Retired NASA "expert" Inspires Balsamo Fraud?

[beachnut]

Rob Balsamo: The Keyzer Soze of Trutherism!

More like a composite of the three stooges of trutherism.

When called on a the Fake Vg diagram, he gets upset and his paranoia comes out, and for evidence he exposes JREF...

In fact, "ozeco" cried to the JREF (perhaps some of the most vile people on this planet), looking for back-up. (Robert Balsamo)

Two lies, ozeco did not cry for back-up, he does not need back-up; and JREF is not the most vile; maybe second or third, but not the most.

 

[Pinch]

More like a composite of the three stooges of trutherism.

When called on a the Fake Vg diagram, he gets upset and his paranoia comes out, and for evidence he exposes JREF...


Two lies, ozeco did not cry for back-up, he does not need back-up; and JREF is not the most vile; maybe second or third, but not the most.

AND he managed to get banned at DebatePolitics...another forum for his "They Banned Me!" wall. Anger management problems, anyone? Definitely aeronautical problems.

 

[Redwood]

Originally Posted by Redwood
Rob Balsamo: The Keyzer Soze of Trutherism!

That's Geyser So-ckay

Good one!

 

[ozeco41]

...Two lies, ozeco did not cry for back-up, he does not need back-up;....

Thank you sir.

 

[ozeco41]

AND he managed to get banned at DebatePolitics...another forum for his "They Banned Me!" wall. Anger management problems, anyone? Definitely aeronautical problems.

I may have "accidentally" () stirred him with a couple of comments.
Told him I wasn't interested in his alphabet soup of acronyms for aircraft locating technology.
Then he posted a "plot" of a departure - taxi to take-off - which showed the take-off over open ground several hundred meters away from and parallel with a 10,000 ft concrete runway.

As a non-pilot I dared to suggest that the plane probably took off from the runway and the locating technology was either wrong or wrongly interpreted. Somehow I don't see a large civil airliner taking off from open fields - but what would I know I'm not a pilot...

 

[booNyzarC]

How dare you question the word of a pilot and self proclaimed expert!



I salute you.

 

[ozeco41]

How dare you question the word of a pilot and self proclaimed expert!...

It's a bad habit I've developed.

I disagree with all sorts of people and organisations:
NIST,
Bazant,
AE911
-- whenever they are wrong.

PLUS - an even worse sin - I agree with truthers:
-- when they are right.

I salute you.

 

[tsig]

I may have "accidentally" () stirred him with a couple of comments.
Told him I wasn't interested in his alphabet soup of acronyms for aircraft locating technology.
Then he posted a "plot" of a departure - taxi to take-off - which showed the take-off over open ground several hundred meters away from and parallel with a 10,000 ft concrete runway.

As a non-pilot I dared to suggest that the plane probably took off from the runway and the locating technology was either wrong or wrongly interpreted. Somehow I don't see a large civil airliner taking off from open fields - but what would I know I'm not a pilot...

I'll have you know that Rob was once out standing in the field.

(he misread the coordinates to his plane)

 

[ozeco41]

I'll have you know that Rob was once out standing in the field.

(he misread the coordinates to his plane)

Wish I'd thought of that one.

I could have used it to parody his nonsense claims.

 

[George 152]

I may have "accidentally" () stirred him with a couple of comments.
Told him I wasn't interested in his alphabet soup of acronyms for aircraft locating technology.
Then he posted a "plot" of a departure - taxi to take-off - which showed the take-off over open ground several hundred meters away from and parallel with a 10,000 ft concrete runway.

As a non-pilot I dared to suggest that the plane probably took off from the runway and the locating technology was either wrong or wrongly interpreted. Somehow I don't see a large civil airliner taking off from open fields - but what would I know I'm not a pilot...

Neither is balsimo but you have sanity and technical savvy on your side.
Take it from me. Those of us who were or are pilots know he's full of BS

 

[BCR]

More like a composite of the three stooges of trutherism.

You called

 

[HotRodDeluxe]

Wow, that site was an eye-opener. That Henry David is an ******** and what is with that kid (Kokomojo or somesuch) and his cartoons and poor sentence structure?

 

[Redwood]

AND he managed to get banned at DebatePolitics...another forum for his "They Banned Me!" wall. Anger management problems, anyone? Definitely aeronautical problems.

I followed Debate Politics for a while. Some JREFers post there, but IMO it's not worth the trouble. It's the Truther equivalent of the Low Minors in American baseball.

 

[beachnut]

You called

Balsamo's DVD sales must be down.

 

[ozeco41]

Wow, that site was an eye-opener. That Henry David is an ******** and what is with that kid (Kokomojo or somesuch) and his cartoons and poor sentence structure?

HD is a Poe - a couple of grades brighter than he posts
Koko is playing games - he is also a couple of grades brighter than he posts - I trapped him by some "calibration tests" a few days back

CATi is at least a para-religious obsessive with a massive barrier against learning. He could be a sock puppet of another member who disappeared. The no longer active member simple repeated a handful of about 6-8 canard truther themes and ignored any advice/corrections/discussion. CATi has the same style and themes but more verbosely stated. I cannot confirm sock because the place doesn't practice open moderation like we see here on JREF.

About 6 JREF regulars posting there. There has been little action here over recent months other than 2-3 threads and a lot of troll feeding. The effect of entry of JREFers has lifted the level of much of the debate and some of us have been able to rethink and re-express ideas that we don't get to do here in the present state of declining 9/11 interest.

 

[ozeco41]

I followed Debate Politics for a while. Some JREFers post there, but IMO it's not worth the trouble. It's the Truther equivalent of the Low Minors in American baseball.

See my previous post.

Between the different activities of the two forums:
JREF - higher standard when there is any but only two genuine truthers been here IMO in last couple of years - T Sz and David.Watts. others IMO primarily trolling which falls outside my ROE's - I "Don't feed trolls egos". Then we have imported a few interesting topics.

DP much lower grade of truthing - which is also mostly trolling. But a lot of it.

So the choice is JREF higher quality but not much of it or DP lower but lots of it - you can pick and choose.

That said there have been about 4-5-6 new threads of interest to me here in recent months. Dusterwald - Peppers Letter - Humenns - Clifton interview plus some news reporting -

 

[911KookDetector]

only two genuine truthers been here IMO in last couple of years - T Sz and David.Watts.

 

[ozeco41]

I think so.

What is your query - not sure of how I categorise "genuine truther" or disagree that d.watts is a genuine truther?

I include two classes in "genuine truther" - both referenced to those who make technical claims such as CD at WTC. The two classes are:

1) Those who are honest, not deluded and hold genuine concerns abut the technical events but are open to reason and will modify/abandon truther nonsense in the face of reasoned argument. We saw lots of them back in 2006-7-8 very few now. I don't recall seeing one in recent years.

2) The various obsessed/deranged/illogical whatever. Who are so committed to truther concepts that they build impenetrable barriers to reason. Hence T Sz based on his posting here and observed elsewhere. His claims are technical nonsense but in the face of counter arguments founded in pure logic or professional engineering he runs away to personal insult. Will argue round in circles ad nauseam if people are prepared to ignore his technical contextual errors and focus solely on details. Multiple examples here of threads where debunkers have complied with T Sz's limitations of scope of discussion.

By my standards d.watts is a group 2 - genuine deluded truther. He believes his own delusions. For me T Sz is the archetype - he defines the class.

 

[George 152]

Just had a trip through Capn Bobs BS.
Some-ones claiming that the aircraft featured in 911 are up for sale and Bob the pileit hasn't been capable of (or even tried) explaining just how impossible that would be

 

[911KookDetector]

I think so.

What is your query - not sure of how I categorise "genuine truther" or disagree that d.watts is a genuine truther?

I include two classes in "genuine truther" - both referenced to those who make technical claims such as CD at WTC. The two classes are:

1) Those who are honest, not deluded and hold genuine concerns abut the technical events but are open to reason and will modify/abandon truther nonsense in the face of reasoned argument. We saw lots of them back in 2006-7-8 very few now. I don't recall seeing one in recent years.

2) The various obsessed/deranged/illogical whatever. Who are so committed to truther concepts that they build impenetrable barriers to reason. Hence T Sz based on his posting here and observed elsewhere. His claims are technical nonsense but in the face of counter arguments founded in pure logic or professional engineering he runs away to personal insult. Will argue round in circles ad nauseam if people are prepared to ignore his technical contextual errors and focus solely on details. Multiple examples here of threads where debunkers have complied with T Sz's limitations of scope of discussion.

By my standards d.watts is a group 2 - genuine deluded truther. He believes his own delusions. For me T Sz is the archetype - he defines the class.

I've been here for a much shorter time than you Ozzie but before I made an account I still visited JREF often (1-2 years before my join date). I can say with certainty that I've never seen a Truther (sic) fall into your 1st class. Alas, I really wish more WOULD fall into this category. A lot of them claim to be open-minded about the subject and claim that they'd be willing to change their minds but when I ask them what it would take to indeed change their minds they either a)don't answer or b)claim they would only change their minds with a "true independent investigation".

I would say that nearly all of the Truthers I come into contact with fall into your 2nd category and I agree that watts fits this category, but I don't see why david.watts is so different from the other Truthers on here. Personally I've only seen typical banal truther rhetoric and JAQing off from him about "questions" that have been answered ad nauseum by debunkers, science, engineering etc for over a decade. Most of the truthers I encounter exhibit the Dunning-Kruger effect and are simply incredibly credulous- they'll believe literally anything they read on Internet kook sites or what the charlatans at AE911 Truth feed them and ignore all logic and hard evidence which debunks their claims.

I must concede that I simply do not have extensive enough training to debate technicalities with people like T Sz who are trained engineers that believe in the twoof (not many of these guys out there ) but I do know enough to realize that his argument fails miserably when it comes down to the fundamentals and that there's absolutely no logic or evidence involved in his base theory. Hence, I find no reason to be arguing with him or any other truthers about anomalies or trivialities in the first place.

I really don't get people like T Sz. How do you obtain an advanced engineering degree without (in a nonliteral sense) passing Critical Thinking or Logic 101?