• 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.

Waterboy Replies to Ryan Mackey

Gravy said:
The question is whether those misrepresentations are due to lack of comprehension or due to intent to deceive. I tend to believe the latter, since Ryan has shown his willingness to engage in blatant deception
Click to expand...

Good gravy, I debunked your little 'deception' deal along time ago.

Gravy,or anyone since he has me on ignore, compare the verbiage used in the slides (.jpeg link) pointing out this supposed deception with the public statement released by Silverstein's offices. When you do, you will realize that Kevin's change in the power point slide you show is a direct reflection of this public release statement offered by the offices of Silverstein.

Speaking of misrepresentation and dishonesty, that is exactly what you are doing with this link to ryanfraud1.jpg. and apparently reflects the exact standards you accuse truthers of using. :busted

Be a good little debunker now and update your research to reflect the reality of the slide you 'claim' is deceptive and try to lie about something else.
 
Swing Dangler said:
Good gravy, I debunked your little 'deception' deal along time ago.

Gravy,or anyone since he has me on ignore, compare the verbiage used in the slides (.jpeg link) pointing out this supposed deception with the public statement released by Silverstein's offices. When you do, you will realize that Kevin's change in the power point slide you show is a direct reflection of this public release statement offered by the offices of Silverstein.
Click to expand...

Despite the blatant misrepresentation made in that quote by Mr. Ryan's choice to leave out certain phrases, and despite what he was saying verbally when he used the slide mentioned above, I could almost go with you here, except for one thing.

How does a quote from a 2002 documentary change in 2006?

The documentary is still in 2002. It doesn't change. If he had re-sourced his quote to say that it reflected some 2006 memo, that would be one thing. But he's still using the PBS documentary - same source - yet changes the quote. That's not right.


By the by, just to clear something up from Page 1, Swing - Do you have a better understanding of what makes something Ad Hom yet? Let me know if there's anything I can still clear up if you're foggy.
 
Minadin said:
Despite the blatant misrepresentation made in that quote by Mr. Ryan's choice to leave out certain phrases, and despite what he was saying verbally when he used the slide mentioned above, I could almost go with you here, except for one thing.

How does a quote from a 2002 documentary change in 2006?

The documentary is still in 2002. It doesn't change. If he had re-sourced his quote to say that it reflected some 2006 memo, that would be one thing. But he's still using the PBS documentary - same source - yet changes the quote. That's not right.


By the by, just to clear something up from Page 1, Swing - Do you have a better understanding of what makes something Ad Hom yet? Let me know if there's anything I can still clear up if you're foggy.
Click to expand...

Hmm Kevin Ryan guilty of not properly citing his quote. Not right as in right in wrong? Hardly. An error in a citied source? Sure. Does a citation error equate to a lie, deceit, and misrepresentation describing motivation? Of course not but only in the debunker realm.

Now perhaps you should chastise gravy for not updating his research. Say like, "In this slide, Kevin Ryan corrects the record based upon a press release by Silverstein offices. However, because he did not properly cite the update on the slide, he is a lying deceitful man."

Back to your Ad Hom issue, are you referring to:
1. ad hominem circumstantial or
2. ad hominem abusive or
3. argumentum ad personam or
4. ad hominem tu quoque or

And when you decide, then you can determine if Kevin Ryan was justified in suggesting a possible motive for Mackey's debunking efforts. To me motivation for being a truther or a debunker is pretty paramount to one's position. I've read comments to new members often enough asking what their motivation for posting is. It was done to me on my first post at JREF so IMHO it isn't a fallacy at all.

If he isn't justified for suggesting a possible motive, he is justified in writing that paragraph because Mackey commited an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial fallacy by bringing up a personal lawsuit Kevin Ryan is involved in instead of attacking the argument he presents. That is a great way to discredit the facts of an argument for non-intellectuals but for those who recognize it as such it only makes the person committing the fallacy unprepared to debate with facts and truths.
 
Sabrina said:
*silently points to her screen name* Need I say more?

In actuality, you guys are in an unusual situation as regards my username; this is the only forum where I've used my actual name (albeit only my first name) as my username, largely because I was kind of bored of the other one I tend to use and couldn't think up a better one on the spur of the moment. C'est la vie. :D
Click to expand...

But it looks so good on you !
 
Swing Dangler said:
Waterboy commited an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial fallacy by bringing up a "gubmit work" that "insert any leading engineering / scientific professional qualified to comment on said issue" is involved in instead of attacking the argument he presents. That is a great way to discredit the facts of an argument for non-intellectuals but for those who recognize it as such it only makes the person committing the fallacy unprepared to debate with facts and truths.
Click to expand...

Thanks for outlining Waterboy's debating tactics for us Swing. :p
 
Swing Dangler said:
Back to your Ad Hom issue, are you referring to:
1. ad hominem circumstantial or
2. ad hominem abusive or
3. argumentum ad personam or
4. ad hominem tu quoque or

And when you decide, then you can determine if Kevin Ryan was justified in suggesting a possible motive for Mackey's debunking efforts. To me motivation for being a truther or a debunker is pretty paramount to one's position. I've read comments to new members often enough asking what their motivation for posting is. It was done to me on my first post at JREF so IMHO it isn't a fallacy at all.

If he isn't justified for suggesting a possible motive, he is justified in writing that paragraph because Mackey commited an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial fallacy by bringing up a personal lawsuit Kevin Ryan is involved in instead of attacking the argument he presents. That is a great way to discredit the facts of an argument for non-intellectuals but for those who recognize it as such it only makes the person committing the fallacy unprepared to debate with facts and truths.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to your statement in this thread that you don't understand how something can be ad hom if it's factually accurate. Ad Hom has nothing to do with the accuracy of a statement. It has to do with addressing the arguer personally rather than the argument itself or its specific points.

Kevin Ryan's statement in his letter is that there's no need to refute Ryan Mackey's arguments, because he works on projects for the government. That's a textbook Ad Hom, as you're shifting the focus of your approach to the person rather than his position:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

This is exactly what Kevin Ryan is saying:

R.Mackey makes claim(s)
He works for the government and we're anti-government
Therefore his claims are false

Furthermore, it's impossible to only talk about one type of Ad Hominem here, as I'd say that he's engaging in several forms.

Ad Hom Circumstantial certainly in the example above, for pointing out personal information that's irrelevant to any of the points made in the argument. He's claiming R.Mackey has a bias rather than address the points to show how they are biased.

Later, he seems to engage in a Guilt by Association (Type of Ad Hom) when he links R. Mackey to the JREF Forum Conspiracy Theories Sub-forum (which he shortens to 'Randi's Forum') and things he finds objectionable about other posters here that have nothing to do with Mr. Mackey whatsoever, such as their anonymity. Why mention that?
 
Last edited:
Minadin said:
I'm referring to your statement in this thread that you don't understand how something can be ad hom if it's factually accurate. Ad Hom has nothing to do with the accuracy of a statement. It has to do with addressing the arguer personally rather than the argument itself or its specific points.

Kevin Ryan's statement in his letter is that there's no need to refute Ryan Mackey's arguments, because he works on projects for the government. That's a textbook Ad Hom, as you're shifting the focus of your approach to the person rather than his position:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false

This is exactly what Kevin Ryan is saying:

R.Mackey makes claim(s)
He works for the government and we're anti-government
Therefore his claims are false

Furthermore, it's impossible to only talk about one type of Ad Hominem here, as I'd say that he's engaging in several forms.

Ad Hom Circumstantial certainly in the example above, for pointing out personal information that's irrelevant to any of the points made in the argument. He's claiming R.Mackey has a bias rather than address the points to show how they are biased.

Later, he seems to engage in a Guilt by Association (Type of Ad Hom) when he links R. Mackey to the JREF Forum Conspiracy Theories Sub-forum (which he shortens to 'Randi's Forum') and things he finds objectionable about other posters here that have nothing to do with Mr. Mackey whatsoever, such as their anonymity. Why mention that?
Click to expand...


Hey Minadin, did Kevin Ryan address points made in Mackey's paper? Yes or no?
Yes! Not all, of course, but he did address some of them.

So the ad hom point is well pointless. Especially considering you completely avoided RMackey's ad hom issues. But I suppose that is the hypocrisy some debunkers display openly.
If he isn't justified for suggesting a possible motive, he is justified in writing that paragraph because Mackey commited an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial fallacy by bringing up a personal lawsuit Kevin Ryan is involved in instead of attacking the argument he presents.
Click to expand...
Do you agree or disagree with this? I noticed you avoided responding to this part of my post.

And for the sake of your time, you don't need to outline logic for me. I'm quite versed in it myself.

Why mention anonymity? I have no idea but watch this spin unravel...;)
Kevin at least respects Ryan for publishing his personal information within the context of the argument. I suppose he is justified in responding to a portion of Mackey's paper because of his experience unlike anonymous posters who claim lots of degrees and titles but with offer no way to verify such credentials.

What is your 'debunker' spin on that point?
 
Swing Dangler said:
Hey Minadin, did Kevin Ryan address points made in Mackey's paper? Yes or no?
Yes! Not all, of course, but he did address some of them.

So the ad hom point is well pointless. Especially considering you completely avoided RMackey's ad hom issues. But I suppose that is the hypocrisy some debunkers display openly.

Do you agree or disagree with this? I noticed you avoided responding to this part of my post.

And for the sake of your time, you don't need to outline logic for me. I'm quite versed in it myself.

Why mention anonymity? I have no idea but watch this spin unravel...;)
Kevin at least respects Ryan for publishing his personal information within the context of the argument. I suppose he is justified in responding to a portion of Mackey's paper because of his experience unlike anonymous posters who claim lots of degrees and titles but with offer no way to verify such credentials.

What is your 'debunker' spin on that point?
Click to expand...

If you have such a great grasp of logic, why is all of your reasoning so fallacious?

To suggest that Kevin Ryan is justified in his use of Ad Hom fallacy because you (and/or he) believe that Ryan Mackey used Ad Hominem first, is in itself Ad Hominem Tu Quoque.

In case you have not noticed, I've refrained from mentioning R.Mackey's paper at all: this discussion was about whether or not Kevin Ryan was using Ad Hominem in his letter to JoNES, which, in my opinion, it's fairly clear that he was. I don't really see how it's hypocrisy not to engage in your tu quoque fallacy.

That said, I believe Mr. Mackey's reference to Kevin Ryan in his paper was more to the effect of a reference to others who have found his claims lacking, as support, rather than saying he was wrong because he lost his court case and using that as his argument.

With regard to the choice of many people to remain anonymous, of which I am one, I would have to say that it's an individual's choice to do so - and one that you've chosen as well. I'm certainly not seeking any attention for my 'debunking' efforts, and if I were, this would not be the place to do it, as I'm far outgunned by so many of the folks here in the amount of effort, knowledge, and expertise they bring for their respective fields.

If you seriously doubt my credentials listed per the 9/11 expertise thread, I'm not sure what I could to satisfy your doubt. I suppose I could scan my degree or my business card, but I would want to remove any personal information, and as such it probably would mean very little to you.

Back to work! Have a nice day everyone.
 
compare the verbiage used in the slides (.jpeg link) pointing out this supposed deception with the public statement released by Silverstein's offices. When you do, you will realize that Kevin's change in the power point slide you show is a direct reflection of this public release statement offered by the offices of Silverstein.
Click to expand...

In what universe? Silverstein's statement is completely consistent with the PBS quote.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
Click to expand...

If the statement said, "Later in the day, the Fire Commander and Silverstein decided to order the firefighters out of the building," you might have a point. But it does not, you don't, and Kevin Ryan remains a liar.
 
Bumpedy bump.

ETA: As of December 7, 2007, Kevin Ryan (aka Waterboy, aka Aquaman) has not updated or edited his "please donate to fund my litigation" site to advise donors that his lawsuit was dismissed by the court.

An honourable person would have done so.
 
Last edited:
Maybe he's still trying to payt off the fee notes already accrued?
 
On the nature of "weapons systems"

Mr. Ryan is wrong. It's subtle, but there is no question about this.

If you read what the brief bio in my whitepaper actually says, it states the following: "He has contributed to numerous projects including the Joint Strike Fighter, NASA’s New Millennium Program and Project Constellation."

As it happens, I have not done any work on the vehicle itself. My work was technology development during the proposal phase, but ultimately that technology is not going into the JSF for various reasons having to do with contracts, well beyond my control. The actual systems I worked on during this phase -- before any JSF existed -- were rocket and jet engines, hydraulic systems, transmissions, hydraulic and electromechanical valves, power systems, structural monitoring sensors, and various models. All cobbled from various legacy aircraft and testbeds. None of it approaching a weapons system.

Furthermore, my employer -- my real one, since I am not a government employee -- has a policy standing ever since the end of WWII that its employees will not work on weapons systems. My contracting officers certify that my work is not work on a weapons system. If you have a problem with what I'm saying, take it up with them.

The line is admittedly blurry, as it is quite possible for my technologies to be applied to weapons systems by others, just as it is possible for them to be applied to civil aviation, automobiles, or toasters. There are few technologies that have no possible military application. This is simply the nature of research. However, I am not nor have ever been performing this integration myself.

Here's another example: One of my experiments used an F/A-18 Hornet as a carrier vehicle. The F/A-18 is a fighter aircraft, however, this particular aircraft is owned and operated by NASA Dryden, and flown by civilian pilots. It has never carried ordnance of any kind. Is it a "weapons system?" The answer is no, no more than the fact I could bolt an MA-2 machine gun to my car makes it a "weapons system." But, naturally, there will be those who argue otherwise, particularly those desperate to fling some kind of dirt at me.

Fling away, if you have no interest in the actual truth.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
Furthermore, my employer -- my real one, since I am not a government employee -- has a policy standing ever since the end of WWII that its employees will not work on weapons systems. My contracting officers certify that my work is not work on a weapons system. If you have a problem with what I'm saying, take it up with them.
Click to expand...

Irony being that 'The Swing' could have found out about this policy and then crowed "But Mr Mackey's supposed employers don't allow work on weapons systems so he's a liar, liar pants on fire !!111eleventy!!"

It would have been on a par with all the other nitpicking crud he's posted.
 
uk_dave said:
Irony being that 'The Swing' could have found out about this policy and then crowed "But Mr Mackey's supposed employers don't allow work on weapons systems so he's a liar, liar pants on fire !!111eleventy!!"

It would have been on a par with all the other nitpicking crud he's posted.
Click to expand...

Pre-emptively, one might also accuse me of "working on weapon systems" on the basis that I helped a friend sight in a scope on a rifle recently...

This is all academic. I'm still waiting for anyone to find errors in my whitepaper. We already know that the guiding lights of the Truth Movement don't like me, that's hardly secret. The problem is that, on the rare occassions when Mr. Ryan (or any of the others) actually attempts to work with facts, they get embarrassed.

Even more than I'd thought possible, in fact -- I had assumed that I'd made at least some errors. Nobody is infallible. The best I can do is to learn from others and fix it, and I will. But the silence from the Truth Movement on factual matters is astonishing.
 
R.Mackey said:
But the silence from the Truth Movement on factual matters is astonishing.
Click to expand...

It does seem that they have a problem differentiating betwixt "subjective" and "objective".

Or "fact" and "fantasy" for that matter....
 
Hokulele said:
You mean, other than rwguinn. ;)
Click to expand...


Well, strictly speaking, I've received and implemented a number of minor corrections. None of them from the Truth Movement, however, and nothing from Mr. Ryan is even correct -- his complaints actually get him deeper into "fraud" territory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom