[followups jiggered. I'm not interested in your rants or your
reactionary response. And I'm not interested in continuing.]
On 2006-05-16, u2r2h@gmx.net ranted thusly:
> Marcus Icke "prooved" it with the help
> of Microsoft Flight Simulator!!!
>
> You heard it from me first!
>
> Look:
>
> http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/prod/dialspace/town/pipexdsl/q/aqrf00/ggua175/
Okay, I looked at that, and it is completely absurd. At every
uncertainty, the author's determination to find a fraud governed his
interpretation of recorded events, and kept him from finding those same
uncertainties that would prevent any conclusion, and ordered the
presentation to suggest the outcome.
For example, there is much mention of the "distorted left wing", and the
conclusion already made that it is a fraud before he even mentions (to
dismiss it) the possibility the plane wing surfaces are bent from the
stresses of an upward turn.
The suggestion is dismissed because the "investigator" doesn't see any
control surfaces in the obliquely photographed and low-resolution image.
He suggests it should be the right wing, not the left, that is being
bent up, but has forgotton that he himself pinned the "fraud" right wing
to the "simulation" right wing. Had he bothered to reverse that would
he have found any reason to prefer one over the other? No, because
neither one would be accurate.
The "investigator's" conclusions suggest he has a better simulator than
the perpetrators of the "fraud".
I'm sure there is more in that tiresome long paranoid thesis, and if you
want a little idle amusement you might take it upon yourself to expose
the problems, rather than assert those drugged out democrats are barking
at the moon. Because there is something importantly wrong about the
whole affair, the 911 commission findings were woefully poorly done, and
and the investigation should be made, and critiqued.
I half did this because so often I see responses asserting "oh that's
been debunked on Discovery channel", but there's never any evidence of
understanding on the part of the poster, who apparently is just
reacting. I wanted to show what was proper in the way of disagreement:
it aint just howling back, facts and insight and a measured response are
proper. The fact is, you are barking, and they are at least laying an
argument out that can be critiqued. :)
er
--
email not valid
|