• 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.

Baker Confronts Osama Conundrum

MikeW said:
Uh, doesn't sound plausible to me.

I'd say that Iraq has used up US political credit, both internally and abroad, and there's vanishingly little left. America is now far, far less likely to "get away with invading a foreign nation", because most people will assume any case made is somewhat less than reliable (putting it politely) and look for considerably more evidence. Far from establishing "an important precedent of unprovoked war", they've made it very difficult to imagine how that could happen again.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. In the lead up to the Iraq war, I thought the publicly available evidence was pretty weak, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt, as I figured they must have better, classified, info, that they simply couldn't share for legitimate reasons. Turns out, they didn't.

So now, how likely am I to make such a mistake again? Not Very. Great precedent, there, NWO!
 
Horatius said:
Exactly right. In the lead up to the Iraq war, I thought the publicly available evidence was pretty weak, but I gave them the benefit of the doubt, as I figured they must have better, classified, info, that they simply couldn't share for legitimate reasons. Turns out, they didn't.

So now, how likely am I to make such a mistake again? Not Very. Great precedent, there, NWO!
Click to expand...

Same thing here.
 
It's great to discover I'm not banned. I was suspended because pictures of what energy weapons do to humans is a violation of rule 2. I thought I was banned.
 
[=TruthSeeker1234;2375006]It's great to discover I'm not banned. I was suspended because pictures of what energy weapons do to humans is a violation of rule 2. I thought I was banned.[
Click to expand...

I don't believe you. Show us your evidence for the existence of these "energy weapons."
 
[=TruthSeeker1234;2375160]Seems like a new thread.
Click to expand...

Unless you intend to start that new thread with a presentation of your evidence, I'll take this as a non-answer.
 
pomeroo said:
Unless you intend to start that new thread with a presentation of your evidence, I'll take this as a non-answer.
Click to expand...

Ron, come on. You know me better than that by now. Say what you want, I've never avoided questions. Yes, I intended to start a thread with links to energy weapon research. It would be quite easy to do. But you know what might be more dramatic?

Spring it on me when I'm on your show with Greening.

Wieck: Well, I for one don't believe energy weapons exist. What evidence do you have?

Baker: ? ? ?
 
Let's Examine the Merchandise

[=TruthSeeker1234;2375212]Ron, come on. You know me better than that by now. Say what you want, I've never avoided questions. Yes, I intended to start a thread with links to energy weapon research. It would be quite easy to do. But you know what might be more dramatic?

Spring it on me when I'm on your show with Greening.

Wieck: Well, I for one don't believe energy weapons exist. What evidence do you have?

Baker: ? ? ?
Click to expand...

No good. If you turn out to be a barking moonbat, I'm going to catch hell. We're supposed to promote this show as a debate between Dr. Frank Greening, a respected molecular chemist, and Ace Baker, a--what? Musician? Spinner of tall tales? Raving lunatic?

So far, you've been talking about steel that has been turned to dust. This is a bad start. I don't like surprises, especially when they make me look like a horse's ass. I can do that without help. Originally, the idea was that you were going to debate Greening on his published papers. From what I've seen to date, you are hopelessly out of your depth. Consider my request that you tell us more about energy weapons as an audition.
 
Though I can tell from the convo, that this is a resuming of a previous dialogue between you two, i would say that I for one would not really be interested in a show where you have an expert on one side, and well, an average truther on the other...

Now Greening vs S.Jones...that I'd like to see.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
Though I can tell from the convo, that this is a resuming of a previous dialogue between you two, i would say that I for one would not really be interested in a show where you have an expert on one side, and well, an average truther on the other...

Now Greening vs S.Jones...that I'd like to see.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Actually, Greening has already agreed to debate me on video. He requested a moderator, and I suggested Ron Wieck. Greening contacted Wieck, and then reported back to me:

Hi Ace,

Well Ron Weick has agreed to be moderator. Perhaps you should tell him how you would like the debate to be set up, terms and conditions, etc, etc.

Also, we have to decide where it will be held, but please remember I am NOT a shill, I really do live on a small pension, so I can only pay my own way if its in Toronto......

Ron's e-mail address is:

[redacted]



Cheers, Frank
Click to expand...
Which is all fine.
 
Frank Greening said:
Also, we have to decide where it will be held, but please remember I am NOT a shill, I really do live on a small pension, so I can only pay my own way if its in Toronto......
Click to expand...
Hehe! I think I love Frank Greening.
 
ACE:

Glad you have the courage to debate with him. I was merely pointing out that I prefer to watch the experts, or at least scientists, debate the science aspects of 9/11. I know you are a musician, but perhaps for all I know you majored in Physics.

If not, just doesnt interest me. I mean I like watching laymen vs laymen, or expert vs expert, not a mixture.

TAM:)
 
pomeroo said:
No good. If you turn out to be a barking moonbat, I'm going to catch hell. We're supposed to promote this show as a debate between Dr. Frank Greening, a respected molecular chemist, and Ace Baker, a--what? Musician? Spinner of tall tales? Raving lunatic?

So far, you've been talking about steel that has been turned to dust. This is a bad start. I don't like surprises, especially when they make me look like a horse's ass. I can do that without help. Originally, the idea was that you were going to debate Greening on his published papers. From what I've seen to date, you are hopelessly out of your depth. Consider my request that you tell us more about energy weapons as an audition.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've been talking about all sorts of stuff, not just steel turning to dust.

You promote it as an opprtunity for Greening to reassure the public that "everything is fine", the "conspiracy theorists" are "crazy" and/or "mistaken" and Dr. Greening has mathematically "proven" that the gravity "collapse" is possible after all. You can hold me up as a typical "truther" - a layperson who thinks he knows a thing or two about science. With Greening and Wieck against little ol' me, the odds are clearly stacked in your favor.

As I have said from the beginning in my communications with Dr. Greening, my main stipulation is that I am permitted to present evidence in the form of photos and videos. I happen to believe that the vast majority of the public have no idea what these show, and will be very interested indeed. If the evidence is really as lacking as you say, and Dr. Greening there to present his theory, and debunk me, the result will be a slam dunk in your favor. However, when presented with the evidence, I don't think most people will believe Dr. Greening. I think they will believe me.

This is the risk we will all take.
 
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

So TS1234 since you are trying to convince people of absurdities, can I take it that soon you'll be trying for those atrocities?
 
If it's in Toronto, I'd like to know when and where. I really want to see this and maybe ask a few questions...
 
Man, that NWO should go in the movie business. Seems like a great plot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom