Yo! Here be the August Stundie nom thread

Frankly I believe that this illustrates Clayton Moore's inabilities in all things technical as good or better than anything he has posted before. Bolds mine.

Its better given that its a misinterpretation of the site he references which does not state a 500 mph , 270 degree bank and correctly refers to a 270 degree turn (heading change)

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8541313&postcount=137
http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/steves-analysis.htm

Using the map in the Analysis by
Steve Koeppel and the Arlington Arts Center as a basic landmark it would appear the novice pilot completed a perfect 500 mph, 270 degree bank in time hit the Pentagon at an angle from about less than three miles out as the crow flies.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Eski said:
I've made four tries to post an explanation as to the errors that lead to Black Hole interpretation of what might be more correctly called a "Black Spot Focus" of shading by Matter against the the" "True Force."

The "True Force" being the pressure exerted on any unit of matter by the "Rest of Existence." (Gravity as an attraction is a Pseudo-force, and the equation, therefore, is subject to misinterpretation. Considered as a "pressure toward a common center" phenomenon, it becomes its own equal and opposite and hence a true force.)

Somebody please be intelligent enough, and open-minded enough to take it from there!
Click to expand...

While not quite CT, he does show some common traits in the highlighted. Criticizing us for not being smart enough to understand his crazy theory that flies in the face of the standard model of physics.
 
I know this doesn't qualify as a Stundie, but I just had to share. Someone asked the old chestnut, "What was before the Big Bang?" When they were told that since, as far as we know, time began with the Big Bang, asking that question is a lot like asking what is north of the North Pole.

The following hilarity then ensued:

yrreg said:
...


But with regrets from my part, the phrase "more north onward farther north," should be read (but only because you do not have reading comprehension) thus: more north upward [onward] farther north."



Anyway, tell me, if you are an airplane pilot with your craft hovering say 200 meters above the North Pole, meaning above that point of planet earth which is the North Pole point, and you want to get still higher above the North Pole, i.e. directly farther north-bound in space above the point on the earth's surface called the North Pole, what do you do?


I have never flown an airplane but I have flown kites, and if I want my kite to still climb higher above where I am actually standing on earth, I give it extra string; but of course it cannot be exactly directly vertically above my head upward as to be perpendicularly above in the sky situated in reference to the earth's surface I am standing on.


Okay, what about a space shuttle, can it not be launched upward from the point location of the North Pole, and be navigated so as to climb higher and higher and higher directly upward northbound into farther space directly above the earth's North Pole?
Click to expand...


When told that "up" isn't the same direction as "north", he asked for clarification, and then continued to insist that was how you would go further north from the North Pole.


Hokulele said:
Also, if you are standing in Manila and jump up and down, do you believe you are heading north and south with each jump, or does that only work at the North Pole? Can you jump east and west too?
Click to expand...


yrreg said:
About jumping up and down, you cannot see that jumping up and down on earth is jumping northward and falling southward, so that if there is a tunnel all the way to the South Pole, you will get to the South Pole as you shoot into that tunnel.


Same also with you shooting yourself or jettisoning yourself from west to east or from east to west.
Click to expand...


Um, yeah. :boggled:
 
no, up would be south. horizontally outward would be north, and downward would be east and west at the same time.
 
JohnG said:
Clayton Moore, explaining why an "inexperienced pilot" simply couldn't have flown low at high speed (however briefly) before...crashing into the Pentagon:

Clayton Moore said:
Because an inexperienced pilot would have over compensated and crashed.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well yeah, you wouldn't want to crash into the Pentagon when you were trying to crash into the... Pentagon?

Erm, nevermind...
:blush:
 
Vegetarianism is a form of dietary self-castration promoted by the Satanic NWO to prevent resistance to it. This is true because the Bible says so:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/why-christians-need-game/#comment-51097

Is that what vegetarianism is really all about…dietary self castration? Is that why the left pushes it so hard — to blunt our resistance to the takeover by the satanic NWO? This warning makes all the more sense now:

1 Timothy 4:1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

There it is: celibacy + food restriction. From “deceiving spirits and things taught by demons”….
Click to expand...
 
LordXenu said:
Vegetarianism is a form of dietary self-castration promoted by the Satanic NWO to prevent resistance to it. This is true because the Bible says so:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/why-christians-need-game/#comment-51097
Click to expand...

Not in the old testament it doesn't :)

Daniel then said to the guard ...“Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. ...

15At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate the royal food. 16So the guard took away their choice food and the wine they were to drink and gave them vegetables instead.
Click to expand...
 
I nominate Simon666 for the following post:

Trying to use the US internment of Japanese-Americans during WWI (and a overinflated mortality rate) to excuse the German murders of concentration camp victims, he compares Japanese treatment of POWs to Japanese treatment of civilian internees.
Simon666 said:
Just found a more credible figure:

Japanese internment camps varied considerably in their harshness, though few were as bad as Japanese prisoner of war camps. The mortality rate was about a third that of American prisoners of war: Out of 130,895 interned Allied civilians, 14,650 or 11.2 percent died in captivity, versus 35 percent of American POWs (Frank 1999).
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/I/n/Internment.htm​
Click to expand...
 
Robrob said:
I nominate Simon666 for the following post:

Trying to use the US internment of Japanese-Americans during WWI (and a overinflated mortality rate) to excuse the German murders of concentration camp victims, he compares Japanese treatment of POWs to Japanese treatment of civilian internees.
Click to expand...

Simon666 starts whining about being nominated again in 3... 2... 1...
 
Why black athletes are better sprinters than white athletes as explained by a poster on the Biased BBC Blog:

"I read lately that estimates of fossilised strides of human ancestors, showed that they ran much faster than Usain Bolt. So our hunter gatherer ancestors had to run fast to catch the food. For the last 6,000 years we in Britain have learned to domesticate animals and plants, while they continued to run with spears, to catch the food in Africa. Also in the highlands of Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda another group robed the hunter gathers in the low lands and then ran back to the mountains, they evolved the ability to run fast over long distances because the hunter gatherers caught up with the stragglers."


http://biased-bbc.com/2012/08/17/friday-open-thread-3/#comments
 
Supermac said:
Why black athletes are better sprinters than white athletes as explained by a poster on the Biased BBC Blog:

"I read lately that estimates of fossilised strides of human ancestors, showed that they ran much faster than Usain Bolt. So our hunter gatherer ancestors had to run fast to catch the food. For the last 6,000 years we in Britain have learned to domesticate animals and plants, while they continued to run with spears, to catch the food in Africa. Also in the highlands of Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda another group robed the hunter gathers in the low lands and then ran back to the mountains, they evolved the ability to run fast over long distances because the hunter gatherers caught up with the stragglers."


http://biased-bbc.com/2012/08/17/friday-open-thread-3/#comments
Click to expand...

Umm, there is a serious theory about kenyan/ethiopian distance runners that goes something like that, with a mechanism that actually makes sense, based on some tribes culture of cattle raiding.
Run for 80 kilometers, have a fight, steal cattle, run back with cattle without getting caught. Cattle were used to buy wives from their families, so no cattle = no wives, more cattle = more wives and well fed children, so those with most stamina/better running muscles are more likely to produce surviving kids into the next generation, and so it goes on.

Running/living at high altitude helps too.
 
Last edited:
drewid said:
Umm, there is a serious theory about kenyan/ethiopian distance runners that goes something like that, with a mechanism that actually makes sense, based on some tribes culture of cattle raiding.
Run for 80 kilometers, have a fight, steal cattle, run back with cattle without getting caught. Cattle were used to buy wives from their families, so no cattle = no wives, more cattle = more wives and well fed children, so those with most stamina/better running muscles are more likely to produce surviving kids into the next generation, and so it goes on.

Running/living at high altitude helps too.
Click to expand...


The last is probably the significant factor. The biological angle is just an attempt to explain a dominance that's only existed in the last 30 years. Of the seven men who've achieved the 5000-10000m double at the Olympics five are Scandanavian. I wouldn't be surprised to find back in 1980 some people were trying to argue their Nordic heritage conferred some special advantage.
I suspect the reality is like what happened with Britain and Track Cycling; a bit of success courtesy of a talented individual led to more resources invested in the sport which led to more talent coming through and more success, and more resources until you end up in a position of dominance. And of course once you establish the notion that you have to be British/Kenyan to succeed in a particular sport its going to discourage others from focusing on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom