• 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.

New Member

tonicblue said:
Depends on the video. AFAIK Screw Loose Change is on the net, should I take that with a pinch of salt?
Click to expand...

Yes

If I must treat the video with skepticism because it is from youtube then so must your expert, therefore it is not a suitable sample for analysis.
Click to expand...

And that's exactly what he's done. He's skeptical about it so he analysed it and then reached a conclusion based on the evidence of that analysis.

True skeptisim is not just refusing to believe anything that disagrees with you, or disagreeing with what the Government says, it is testing the information whether it is something that you want to believe and fits your world views or if it isn't. If you never test what you are being told because you want to believe it is true, then people will sell you a load of crook and fleece you faster then you can say "Hey Bart, where's my wallet gone?"

That means testing what screwloosechange says, but it also means testing out what loosechange says.
 
tonicblue said:
Call me fussy, but I take what is said on internet forums with a large pinch of salt.

As scooby points out, there is a skeptic on this forum who controls the Hubble Telescope. I don't believe him either.
Click to expand...



There is a pathos here that is quite disturbing.

From using HST and KH-11 data and other assets, that which are used in the professional visual field quite commonly, also used in special visual interp., to "who claims of controlling the HST"..........

Total myopic psychosis. Pathological liars as well. What a bunch of Psychos-R-Us vermin and such a waste why anyone intelligently responds.

No verification, no research, just madness. And incredibly desperate it seems at that.

Strange 2 is a misnomer. It just is Strange, since the lack of critical thinking is the same as the Art Bell-UFO loony tunes. Exactly. A revisit to an old, tiresome nemesis.........

Strange: wanna see what is really in this beloved YouTube video?
yea or nay? It is claimed it is white orbs, stealth aircraft?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK7cpPikmTU&mode=related&search=

RAMS
 
tonicblue said:
Call me fussy, but I take what is said on internet forums with a large pinch of salt.

As scooby points out, there is a skeptic on this forum who controls the Hubble Telescope. I don't believe him either.
Click to expand...
Correction, there is a poster on this forum who "controls the Hubble Telescope." There are a lot of posters on this forum; some are skeptics, some are not. Assuming that just because someone posts here that they are a skeptic is a hasty generalization.
 
Redtail said:
Yes. Then you research what they say. Just to clarify so we don't dance on this for all time, Unless you personaly know enough about the subject or know the person who put the info out there, anything on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt and researched. I believe Gumboot because I'm an actor who has done film and when he has talked about it in the past he mentions things that someone who had just a passing knowlegde of film/acting/production wouldn't know about.

Which is the point. You accept that the explosion in the video is real he does not. Although you mentioned that you would like to have the vid reviewed by an expert you defend it as real and chastise the questioning of it. Who is the skeptic?
Click to expand...

Not you.

Flawed approach for two reasons.

Taking it with a pinch of salt means tentatively accepting it as accurate, but not being surprised if new information comes to light that indicates it may be false. Do you have any?

Any other approach would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, something akin to the British ignoring early radar in favour of trained aerial spotters - "yup, thats a bomber. yup, thats a bomb."

And as for Gumboot - no no no no no . We have enough sources of information to wade through as it is, without widening the field to include individual opinion in forums on the web. Lets stick to material where the effort has already been made to at least publish it on the web in some coherent form. If the video is fake, 'skeptics' will be checking and a suitable source will expose this sooner or later.

I take it this is a new video?
 
RAMS said:
There is a pathos here that is quite disturbing.

From using HST and KH-11 data and other assets, that which are used in the professional visual field quite commonly, also used in special visual interp., to "who claims of controlling the HST"..........

Total myopic psychosis. Pathological liars as well. What a bunch of Psychos-R-Us vermin and such a waste why anyone intelligently responds.

No verification, no research, just madness. And incredibly desperate it seems at that.

Strange 2 is a misnomer. It just is Strange, since the lack of critical thinking is the same as the Art Bell-UFO loony tunes. Exactly. A revisit to an old, tiresome nemesis.........

Strange: wanna see what is really in this beloved YouTube video?
yea or nay? It is claimed it is white orbs, stealth aircraft?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK7cpPikmTU&mode=related&search=

RAMS
Click to expand...

Ahhh.
There I was hoping for a shot of Condoleeza Rices crab nebula, or at least a visual interpretation. What treatment would you recommend - oil on canvas? Or a tank of diesel and a match?
 
scooby said:
And as for Gumboot - no no no no no . We have enough sources of information to wade through as it is, without widening the field to include individual opinion in forums on the web. Lets stick to material where the effort has already been made to at least publish it on the web in some coherent form. If the video is fake, 'skeptics' will be checking and a suitable source will expose this sooner or later.
Click to expand...

Hang on. Two problems here.

Firstly, you're saying you can ignore individual opinions on the web in favour of material where the effort has been made to publish it on the web "in some coherent form". What, exactly, is the distinction? This is a public forum; presentation of material to this forum constitutes publication. Therefore you effectively both exclude and include the information you're referring to. Not to mention the fact that there have been analyses of alleged soundtrack forgeries presented coherently elsewhere, for example at http://www.911myths.com/Trinity.pdf - by your own admission you should be looking seriously at this sort of article.

Secondly, you're saying that you can safely ignore the criticism of skeptics unless it comes from a "suitable source". What constitutes a "suitable source"? Certainly not a government agency, any publicly funded body or the mainstream media, based on your posting history. Other than believing everything unless prisonplanet.com claims it's a forgery, what else does that leave you?

As usual, you seem to be giving nonsensical reasons for ignoring anything that doesn't agree with your beliefs.

Dave
 
busherie said:
I think you will agree with me that the possibility that, with all the intel available in the few months before 9/11, the government thought that 9/11 was the event that could make the implementation of their long-ought agenda (for instance, iraq) a lot easier.
Click to expand...

And that possibility has convinced you ? Skipped a few steps in the scientific method, haven't you ?
 
tonicblue said:
So now the documentary makers are faking footage? Audio gets compressed and distorted too. If you won't be satisfied with anything but the original videotape then either find it, or stop declaring this one fake.
Click to expand...

My, we're getting agressive, aren't we ?

Are you sure you're "on the fence" ?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Hang on. Two problems here.

Firstly, you're saying you can ignore individual opinions on the web
Click to expand...

No, on forums like this.
Let me re-phrase it.

Let's at least stick to external sources - they are abundant, and sufficient. Referencing yourself in support of your argument here is a flawed approach I believe. You are not referencing evidence - merely your argument. Cunning indeed.

It seems it runs strong in Gumboot.
This makes me skeptical.
 
scooby said:
It seems it runs strong in Gumboot.
This makes me skeptical.
Click to expand...


I didn't reference myself. I referenced the video. Are you feeling okay Scooby? you seem to be coming unhinged. I'm worried about you.

-Gumboot
 
tonicblue said:
When in doubt bring the ad-hominem out.
Click to expand...


It's not intended as an attack, and I'm not using it to further any sort of argument. I'm actually quite serious. In the last few days Scooby's posting manner has changed somewhat.

He's starting to make all sorts of odd interpretations of what people are saying - for example alleging that RAMS claims to have control of Hubble.

Some of us grow quite fond of some of the Conspiracy Theorists here.

-Gumboot
 
tonicblue said:
There is no scientific method applied in a court. It relies on the judgement of jurors.
Click to expand...
I see. So law enforcement doesn't use any of that science-like stuff like fingerprints, DNA analysis, spectography, or any of that kind of thing? Wow, just round 'em up and throw 'em in front of a jury! No proof required!
 
gumboot said:
It's not intended as an attack, and I'm not using it to further any sort of argument. I'm actually quite serious. In the last few days Scooby's posting manner has changed somewhat.

He's starting to make all sorts of odd interpretations of what people are saying - for example alleging that RAMS claims to have control of Hubble.

Some of us grow quite fond of some of the Conspiracy Theorists here.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


RAMS did claim that. As a result, Gravy put him on ignore and said he was suffering from delusions.
 
JimBenArm said:
I see. So law enforcement doesn't use any of that science-like stuff like fingerprints, DNA analysis, spectography, or any of that kind of thing? Wow, just round 'em up and throw 'em in front of a jury! No proof required!
Click to expand...

Many cases have no scientific evidence involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom