• 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.

Gage: Hell No I Ain't Reading Mackey's White Paper

JamesB

Master Poster
JamesB
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
2,152
Don't got time to bleed! OK, I am paraphrasing, but I found Gage's answer rather pathetic in this interview for the upcoming issue of Skeptical Inquirer.

Have you read [Ryan Mackey's] white paper?

Gage: No, but others have. And I understand it is full of nonsense and manipulation that has been exposed very well by Jim Hoffman at the website 911research.com. He has answered all of those assertions. Jim Hoffman's response has not been responded to by Ryan Mackey. I don't have the time to look into every critique of ours, particularly when others have responded to that.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UhYn1Kdi78c
 
Well, until he does, that's why he deserves No New Investigation.

The claim that I haven't responded to Jim Hoffman's silly response is complete nonsense. That response is in the version 2.1 edition of the whitepaper itself, and has been for something like three years now.

This also is an iron-clad example of a broken promise from him.

It's not hard to read.

ETA: For sake of completeness, v. 2.1 of my whitepaper, including response to Jim Hoffman, was completed on 24 May 2008. I'm unaware of any substantial criticism of it since then, hence there is no v. 2.2. There is also this thread here at the JREF discussing Hoffman's complaints more or less as they appeared. So, over three years ago.

Ya might want to actually read it, Mr. Gage. ;)
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Well, until he does, that's why he deserves No New Investigation.

The claim that I haven't responded to Jim Hoffman's silly response is complete nonsense. That response is in the version 2.1 edition of the whitepaper itself, and has been for something like three years now.

This also is an iron-clad example of a broken promise from him.

It's not hard to read.

ETA: For sake of completeness, v. 2.1 of my whitepaper, including response to Jim Hoffman, was completed on 24 May 2008. I'm unaware of any substantial criticism of it since then, hence there is no v. 2.2. There is also this thread here at the JREF discussing Hoffman's complaints more or less as they appeared. So, over three years ago.

Ya might want to actually read it, Mr. Gage. ;)
Click to expand...

Gage can't be bothered with all of your "facts" and "sciences". Those types of things don't apply in a fantasy world.
 
Hoffman? The fellow who thought installing 1.8 million wirelessly remote-controlled explosive ceiling tiles at WTC1+2 was "a plausible theory" ??

It's almost funny
 
Message to Gage:

Yes, Jim Hoffman has answered Ryan Mackey. But what he has not done is disprove him. You need to do better. When we at JREF point at 9/11 Myths, Mark Robert's page, Debunking 9/11, and previous threads, it's because they contain arguments refuting the claim.

You can't just point at an argument and pretend it refutes the opposition. The argument must actually do so.

You must do better. That is a weak answer, bordering on an intent to quit the field.

End message.
 
I'm surprised the money hungry fool hasn't taken me up on his offer yet. I'd still like to get his personal email account to directly give him the offer.

(I'd be willing to give him the rest of the funds needed in his latest DVD offering, or do the editing myself for free. About $1,400 dollars)
 
Bob Blaskiewicz has more about his interview with Gage, and his upcoming article in Skeptical Inquirer, here.

Not to be confused with the special Skeptical Inquirer issue on 9/11 Truth, which just hit the news stands.

si_cover_sm.jpg


Cue Richard Gage whining that Skeptical Inquirer "Attacks 9/11 Truth Movement, Avoids Vast Body of Scientific Evidence" in 3,2,1...
 
R.Mackey said:
Well, until he does, that's why he deserves No New Investigation.

The claim that I haven't responded to Jim Hoffman's silly response is complete nonsense. That response is in the version 2.1 edition of the whitepaper itself, and has been for something like three years now.

This also is an iron-clad example of a broken promise from him.

It's not hard to read.

ETA: For sake of completeness, v. 2.1 of my whitepaper, including response to Jim Hoffman, was completed on 24 May 2008. I'm unaware of any substantial criticism of it since then, hence there is no v. 2.2. There is also this thread here at the JREF discussing Hoffman's complaints more or less as they appeared. So, over three years ago.

Ya might want to actually read it, Mr. Gage. ;)
Click to expand...

maybe you should add pop ups and a coloring section too, Ryan.
 
Hey, all. Bob-the-Interviewer here. A few points:

1) EDX: The conference was in the First Iconium Baptist Church.
2) Ryan, I appreciate your white paper. A nice bridge between technical information and a perhaps non-technical audience. I read it out loud to the orphans every Christmas. :) Actually, I'll be passing it under my students to illustrate how conspiracist facts aren't actually facts. (I use conspiracy theories to teach research and fact checking to my college freshmen.)
3) Hopefully, I will be able to publish a much longer version of my print (pending) article online at Skeptical Inquirer. I went out for drinks with a lot of the people afterward and interviewed them--none of that made the cut, so we are pulling a King Solomon, merrily whacking my baby in half. Nobody here will be surprised by a lot of what was said, I don't think, but it was quite an eye-opener for me.
4) If you want to see about my visit to the TruthCon (called, "All they want is the truth"), it is up at the CSI/SI website under "special articles," which is better, I guess, than being in the " 'special' articles" section.

RJB
 
This is typical of the truth movement's biggest problem. The inability to deal with criticism. Its been years since the dialog has really moved anywhere.
 
rjblaskiewicz said:
Hey, all. Bob-the-Interviewer here. A few points:

1) EDX: The conference was in the First Iconium Baptist Church.
2) Ryan, I appreciate your white paper. A nice bridge between technical information and a perhaps non-technical audience. I read it out loud to the orphans every Christmas. :) Actually, I'll be passing it under my students to illustrate how conspiracist facts aren't actually facts. (I use conspiracy theories to teach research and fact checking to my college freshmen.)
3) Hopefully, I will be able to publish a much longer version of my print (pending) article online at Skeptical Inquirer. I went out for drinks with a lot of the people afterward and interviewed them--none of that made the cut, so we are pulling a King Solomon, merrily whacking my baby in half. Nobody here will be surprised by a lot of what was said, I don't think, but it was quite an eye-opener for me.
4) If you want to see about my visit to the TruthCon (called, "All they want is the truth"), it is up at the CSI/SI website under "special articles," which is better, I guess, than being in the " 'special' articles" section.

RJB
Click to expand...

Welcome aboard, Bob!

You won't be able to post links for a dozen or so posts more, so here's a linky to "All they want is the truth".

Cheers, Dave
 
Thanks, Dave! Before you know it, I'll have an avatar and everything.

If you read the TruthCon article, I had to cut out the part where I wrote to the Jesuits. I actually followed up with them in an email, which I post below:

I recently attended a conspiracy theory conference and one speaker, a bloke named Eric Jon Phelps, accused the Jesuits of...pretty much everything bad ever (very 19th century, I thought). Anyway, because the conference also addressed UFOs and alien cover-ups, I asked him if he believed in aliens. His reply was, and this is verbatim:

“There are no such things as aliens. The ‘Grays’ [big-headed aliens with large dark eyes] are creations of the Jesuits in their deep underground military bases through their genetic experimentation. All the grays are hybrids. They cannot reproduce; they live short lives; they are lesser than what a man is—that’s one of the signs of a hybrid. What I maintain is that the Jesuits have perfected their antigravity craft, and god knows what other technology, and so what they did when they crashed at Roswell, they put those little creatures in there."

I was wondering if the Society of Jesus could comment on this allegation. (It would be completely awesome in every conceivable way if they would confirm it.) I'm also curious to know what possible use the Jesuits would have for antigravity craft.

I ask this question in all possible (not much) seriousness, and a reply would be on the record.
Click to expand...

The Jesuits have remained disturbingly, perhaps tellingly, silent on this matter. Coincidence? Read the book! :) Consider this a JREF exclusive.

Bob
 
Last edited:
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Welcome aboard, Bob!

You won't be able to post links for a dozen or so posts more, so here's a linky to "All they want is the truth".

Cheers, Dave
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forum, rjblaskiewicz.

I just read your article via Dave's link and it seems to me that you missed out on a good business opportunity.

I woulda made a claim to the entire conference under the provisions of the Guano Islands Act.;)
 
rjblaskiewicz said:
Thanks, Dave! Before you know it, I'll have an avatar and everything.

If you read the TruthCon article, I had to cut out the part where I wrote to the Jesuits. I actually followed up with them in an email, which I post below:



The Jesuits have remained disturbingly, perhaps tellingly, silent on this matter. Coincidence? Read the book! :) Consider this a JREF exclusive.

Bob
Click to expand...
Wow! That really makes me sad that I got my engineering degree from a Marianist run university. I'f I'd have gone to a Jesuit school, I could have learned all the anti-gravity secrets!

That stuff about the Grays I already knew. :)
 
Yeah, the Roswell stuff was so unexpected that I got to wondering about the history of Jesuit conspiracy theories in the US, and I've been collecting resources about them ever since. Let's hear it for Google books, eh wot? I think that my talk at CSICon is going to be mostly about those.

You know, Brian Thompson got to post links in his first post. Presumably it's his Jesuiticalogical connections.

Bob
 
We (might) have them. Notice my custom title. I work at Wright-Patt.

I can't say anything though. Sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom