• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Wow, Dylan is kinda of an a**

Your thread title would be more accurate if you removed the word kinda. ;)

"Wow, Dylan is of an a**"

Yes, because it would mean he is a ****!

Edited by Locknar: 
Edited, breach of rule 10; please do not curse in your posts or mask such words in an attempt to by-pass the auto-censor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
many 9-11 truthers here come off as having that same misplaced arrogance as wall. It's irritating as hell.
 
I like how the Popular Mechanics guys keep cool and polite while Dylan and ilk laugh at things.
 
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed previously moderated content


It is "misplaced" because neither one of the snot-nosed punks has the slightest clue what they are talking about. Nor do they know how to distinguish real experts from clueless bozos.

The end result is that virtually every one of their conclusions is not only wrong, they are laughably wrong.

Meigs & PM, on the other hand, also had no clue about these subjects. And yet, virtually every one of their conclusions is right on the money.

Why is it that the PM folks get it so right, while the snot-nosed punks get it so wrong?

Because the PM folks are NOT arrogant. They do not attempt to come to their own conclusions in a hundred different matters that are outside of their particular field of expertise (which is publishing magazines). The PM guys showed the superb judgment of suppressing their inclinations to publish their own baseless, amateur conclusions, and instead defer to 100s of experts, real experts, who opined within the confines of their particular expertise.

Avery & Bermas were too arrogant to defer to experts.

Time after time after time, the punks offered the opinions of jokers who have zero background in the field, and buttressed by their own useless conclusions. ALL of the above conclusions untainted by knowledge, experience or expertise.

___

What was Dylan & Bermas' field of expertise? Well, they had none.

They were aspiring film students (& ultimately college dropouts), who attempted to make a documentary (read "factually correct") film. To no experienced person's surprise, they failed miserably in their first attempt. (& 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th attempts as well.)

Some levels of stupid are so monumental, they can only emerge from academia.

In one sense, the punks' assumed task was not too different from day job of the folks at PM, who also attempt to deliver factually correct information to their audiences, month after month after month. (Although the medium is different: magazine vs. film).

Why were PM successful at their effort, while the punks so dismal?

Precisely because the PM folks are experienced professional at THEIR field: filtering facts from nonsense & presenting facts.

Why were the punks such utter failures at the same task? Because they were (and still are) abject amateurs at performing that same task.

Their subsequent career paths prove beyond doubt that they possessed zero ability in that job.


tk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is "misplaced" because neither one of the snot-nosed punks has the slightest clue what they are talking about. Nor do they know how to distinguish real experts from clueless bozos.

The end result is that virtually every one of their conclusions is not only wrong, they are laughably wrong.

Meigs & PM, on the other hand, also had no clue about these subjects. And yet, virtually every one of their conclusions is right on the money.

Why is it that the PM folks get it so right, while the snot-nosed punks get it so wrong?

Because the PM folks are NOT arrogant. They do not attempt to come to their own conclusions in a hundred different matters that are outside of their particular field of expertise (which is publishing magazines). The PM guys showed the superb judgment of suppressing their inclinations to publish their own baseless, amateur conclusions, and instead defer to 100s of experts, real experts, who opined within the confines of their particular expertise.

Avery & Bermas were too arrogant to defer to experts.

Time after time after time, the punks offered the opinions of jokers who have zero background in the field, and buttressed by their own useless conclusions. ALL of the above conclusions untainted by knowledge, experience or expertise.

___

What was Dylan & Bermas' field of expertise? Well, they had none.

They were aspiring film students (& ultimately college dropouts), who attempted to make a documentary (read "factually correct") film. To no experienced person's surprise, they failed miserably in their first attempt. (& 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th attempts as well.)

Some levels of stupid are so monumental, they can only emerge from academia.

In one sense, the punks' assumed task was not too different from day job of the folks at PM, who also attempt to deliver factually correct information to their audiences, month after month after month. (Although the medium is different: magazine vs. film).

Why were PM successful at their effort, while the punks so dismal?

Precisely because the PM folks are experienced professional at THEIR field: filtering facts from nonsense & presenting facts.

Why were the punks such utter failures at the same task? Because they were (and still are) abject amateurs at performing that same task.

Their subsequent career paths prove beyond doubt that they possessed zero ability in that job.

One would think that the above would be evident to MM without needing to be said, but apparently not; Avery and Bermas could care less what real experts have to say. That is arrogance.
 
I'm shocked, given the utter controlled demolitions (pun intended) of Loose Change that have occurred many times and have been around for many years now, that anybody still watches or listens to one word these utterly discredited liars and huxters say.
 
It is "misplaced" because neither one of the snot-nosed punks has the slightest clue what they are talking about. Nor do they know how to distinguish real experts from clueless bozos.

The end result is that virtually every one of their conclusions is not only wrong, they are laughably wrong.

Meigs & PM, on the other hand, also had no clue about these subjects. And yet, virtually every one of their conclusions is right on the money.

Why is it that the PM folks get it so right, while the snot-nosed punks get it so wrong?

Because the PM folks are NOT arrogant. They do not attempt to come to their own conclusions in a hundred different matters that are outside of their particular field of expertise (which is publishing magazines). The PM guys showed the superb judgment of suppressing their inclinations to publish their own baseless, amateur conclusions, and instead defer to 100s of experts, real experts, who opined within the confines of their particular expertise.

Avery & Bermas were too arrogant to defer to experts.

Time after time after time, the punks offered the opinions of jokers who have zero background in the field, and buttressed by their own useless conclusions. ALL of the above conclusions untainted by knowledge, experience or expertise.

___

What was Dylan & Bermas' field of expertise? Well, they had none.

They were aspiring film students (& ultimately college dropouts), who attempted to make a documentary (read "factually correct") film. To no experienced person's surprise, they failed miserably in their first attempt. (& 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th attempts as well.)

Some levels of stupid are so monumental, they can only emerge from academia.

In one sense, the punks' assumed task was not too different from day job of the folks at PM, who also attempt to deliver factually correct information to their audiences, month after month after month. (Although the medium is different: magazine vs. film).

Why were PM successful at their effort, while the punks so dismal?

Precisely because the PM folks are experienced professional at THEIR field: filtering facts from nonsense & presenting facts.

Why were the punks such utter failures at the same task? Because they were (and still are) abject amateurs at performing that same task.

Their subsequent career paths prove beyond doubt that they possessed zero ability in that job.


tk

That was quite the rant.

I cite professionals and academics all the time and JREFers react the same childish way.

To dismiss Dylan so totally just reveals the level of your prejudice towards those that disagree with you.

As a professional editor, I can appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into the Loose Change documentary. The final version would stand up to a peer review by most other documentary film makers.

<SNIP>
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal comment


MM
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was quite the rant.

I cite professionals and academics all the time and JREFers react the same childish way.

To dismiss Dylan so totally just reveals the level of your prejudice towards those that disagree with you.

As a professional editor, I can appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into the Loose Change documentary. The final version would stand up to a peer review by most other documentary film makers.

<SNIP>
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal comment


MM

The Loose Change Documentary?

"The."

Hmmm, somebody tell old MM there was a bunch of them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That was quite the rant.

I cite professionals and academics all the time and JREFers react the same childish way.

To dismiss Dylan so totally just reveals the level of your prejudice towards those that disagree with you.

As a professional editor, I can appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into the Loose Change documentary. The final version would stand up to a peer review by most other documentary film makers.

<SNIP>
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed presonal comment


MM

As a film, they did a decent job. Their subject matter and their conclusions are what's the problem. LC was the thing that got me into "debunking". During my first viewing of it I looked up quotes and "facts" they cite and found nearly everything they were talking about to be dead wrong. I also found people being quoted out of context and the worst thing was one quote which was actually statements made by three different people combined to make it look like a single quote.

I found it to be dishonest and disgusting. As a film though they were a great success. As humans they are utter failures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As a professional editor, I can appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into the Loose Change documentary. The final version would stand up to a peer review by most other documentary film makers.

LOOSE CHANGE IS A WORK OF FICTION!

HE ADMITTED IT!!! Man you guys are stupid.
 
As a film, they did a decent job. Their subject matter and their conclusions are what's the problem. LC was the thing that got me into "debunking". During my first viewing of it I looked up quotes and "facts" they cite and found nearly everything they were talking about to be dead wrong. I also found people being quoted out of context and the worst thing was one quote which was actually statements made by three different people combined to make it look like a single quote.

I found it to be dishonest and disgusting. As a film though they were a great success. As humans they are utter failures.

I take issue with people who love to talk in absolutes.

"..found nearly everything they were talking about to be dead wrong.."

Certainly the film evolved and improved with time. New information and response to balanced criticism helped.

I have yet to see a documentary that was flawless.

It makes me wonder why you hangout here Justin if you are looking for honesty and proper context?

Or maybe its just the matrix-like comfy zone the sheep here instill?

MM
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom