collapses violate the laws of physics, would you be adverse to taking a test to demonstrate your ability to apply those same laws in order to solve a few problems?

I, and all the other physics-trained people here, have all taken many years of courses that involve doing just that. Before we commit to a "debate", we'd require some evidence that you have a firm grasp on the basic tools needed to make such a debate anything more than yet another round of "explain physics to the guy who refuses to understand it."






My bet is that you will be too cowardly to take my test. I don't expect to be proven wrong.

Such a test is completely irrelevant and is simply an amateurish attempt to redirect attention from the original post. If I post incorrect physics facts, a rational scientifically literate person would explain how they were wrong. They would not simply wave their hands and make bold and completely unsupported pronouncements like JREFies (and coincidentally psychopaths) consistently do.

Yes, it's completely irrelevant for someone who claims he can prove something "violates the laws of physics" to first show he even understands those laws.


Oh, and the brag:

"My bet is that you will be too cowardly to take my test. I don't expect to be proven wrong."


Called it!

 

[Elizabeth I]

Yes, it's completely irrelevant for someone who claims he can prove something "violates the laws of physics" to first show he even understands those laws.

Can he even list which laws he thinks are violated?

 

[X]

nvm. Wrong thread

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Our very own:

My favorite NIST goof of the day is how the beams framing into the flr 13 column 79 to 44 girder thermally expanded in the most amazing of amazing ways.

NIST informs us that they both buckled and expanded (that's truly amazing stuff) to push (actually it just walked, they say) off the intersecting girder.