• 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:
RAMS did claim that. As a result, Gravy put him on ignore and said he was suffering from delusions.
Click to expand...


He did not... he claimed he used resources (images) produced by Hubble and satellites. Which, given his field of work, makes perfect sense.

He even clarified this further up on this page.

-Gumboot

ETA. Ha! Last page. Number 9.
 
Here is what he said:

I have the ability and software to resolve through HST a license plate number on a car at 100 miles from low earth orbit. I can resolve if there was issues of malice concerning 911 day or missing visual data, along with professional analysis of same.
Click to expand...
 
scooby said:
How does this work again?

Most forums these days are pretty adept at detecting and preventing dual registrations.
Click to expand...

That's not completely true P'Duh and you know it. You have the all time record for socks here and you just keep coming back. It's next to impossible to block every fake registeration and that's why you spend all of your time doing it.

How pathetic is that?

Fot those who haven't seen him in the flesh, here he is.

smallguy01.

av-1619.gif
 
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.
Click to expand...

Oh there was definitely some extra-terrestrial talk ...

RAMS said:
I have the ability and software to resolve through HST a license plate number on a car at 100 miles from low earth orbit. I can resolve if there was issues of malice concerning 911 day or missing visual data, along with professional analysis of same.
Click to expand...

I dunno man, I'd settle for a nice picture of the house. Be a good little earner that if he stopped bragging about it.

I do like to think of him, up there, watching over us. :rolleyes:
 
tonicblue said:
Well he seems to be claiming that Hubble was pointed at the WTC on 9/11. I doubt NASA would do such a thing.
Click to expand...

:confused:

All he was saying was "If I'm smart enough to sort out images from satellites, I think I'm smart enough to sort out the 9/11 conspiracy theories". I don't see any indication that he intends to use images from said satellites in order to analyse the 9/11 CTs.

I'm not entirely convinced that's a sound process of logic, however it's certainly not claiming what you and Scooby seem to think he's claiming.

-Gumboot
 
scooby said:
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."

<snip>
Click to expand...
Completely incorrect.

We have a video from an unknown source, and not in its original format. For it to be accepted as real you must begin from the point that its veracity is unknown, that is to say, neither tentatively accepting it, nor tentatively rejecting it. Predict what elements would be unique to it if it is real and what elements would be unique to it if it is a hoax. Test the video and see which elements reveal themselves. If other elements are found that are not accounted for in your predictions, evaluate them and see whether they support or refute each prediction.

Additionally, your suggestion that it should be "tentatively accept[ed] ... as accurate" until proven false is a very dangerous jump off point. To illustrate:
I have a Dragon in My Garage. By your suggestion, we must tentatively accept this as accurate until evidence is presented showing it to be false. I presume you see the flaw in this methodology.
 
gumboot said:
:confused:

All he was saying was "If I'm smart enough to sort out images from satellites, I think I'm smart enough to sort out the 9/11 conspiracy theories". I don't see any indication that he intends to use images from said satellites in order to analyse the 9/11 CTs.

I'm not entirely convinced that's a sound process of logic, however it's certainly not claiming what you and Scooby seem to think he's claiming.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...

He clearly states that he can use it to resolve any missing visual data relating to 9/11.

He also says that Hubble is used to look at the Earth. Why are you claiming that this deluded man isn't deluded?
 
tonicblue said:
Why would you apply a scientific method to terrorism and governments?
Click to expand...
Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomenon. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions.
Click to expand...
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
Completely incorrect.

We have a video from an unknown source ...
Click to expand...

Thats all we ever have if you want to get metaphysical.

There is nothing controversial in this video, in terms of science - and therefore no scientific basis to reject it as false.

Are you claiming we should reject it as false?
 
tonicblue said:
Date rape.

The guy says she consented, she says she was raped. Both agree that sex took place.
Click to expand...

OK, could I get an opinion on this from one of the legal experts here? Maybe LashL?

Don't think a responsible prosecutor would bring charges without other substantiating evidence, but since I'm just a layman in this area, I'll defer to someone with more knowledge.
 
tonicblue said:
Just did.
Click to expand...
No, you provided a hypothetical example and claimed that a court case based upon that scenario would not use the scientific method. Please provide a specific court case example that supports your claim that some court cases do not make use of scientific methodology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom