New Member

[Belz...]

Why would you apply a scientific method to terrorism and governments?

Why would you apply any other method ?

I don't know of any method that actually gives us suitable results except the scientific one. Other methods are based on feelings, and I'll have none of those.

There is no scientific method applied in a court. It relies on the judgement of jurors.

In this instance, we may need something more solid than judgement.

When in doubt bring the ad-hominem out.

That was no ad hominem. You should check your logical fallacies.

Seriously, you initially seemed more reasonable than most in your original post, but it is becoming ever clearer that you are just as close-minded as other twoofers.

 

[Belz...]

And that's the pic he put on an internet dating site!



And Calcas, you forgot the hyperlink in Smallguy01.

Now THAT was an ad hominem, tonic.

Please guys, let's stick to the arguments.

 

[Belz...]

Many cases have no scientific evidence involved.

Well I hope I'm never an accused on one of those.

Well he seems to be claiming that Hubble was pointed at the WTC on 9/11. I doubt NASA would do such a thing.

I'm not sure Hubble has the ability to take such pictures of Earth. I also don't see a mention of hubble in the quoted passage. So how does he "seem" to indicate that ?

 

[Belz...]

What part of

RAMS[/URL]]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.

don't you understand.

Sorry, tonic. He doesn't mention Hubble, and although his sentence is not in the best of shapes, it seems clear to me that Gumboot's interpretation of it is correct. It's the "If I can do this, then I can surely do that" kind of thing.

 

[Belz...]

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

That's not how science works, scooby.

Are you claiming we should reject it as false?

What ? The sound ? Yes, by gumboot's analysis. I don't have experience in the actual field, but I know enough about sound to agree with what he said.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

No need.

A true skeptic must begin from a position of uncertainty.
We do not know whether the video is genuine or false.
Having nothing to indicate that the video is false, the only safe assumption to make is that it is genuine.

Has this been Stundied already (I am still reading the thread) ?


I mean, this is too good:

We must begin with the position that we do not know if the video is true or false, so without evidence we must assume it's true. In the sentence right after admitting that he doesn't know.

Didn't take long to move away from that "begin[ing] . . . position of uncertainty," eh?


Did you even read this when you wrote it, man?

 

[scooby]

Has this been Stundied already (I am still reading the thread) ?

I mean, this is too good:

We must begin with the position that we do not know if the video is true or false, so without evidence we must assume it's true. In the sentence right after admitting that he doesn't know.

Didn't take long to move away from that "begin[ing] . . . position of uncertainty," eh?

Did you even read this when you wrote it, man?

Yes, it is how the world operates.
I see no backlog of video's on the web, awaiting verification here before discussion elsewhere. People just, get on with it.

 

[Gravy]

Sorry, tonic. He doesn't mention Hubble, and although his sentence is not in the best of shapes, it seems clear to me that Gumboot's interpretation of it is correct. It's the "If I can do this, then I can surely do that" kind of thing.

HST is Hubble Space Telescope.

 

[Belz...]

Stupid Belz...



Still, I think Gum was right in his interpretation.




You people and your acronyms!

 

[Belz...]

A true skeptic must begin from a position of uncertainty.

And in the SAME post:

Having nothing to indicate that the video is false, the only safe assumption to make is that it is genuine.

Oh, my. Such consistency.



Thanks to NoZed for pointing this out. I'm stundified.

 

[Gravy]

Stupid Belz...
Still, I think Gum was right in his interpretation.
You people and your acronyms!

I think he correctly interpreted what RAMS was trying to convey. I think RAMS' claim that he can use the Hubble to read license plates is disturbingly false.

 

[Belz...]

Indeed. As I said, I don't think the telescope can even be used on Earth, aside from the fact that, from space, you can't see liscence plates, because they don't tend to put them on the top of the cars.

 

[gumboot]

Indeed. As I said, I don't think the telescope can even be used on Earth, aside from the fact that, from space, you can't see liscence plates, because they don't tend to put them on the top of the cars.

Theoretically you could...

If say, the satellite in question was looking not directly down, but towards the apparant horizon, and if there happened to be nothing obstructing the satellite's view of the car (so it'd have to be at the edge of a VERY flat enormous region of the earth...) and if that entire explanse of the globe had no clouds covering it, and if...

Maybe then.

Of course the car in this instance would be converging on the satellite at ridiculous speed so you would need a very fast shutter speed.

-Gumboot

 

[Gravy]

...and the bad guys all use these.

 

[qwrty]

At the very least, I believe the CIA really funded Osama bin Laden and gave him weapons training. Of course, that was in the 1980s.

Which shows that you've got to be careful with the kind of allies you make!

 

[WildCat]

At the very least, I believe the CIA really funded Osama bin Laden and gave him weapons training. Of course, that was in the 1980s.

Which shows that you've got to be careful with the kind of allies you make!

The CIA worked only with local warlords in the Afghan-Soviet war. They did not fund or train the Arab mujahedeen.

 

[Belz...]

...and the bad guys all use these.

Are those legal ???

 

[Calcas]

Are those legal ???

Those would NOT be legal.

But, Mythbusters just did a show on these, and a 1/2 dozen other methods, and NONE of them worked.

More junk science.

 

[Minadin]

They're legal here, so long as it doesn't obstruct the viewing of your plate from a straight-on angle, such as a police officer might need to use.

Channel 4 here in St. Louis did a bid story a few weeks back on which ones work and which ones don't, when they city installed a whole bunch of red-light cameras. I think only 1 of the 5 brands they tested worked in all of their scenarios.

 

[RAMS]

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.

Correct. The statement is that if I can use assets, hardware, software whether that be DoD, NASA, HST, KH-11, Keyhole, etc, etc, then I could obviously resolve if something haywire was amiss on 911 day as claimed by the 'Truth' movement.

Such as:

1. All the You Tube videos of birds, camera artifacts, lighting flaws, reflections, video flaws, etc.

Claimed to be planes, stealth aircraft, orbs, etc, etc, all false.


2. Explosives, trace of blasts, explosive signatures, etc, etc.

As claimed: False. Thermal and infrared imaging shows that there were none of these events save for heat from fire and impact thermals.


And so on. My point was that I do visuals on a professional level, under contract, all types, and I have done so in analysis, FX, digital, film, failure, with and for DoD, NASA and other vendors for some 26 years now, and I would be able, and can tell, if there is such validity made by ALL of Strange regarding ALL of these charges in an amateurish attempt to instigate or suggest conspiracy.

Hope that is better.

RAMS