March Stundie Nominations

[Grizzly Bear]

I can assure you that these wall grids do not follow Euler's law.

link
Steel properties don't work for you? Invent new ones!

 

[sylvan8798]

How can someone living in a place with a name like Beausoleil France be so ugly stupid?

 

[DavidJames]

Haven't nominated in a while but just ran across this:

Considering how each conspiracy theory is more absurd than the one preceeding it I'm wondering if the government is somehow driving all these things to actually justify cracking down on proponents of any of them

delicious in it's simplicity

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Haven't nominated in a while but just ran across this:
delicious in it's simplicity

Wait. Did he just out himself as a government agent?

 

[DavidJames]

Wait. Did he just out himself as a government agent?

Something I think some of us suspected about him all along

 

[Rolfe]

I'm hideously tempted to nominate McHrozni for this.

The minimum you have to do in such a case is to produce a different suspect, who could, in theory, carry out the attacks.

It's not eligible under the rules, because it's nonsense from a debunker in full debunk mode, but the inverted logic is deliciously twoofer-like.

Apparently it's not possible to question the guilt of a convicted person, unless you have another credible suspect.

I'm sure the Court of Criminal Appeal will be awfully interested in that one. Think of all the wrongly-convicted people they could keep in jail with that logic!

Rolfe.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It's not eligible under the rules, because it's nonsense from a debunker in full debunk mode,

I think you'll find it is. The award is for a ridiculous statement made in a discussion of conspiracy theories; there's no stipulation as to which side of the argument the poster has to be on.

And, yes, I think it is ridiculous if it's in the context of criminal law. In terms of assessing what is most likely to have happened, it may not be strictly correct but it is at least an understandable point of view.

Dave

 

[dudalb]

The minimum you have to do in such a case is to produce a different suspect, who could, in theory, carry out the attacks.

Another guy whose idea of Criminal Justice is based on what he sees in "Perry Mason".

Yeah, every week, Perry exposed the real killer who was usually right there in the courtroom, but Perry Mason was fiction.....

 

[Dog Town]

Here's a goodie!
From Diggy70, who claims to be in his 50's

pre 911 if i flew with in 100 nm of the white house with out authorization my azz would be shot down.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5710682&postcount=1
Really?

Radar Detected Airplane before White House Crash

http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N40/crash.40w.html

 

[carlitos]

LOL @ "in his 50's"

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It's not eligible under the rules, because it's nonsense from a debunker in full debunk mode, but the inverted logic is deliciously twoofer-like.

I nominated this "debunker" for the stundies and he got all the way to the monthly finals with it.

"Debunker" stundies are rare, but they are not immune from from nomination and winning if they post staggeringly ignorant bull@#$%.

 

[Rolfe]

And, yes, I think it is ridiculous if it's in the context of criminal law. In terms of assessing what is most likely to have happened, it may not be strictly correct but it is at least an understandable point of view.

I don't really agree with you in principle. I don't see a requirement to have any idea who committed a crime or an atrocity to question the guilt of the person fingered by the law. It doesn't make logical sense.

However, that's academic, because the case under discussion was in the context of criminal law. The verdict has officially been declared to be a possible miscarriage of justice.

The Commission is of the view, based upon our lengthy investigations, the new evidence we have found and other evidence which was not before the trial court that the applicant may have suffered a miscarriage of justice.

Nevertheless, according to McHrozni, we can't pursue this line of argument unless we produce an alternative suspect!

I nominated this "debunker" for the stundies and he got all the way to the monthly finals with it.

"Debunker" stundies are rare, but they are not immune from from nomination and winning if they post staggeringly ignorant bull@#$%.

Oh I remember that! If I didn't vote for it, I should have! It's an absolute corker.

Rolfe.

 

[McHrozni]

Apparently it's not possible to question the guilt of a convicted person, unless you have another credible suspect.

You misunderstood. If it was deliberate or not, I don't know, but I suspect it was.

You can't claim the only man in the world could do an act that did happen (Lockerbie bombing in this case) didn't do it, unless you can show another person who could've done it. You did attempt to do so later on, though I would say you failed to do so adequately. Of course you can say that in court, that it was another random individual, it's a valid (and very common) defense, but if you're going to argue court procedures are flawless ... well, it will be a stundie for sure.

Courts in the civilized world are arranged to favor the defendant in order to avoid false convictions as much as possible. That's why such defenses are allowed and practiced. However, since we do know someone committed the Lockerbie bombing, and we would want to know who it was, shedding some minor doubt on the guilt of a man found guilty for the act isn't nearly enough. If he didn't do it, who did? That's a question the defense doesn't need to touch, but we do.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

And, yes, I think it is ridiculous if it's in the context of criminal law. In terms of assessing what is most likely to have happened, it may not be strictly correct but it is at least an understandable point of view.

To calm your mind somewhat, I explicitly stated in the same post that it was not in the context of criminal law

McHrozni

 

[Dave Rogers]

You can't claim the only man in the world could do an act that did happen (Lockerbie bombing in this case) didn't do it, unless you can show another person who could've done it.

I'd rate that a slight overbid. You can't claim he didn't do it unless you can show that another person could have done it. Naming the specific individual seems rather an excessive burden of disproof.

Dave

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Here's a goodie!
From Diggy70, who claims to be in his 50's

pre 911 if i flew with in 100 nm of the white house with out authorization my azz would be shot down.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5710682&postcount=1

That seems awfully reckless, aiming anti-aircraft fire at an object 100 nanometers from the White House. Also, that'd be some damn impressive flying.

 

[Rolfe]

To calm your mind somewhat, I explicitly stated in the same post that it was not in the context of criminal law

Ding! Wrong!

After I called you on it, you started saying you weren't talking in the context of the criminal law. Not in the same post, no.

The trouble is, you can't really have this discussion except in the context of the criminal law.
http://www.sccrc.org.uk/ViewFile.aspx?id=293

And I'm still not at all clear why you think you can demand that I have to name another suspect before I can doubt Megrahi's guilt - with or without the SCCRC opinion on the matter.

You can't claim the only man in the world could do an act that did happen (Lockerbie bombing in this case) didn't do it, unless you can show another person who could've done it.

What?? It gets better. You're really, truly and honestly saying Megrahi is the only person in the world who could possibly have planted that bomb?

Wow. Just, wow.

You did attempt to do so later on, though I would say you failed to do so adequately.

You really, truly and honestly think it's impossible that the PFLP-GC could have carried out that attack? I mean, not just unlikely, or unproven, but impossible? I don't think even Richard Marquise would stick his neck out that far! And I only mentioned the most likely theory. There are quite a few others that I don't give a lot of credence to, but I'd hesitate to say they were wholly and strictly impossible.

Of course you can say that in court, that it was another random individual, it's a valid (and very common) defense, but if you're going to argue court procedures are flawless ... well, it will be a stundie for sure.

Wow, this gets better and better! You think it's impossible to show a miscarriage of justice without being able to incriminate someone else for the crime? Truly? What colour is the sky on your planet? (I only offered the Barry George / Jill Dando thing as an example, but it fits quite well.)

but if you're going to argue court procedures are flawless ... well, it will be a stundie for sure.

Sorry, but I just had to quote that one again to see if my irony meter was quite calibrated.

I am sick and tired and thoroughly and completely deaved with JREF posters declaring that there can be no doubt Megrahi was guilty because the court convicted him. I am tired beyond measure of explaining that there is such a thing as wrongful conviction, and there's every indication this was one of these.

The court procedures that convicted Megrahi are a shame and a disgrace to the justice system of my country. I wouldn't give anyone a parking ticket on evidence that tenuous. You only have to read the court judgement to see the judges were out of their collective minds - never mind the shocked and horrified report of the official UN observer to the trial.

But somehow, if I even hint that an appeal might well have some merit, I'm accused of believing that court procedures are flawless?

Courts in the civilized world are arranged to favor the defendant in order to avoid false convictions as much as possible. That's why such defenses are allowed and practiced. However, since we do know someone committed the Lockerbie bombing, and we would want to know who it was, shedding some minor doubt on the guilt of a man found guilty for the act isn't nearly enough. If he didn't do it, who did? That's a question the defense doesn't need to touch, but we do.

Why?

You could only start to ride that horse if you could prove that Megrahi appears to be the only person in the entire world who could possibly have planted that bomb. Actually, he's probably got a better alibi than I have, because he was a lot further away from the place the bomb probably went on the plane, at the time.

Rolfe.

 

[joe911]

This isn't a nomination,but I feel it deserves a notable mention for how far the author read into the new Ga Ga video,and then noted he wasnt looking deep

1. prison scene - police state predictive programming, barbed wire, surveillance, martial law type of feel
2. TONS of black and white and duality. especially in the "exercise yard" scene.
3. slave programming, chains,
4. skull and crossbones makes an appearance on a prisoner's leather jacket.
5. gaga's studded leather jacket has a pentagram on it
6. dice hanging in the car add up to 13
7. 11 stripes on soda cup in the car
8. gaga's telephone headpiece covers her eye, her hair also does this in other scenes
9. the dancing scene has plenty of eye covering, and 666 hand signs.
10. beyonce's military type outfit. gaga's leopard print (as well as some people in the diner)
11. when gaga is cooking, a logo for "poison tv" appears with a skull and crossbones... how appropriate.
12. the star beneath gaga's eye, the patriotic gear, dancing among the dead - all very ritualistic. her red gloves also look as if shes got blood on her hands.
13. gagas leopard costume has an exposed spine and ribs - reptilian theme.


...and i wasn't even looking closely.



the sandwich motif isn't making sense to me.. anyone have ideas? all the chomping and sandwich-making is ridiculous.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50648&page=285

 

[carlitos]

Proof of conspiracy

6. dice hanging in the car add up to 13

Really?

I'm not willing to suffer through a lady gaga video. It's just not worth it. But I'm guessing that any "dice hanging in the car" are a set of 2 dice? If those 2 dice add up to 13, I will acquiesce and admit it's a conspiracy.

 

[McHrozni]

I'd rate that a slight overbid. You can't claim he didn't do it unless you can show that another person could have done it. Naming the specific individual seems rather an excessive burden of disproof.

Dave

Depends on the situation.

Suppose the following situation:
Two astronauts in a spacecraft in orbit around the Moon. One is murdered, accident and suicide are ruled out. The nearest human is 250,000 miles away on Earth. Is it unreasonable to ask for another possible suspect from someone claiming the other astronaut didn't kill him?

The situation in the debate we're having isn't as extreme, but it isn't as simple, either. I'm just trying to point out what I said isn't as wrong as Rolfe is trying to make it.

McHrozni