This is not the April Stundie nomination thread

Not to mention that there were plenty of other search engines available at the time.

AOL being a big one.
 
Schindler's List was made in black and white to trick people into thinking they were watching actual Holocaust footage:
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/04/27/oskar-schindler-lessons-from-an-alpha-male/#comment-101211

I know several people who know the Holocaust happened because they saw the actual footage in grainy WWII era black and white — aka Schindler’s List. Stephen Spielberg — oh what a clever one he is! “Let’s make it in black and white so the dummies will unconsciously think they are watching actual footage of the Holocaust!”
Click to expand...
 
LordXenu said:
Schindler's List was made in black and white to trick people into thinking they were watching actual Holocaust footage:
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/04/27/oskar-schindler-lessons-from-an-alpha-male/#comment-101211
Click to expand...

Ya know, I had to stop posting and following the Holocaust thread cuz it made me so angry..... this post makes me want to starve a million baby seals just so i can have enough leather to weather the cold heart it came from.... seriously, it's not even the dumz at this point, it's so evil Hitler himself would have said "ummm lighten up would ya?"
 
I realise this is a few months old but I had never heard this logic before, difficult to refute.
Damon FDec 31, 2011 06:55 PM
The main point against Wood's theory seems to be that the energy required for the directed energy weapon would be too great. However, the flaw of this argument is that the alternative is that there was no directed energy weapon. In that case, zero energy would be required from a directed energy weapon. If that's the case, how can you make the claim that there wouldn't be enough energy from a directed energy weapon if you say it came down with none at all?

This is similar to my complaint of the thermite/explosive rebuttal that it wouldn't be possible to get enough explosives into the building. If that were the case, how can you say the building collapsed without explosives if you can't get enough explosives in the building to bring it down?
Click to expand...
http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/judy-woods-where-did-towers-go.html?m=1
 
This had a kind of out-of-the-blue aspect that I liked. The context is that Steve Novella has a post at Neurologica discussing why the evidence for the supposed sunken city of Cambay off the Indian coast is weak. Commenter Judy1's response is this:

Dr Novella – I understand that it would be preferable if every new piece of scientific data or discovery went before a learned clique of a peer-reviewed scientific experts than say someone like me, but sometimes the motivation for not releasing data immediately (as in the case of this discovery made in 2002) has more to do with political expediency than something more noble.
I know you don’t take this view, but many people still believe that with any new science based discovery; data meant for the purview of a scientific elite to scrutinize will always get to the scientific elite it’s meant for, and, but for national security reasons is never diverted or censored.
This is laughable.
Unfortunately, when delving into the subject of sunken cities – shall we say; those found and those yet to be found, it’s the political elite who hold sway. I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but in cases such as these, notions of scientific discovery and mankinds search for truth will always come a poor second to statecraft.
For instance; the Koran makes no mention of the Gulf of Cambay (or Atlantis come to that) having ever existed. So to have immediately released such data back in 2002 might have been seen politically as a challenge to the infallibility of at least one dearly held sacred text.
The fact that there are 1.5 billion worshippers who believe that the Koran is the infallible word of God would on its own be a good reason for not immediately releasing news of a sunken city.
Maybe the reason for the Cambay disclosure now is that the political establishment feel that the waters in 2012 are less choppy?
Click to expand...

Apparently, post-911, the powers that be were suppressing every discovery that was inconsistent with the Koran.
 
LordXenu said:
Schindler's List was made in black and white to trick people into thinking they were watching actual Holocaust footage:
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/04/27/oskar-schindler-lessons-from-an-alpha-male/#comment-101211
Click to expand...
My mother had a student - a college student - who believed that we were at war with Germany in 1978 because she had watched the "Holocaust" mini-series on TV. When my mother asked her if she believed that slavery still existed in the United States, or that we were in the middle of a civil war in 1978, because of "Roots," her answer was, "No, because the clothes are different from now." True story. Too bad it can't be Stundied.
 
LordXenu said:
Schindler's List was made in black and white to trick people into thinking they were watching actual Holocaust footage:
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/04/27/oskar-schindler-lessons-from-an-alpha-male/#comment-101211
Click to expand...
Unconsciously watching anything isn't going to have much effect.

Elizabeth I said:
My mother had a student - a college student - who believed that we were at war with Germany in 1978 because she had watched the "Holocaust" mini-series on TV. When my mother asked her if she believed that slavery still existed in the United States, or that we were in the middle of a civil war in 1978, because of "Roots," her answer was, "No, because the clothes are different from now." True story. Too bad it can't be Stundied.
Click to expand...
Wow.
 
tsig said:
Libraries do not exist for some.

ETA http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8239144&postcount=4290
Click to expand...

This reminds me of how SnakeTongue keeps asking for online sources because he's unwilling to put any effort into actually searching. The fun part was when he scoffed at a list of books Nick Terry provided because he would have to buy them, when several were available on Google Books, as he could've found if he had spent a minute or two to check.

He also ignored multiple people telling him to check his local library on various subjects.

I remember being amazed, with my sis and bro, that this new "Google" search engine was returning results in fractions of a second. Nowadays I don't even notice.
 
Last edited:
muzungu100 said:
I realise this is a few months old but I had never heard this logic before, difficult to refute.
Damon FDec 31, 2011 06:55 PM
The main point against Wood's theory seems to be that the energy required for the directed energy weapon would be too great. However, the flaw of this argument is that the alternative is that there was no directed energy weapon. In that case, zero energy would be required from a directed energy weapon. If that's the case, how can you make the claim that there wouldn't be enough energy from a directed energy weapon if you say it came down with none at all?

This is similar to my complaint of the thermite/explosive rebuttal that it wouldn't be possible to get enough explosives into the building. If that were the case, how can you say the building collapsed without explosives if you can't get enough explosives in the building to bring it down?
Click to expand...

http://the-tap.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/judy-woods-where-did-towers-go.html?m=1
Click to expand...
This person is thinking on a level much higher than us mere-mortals.
 
Srsly u guis, the Rick Santorum 2012 blog is a gold mine! He has claimed that nothing important has been invented by any other race besides whites. His responses to all the questions showing him otherwise are just so wonderful:

onionvolcano asked: Wait. So if you don't use it, it doesn't count? You don't use paper, so it's not a significant invention? You lose.

Paper is mostly useless thanks to iPads and so on (all invented by white people).
Click to expand...
SOURCE
 
Just to clarify, that blog does not in any way appear to be connected to the actual Rick Santorum.
 
GlennB said:
"If it isn't possible, that proves it must be possible" seems to be the gist. Is that it? :confused:
Click to expand...



It's a variation on the "just barely a CD" argument they came up with a few years ago. The notion seems to be this:


  1. The Official Story claims the buildings collapsed with no explosives/beam weapons
  2. If true, there could have been just a few bombs/lasers used, and you couldn't tell
  3. Therefore, claims that it would be impossible to use explosives/lasers are false
  4. Therefore, lasers, bombs, thermite, complete pulverization of all concrete, massive steel beams flung thousands of feet, dustification of the steel, melted pools of steel, NO TOILETS, MAN!!


Where they really screw up is between steps 3 and 4. Sure, there could have been one block of C4 in the buildings, but then, the results would be so close to the "unaided collapse" model that it would be virtually impossible to distinguish the two. But Truthers claim that the CD is obvious, that there are things that happened that would be clearly impossible without large explosions or massive lasers. That's where the disconnect comes in.

So, sure, they could maintain a position that there might have been a few bombs, or a few lasers, and we could not prove that wrong with absolute certainty. But to maintain that position, the Truthers would have to abandon the vast majority of what they point to as proof of CD.
 
Well, I hear it's fashionable to blame white people for the stuff other white people did. If they should take responsibility for other white people's mistakes, why not their successes as well?
Horatius said:
It's a variation on the "just barely a CD" argument they came up with a few years ago. The notion seems to be this:


  1. The Official Story claims the buildings collapsed with no explosives/beam weapons
  2. If true, there could have been just a few bombs/lasers used, and you couldn't tell
  3. Therefore, claims that it would be impossible to use explosives/lasers are false
  4. Therefore, lasers, bombs, thermite, complete pulverization of all concrete, massive steel beams flung thousands of feet, dustification of the steel, melted pools of steel, NO TOILETS, MAN!!


Where they really screw up is between steps 3 and 4. Sure, there could have been one block of C4 in the buildings, but then, the results would be so close to the "unaided collapse" model that it would be virtually impossible to distinguish the two. But Truthers claim that the CD is obvious, that there are things that happened that would be clearly impossible without large explosions or massive lasers. That's where the disconnect comes in.

So, sure, they could maintain a position that there might have been a few bombs, or a few lasers, and we could not prove that wrong with absolute certainty. But to maintain that position, the Truthers would have to abandon the vast majority of what they point to as proof of CD.
Click to expand...

Truthers regularly claim their claims are obvious or common sense, then explain that their beliefs are a minority because few people can see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom