How do you fight?

[fuelair]

How do you fight?


To win - or damge the opponent as badly as possible. But then, fighting is not for fun. I fight very rarely, it is not a game.

 

[ConspiRaider]

When I see one, I throw a football at him and he instinctively catches it. I tackle him out of bounds. Then I blow my whistle to summon other skeptics and they pile on. Usually the guy is forced to punt.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

is it a "controlled" punt?

 

[jhunter1163]

Do they fall faster than free-fall if four guys are piling on them?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

the most important question of all...

does the 15 yard penalty for unneccesary roughness come into play?

 

[Hokulele]

... or a celebration penalty?

 

[Blackwell]

Do they fall faster than free-fall if four guys are piling on them?

Only if the four guys are wearing their NWO-issue rocket packs.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

My battle was a simple one...

My nephew Kevin, aged 15, swallowed all the nonsense about the plane that hit the Pentagon, believing it was a missile.

I had him sit down with a pal who is an appellate lawyer in the Solicitor General's Office. His boss is the SG and Mrs. SG died in the plane that hit the Pentagon.

He told Kevin bluntly that Mrs. SG (I'm sorry, I forgot her name) was very dead, died in the plane, died when it hit the Pentagon, and there was no way in the bowels of Hell that the SG would sacrifice his wife to an "inside job."

Kevin is a smart kid. He no longer holds those views.

 

[The Silver Shadow]

I tell them to call me when they have facts. My phone doesn't stop ringing with speculations...

 

[Rahne Everson]

I never had a confrontation with a 9/11 truther in real life, but I've had my fairshare of battles with moon landing hoaxers and evolution deniers. Generally they've gone like this:

CTist makes a claim (Like: "The moon landing was fake because the shadows of the astronaunts aren't parallel. That means there weredifferent lightsources like spotlights in a studio.")
Me points out the blatantly obvious ("If there were different light sources, why don't we several blurry shadows instead of two distinct ones of the astronauts?")
CTist ignores it, brings up another topic. ("Well, the flag waved in the breeze. There's no air on the moon, how could it flutter?")
Me points out the blatantly obvious again. ("You're assuming it 'waved.' If you look again you'll see it only moves after the astronauts touch it.")
CTist calls me a liar/disinformist/member of the Hitler Youth/sinner in the eyes of God/government plant-shill thing (all of which I've been called). ("[long string of cursing and reiterating of the previous topics]")

At this point I usually get bored go off and do something else because I have a life, whereas the CTist claims yet another victory against the forces of darkness. There have been the few I've managed to convert, but the resistance seems to outnumber them on my end of the front.

But really I've learned that the only person's ignorance that you can successfully eliminate is your own. So, in a way, by learning more about events like 9/11, I fight the rest of the truth movement by denying them another member.

 

[gumboot]

CTist makes a claim (Like: "The moon landing was fake because the shadows of the astronaunts aren't parallel. That means there weredifferent lightsources like spotlights in a studio.")

Me points out the blatantly obvious ("If there were different light sources, why don't we several blurry shadows instead of two distinct ones of the astronauts?")

Just to be picky, that's not the *best* response.

While multiple light sources will indeed produce multiple shadows from the one subject, the blurriness of a shadow is not a function of the number of lights, but the nature of it. Soft light produces soft fuzzy shadows, while hard light produces hard crisp shadows. This is a factor of the ratio relationship between the light source, the subject, and the surface upon which the shadow appears.

The larger the light source, the softer the light source, thus the more blurry the shadow.

In addition, the closer the subject is to the light source, the blurrier the shadow.

Finally, the further the subject is from the shadow projection surface, the blurrier the shadow.

Now, in the case of the sun, we have an enormous light source, however this size is cancelled out by the extreme distance it is from us. Relative to the sun, the object (a man) is practically hard against the projection surface (the moon or earth) thus the shadow is very hard.

In contrast, an aircraft flying above in the sky is further from the surface and thus generates a more blurred shadow.

Likewise, on an overcast day the cloud acts as diffusion. As a result the light source becomes the entire sky - a very large soft light. Hence on an over cast day shadows are very blurred (often to the extent that they seem to disappear).

In regards to parallel light, this is not a product of multiple light sources at all. As you rightly pointed out, multiple light sources generate multiple shadows. Non parallel shadows are generated because of proximity to the light source. The shadows cast by the sun appear parallel simply because it is so far away.

In contrast, the lights used in, say, a film shoot, are much closer to the subject thus they do not cast parallel shadows.

-Gumboot

 

[Rahne Everson]

Just to be picky, that's not the *best* response.

Pickiness is fun. Thanks for the info.

Yeah, I debated on using "blurry" in my example. I really haven't been using my degree from Phil Plait's bad astronomy school nearly enough over the past several months. Dang truthers!

 

[stilicho]

At first, upon reading these responses, I was a bit surprised by the number of people saying they've never encountered (or very rarely encountered) conspiracy theorists in real life. I realised a couple of things:

#1] What is a 'conspiracy theorist'?

My definition might be broader than most. Generally, I consider those who reject books and education (especially when they substitute what they call 'logic' and what they find on the internet for those other tools) to be CT'rs. These are people who generally don't read much and trust their own intuition over science and the liberal arts. They are likely to possess strong personal beliefs. They may not believe entirely that 9/11 was an 'inside job' but their feeling is that somebody must have known something and failed to act. These people will magnify the significance of the infamous AUG 06 memo, for example, at the expense of the onerous task of reading the whole 9/11 Commission Report.

#2] Anti-Americanism is a stronger influence in the opinions of those outside the USA.

Since I am not an American, I am exposed constantly to people who combine an abiding mistrust of the United States with a suspicion that the White House or the Pentagon could have been "in on it". These people are likely to idolise Michael Moore and are usually what I consider left-of-centre. Some of these will begin to delve into on-line conspiracy theories and meld them into their vision of 'evil America'.

#3] An antiwar stance is sometimes the embryo of a conspiracy theory.

I've met lots of people who feel that, without the 'evil Halliburton', there would be no war (in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere). Or they substitute 'Big Oil'. Rarely are people named in these accusations, but there's something about the US Vice-President's sheer demeanour that attracts condemnation. He scowls similarly to a TV show bad guy. Regardless of what you tell these people, that Halliburton is a supply and services company that would make money on its contracts with the US military whether there's a war or not, or that 'Big Oil' lost billions or trillions due to sanctions against Saddam, they cannot uncouple their desire for 'world peace' with easy straw men like those mentioned.

---

None of these definitions describe the hard-core nutters you're likely to see at LC or other on-line forums. In fact, they may never visit forums, but simply watch YouTube or, perhaps read and trust the likes of Greg Palast over any other opinions. But they do represent a substantial faction of prospective harder-core CT'rs. They are likely to treat 9/11 conspiracy theories as equal-in-value to the 'official story', which I consider to be nearly as dangerous as believing CT's wholesale.

I have generally tried to explain that these 'theories' are not equal in value and that's met with mixed success.

 

[Firestone]

To elaborate on what stilicho wrote:

I've yet to meet my first 9/11-CTist in real life.

On the Internet (i'm talking about Belgian political forums) I've known them for almost three years.

In the early days, it was like stilicho wrote. The leftists, "anti-American" people more or less bought into the 9/11-CT because it suited their political agenda.

Once the debunking started in earnest, the 9/11-CT believers where reduced to the hardcore: essentially the naive souls who believe almost anything, and the "anti-zionists". The leftists quietly left the field, a few of them actively helped (and help) debunk the 9/11-CT.
This was due to our excellent debunking (just kidding), but mainly to the 9/11-CT believers own stupidity. Once they started about NWO, S&B, Alex Jones, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, ..., they lost the left.

The 9/11-CT believers that appeared recently are all either recent converts ("I've seen LC and it convinced me"-types) who generally don't stay for long or people with an "anti-zionist"-agenda trying to get that particular message across.

 

[gumboot]

At first, upon reading these responses, I was a bit surprised by the number of people saying they've never encountered (or very rarely encountered) conspiracy theorists in real life. I realised a couple of things:

I have generally tried to explain that these 'theories' are not equal in value and that's met with mixed success.

Excellent post. I meet these sort of people all the time. New Zealand has a long history of disliking Americans, dating back to WW2. Also I work in the film industry which is, IMHO, heavily saturated with woo.

Funnily enough, often the more sensible people are the actors, whilst those in the technical trades such as lighting or grips (some of whom have technical qualifications) are often woo-ish.

Most of the woo is of the mundane sort, and given that I'm usually one of the youngest on the crew, I don't have much standing in debunking such issues (the film industry here is big on hierachy based on how long you have been "in"). I tend to ignore such discussions.

Sometimes, on one or two matters I have a pretty solid knowledge of, I'll correct people and their misconceptions. More generally I tend to just make it perfectly clear that I don't believe that sort of stuff.

Once on a film set I ran into a hard core 9/11 truther, and I was unrelenting... He wasn't convinced, but promised to email me to get some more info. Needless to say, I never received an email.

The general "anti-Americanism" is often hardest of all to combat. First off, from a given world view, America has done a lot to frame it in a negative light. Secondly, most New Zealanders are only exposed to Americans through the media and through your rich tourists. As you can imagine the struggling low budget NZ film industry doesn't think very highly of the US Media/Film megolith. And the rich tourists that come here are hardly fantastic ambassadors.

There's so much misconception it seems an impossible task to combat it. Especially when any correction immediately has you labelled as a war mongering right wing facist psychopath.

What's really sad is the mind-blowing level of ignorance. Most NZers of this ilk constantly criticise the ignorance of Americans - citing things like random street interviews where Americans are asked the location of various cities and countries.

Ignoring the gross subjective nature of such interviews (we only get shown the most absurb responses), most New Zealanders are equally ignorant of our OWN country, failing to locate towns and cities on a national map. And the lack of understanding of the states here is shocking. That's one thing I really appreciate about this forum. I've learned an enormous amount about the United States - both its structure and organisation, and the American psyche and world view. These are things never made available to us in New Zealand.

There's still lots of things I really don't like about the USA, and I can't say I'd ever want to live there, but unlike most New Zealanders I understand the REASON things are the way they are in the USA. And I recognise that many Americans probably feel the same way about my country.

Ack. Why did this turn into a study on the USA?????

-Gumboot

 

[pvt1863]

I've also never met a conspiracy theorist in real life. But I guess that isn't surprising since I'm an engineer and interact very little with non-engineers.

Since the theories promoted by CTs fall flat on their face when even a small amount of science is applied, most of my acquaintances are immune to their lunacy.

 

[firecoins]

I have a friend who staunchly believes in JFK conspiracy theories.

I see I wasted by 1600th post on him now as well.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Boy, this takes me back!

Excellent post. I meet these sort of people all the time. New Zealand has a long history of disliking Americans, dating back to WW2. Also I work in the film industry which is, IMHO, heavily saturated with woo.

...

The general "anti-Americanism" is often hardest of all to combat. First off, from a given world view, America has done a lot to frame it in a negative light. Secondly, most New Zealanders are only exposed to Americans through the media and through your rich tourists. As you can imagine the struggling low budget NZ film industry doesn't think very highly of the US Media/Film megolith. And the rich tourists that come here are hardly fantastic ambassadors.

There's so much misconception it seems an impossible task to combat it. Especially when any correction immediately has you labelled as a war mongering right wing facist psychopath.

What's really sad is the mind-blowing level of ignorance. Most NZers of this ilk constantly criticise the ignorance of Americans - citing things like random street interviews where Americans are asked the location of various cities and countries.

Ignoring the gross subjective nature of such interviews (we only get shown the most absurb responses), most New Zealanders are equally ignorant of our OWN country, failing to locate towns and cities on a national map. And the lack of understanding of the states here is shocking. That's one thing I really appreciate about this forum. I've learned an enormous amount about the United States - both its structure and organisation, and the American psyche and world view. These are things never made available to us in New Zealand.

There's still lots of things I really don't like about the USA, and I can't say I'd ever want to live there, but unlike most New Zealanders I understand the REASON things are the way they are in the USA. And I recognise that many Americans probably feel the same way about my country.

Ack. Why did this turn into a study on the USA?????

-Gumboot

Having lived for three years in New Zealand, where I was anything but rich, this takes me back.

I had to give tours of the US Antarctic base in Christchurch to local groups, mostly kids. The kids heard my Bronx accent and asked me about their three favorite things about America: Los Angeles gangs, rap musicians, and NBA basketball stars...and had I ever been one or known one?

That was America to them.

Occasionally I dealt with anti-nuclear protesters, who were convinced our Air Mobility Command flights to and from New Zealand and Australia were hauling nuclear weapons. Actually, they were dragging around furniture to and from bases for people moving. They didn't like American policy, but were not angry at Americans.

Kathy worked in the community as an RSPCA inspector, and everyone loved her. She had the New Jersey accent, loved dogs, a great sense of humor, and got on with people. Any time she had to go to a house where someone was older than about 50, they'd hear her voice and thank her profusely for winning the Battle of the Coral Sea and the Battle of Guadalcanal...in 1942.

Kathy didn't even know what they were. I had to explain them.

When my unit did parades for V-E Day, V-J Day, ANZAC Day, and so on, our sailors would get surrounded by aging men and women who would tell the sailors how they served on HMNZS Leander at Kolombangara or flew P-40s from Guadalcanal. The poor sailors, being 20 years old, would be stupefied. So would their officers, who didn't care, and because I was interested in the subject, the sailors would happily dump the old guys on me, and we'd talk about Kolombangara and P-40s while the sailors scuttled off to hoist a beer or chase a girl.

New Zealanders knew a lot about the United States, thanks to TV. But they didn't know that much. One kid asked me if the Concorde ever landed in New York (Air France was doing a Pacific charter tour and the big bird was in ChCh). I told him it arrived in New York three to five times a day. The kid goggled.

Another kid asked if we had "Sky TV" and its four cable channels in America. I told him we had 75 channels and nothing on. He was amazed. When our New Zealand pal's kids came to America, we flipped on our tv to the cable channel, and they were awed.

Some New Zealanders know their own past and their country. Being an outdoors people, they know their country. Being sports-minded, they know about the All Blacks and where they're playing. But they're vague on Charles Hazlitt Upham, Minqar Qaim, and many don't even know that 37 New Zealanders died in Vietnam alongside the Grunts. They're beginning to learn... attendance at ANZAC Day Dawn Services kept growing every year when I was in Christchurch, for example.

But I'll say this...I love New Zealand. Kats and I wanted to stay in Christchurch. It had clear skies, very little crime, well-behaved kids, beautiful parks, friendly people, no terrorists, no crowds, no environmental waste. I got married there, my daughter was born there, I had my first home there. I'm a New York native, but Christchurch is my adopted home town.

 

[Arus808]

I have honestly never met one in real life.

me neither. they only seem to lurk / hide on the internet.

though, those that have said something about 911 (in passing) ; their views lean to why the FDNY/PD guys haven't been compensated for their illnesses related to the 9/11 clean up. And many have not even heard of the conspiracy theories at all. and when told them what kind of theories are being pushed; they think its a load of crap.

 

[The Demon's Head]

I use facts.

A truther's reply to that would be. "Don't give me the facts, I want the truth."