|
Peztopiary posted:You win man. 'Watering hole pappy incest' has soundly defeated my half-baked arguments and I withdraw mortally wounded, all my contentions about JFK for naught. Congratulations. I'm going to talk about the Inner Earth now, maybe. Or maybe something more ridiculous. "you guys are so mean refusing to engage with the same poo poo that's been debunked at face value! I'm talking my ball of dumb bullshit and going home!"
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Here we go: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Shooting_holes_in_theory_that_a_Secret_Service_agent_killed_President_Kennedy.html That still raises the issue of how you manage to specifically shoot kennedy in the head without hosing down half the street with gunfire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:Here we go: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Shooting_holes_in_theory_that_a_Secret_Service_agent_killed_President_Kennedy.html Oh wow I've never seen that picture. OwlFancier posted:I didn't think the M16 had been invented then honestly. The AR-15 hadn't been adopted as a service weapon, but a select-fire AR is the same as an M16. The AR-15 was invented in the late fifties and JFK apparently shot one on his boat. They are also loud, it's funny to think that nobody would notice it going off at street level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That still raises the issue of how you manage to specifically shoot kennedy in the head without hosing down half the street with gunfire. It's select fire. He could have had it on single shot as opposed to fully automatic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:It's select fire. He could have had it on single shot as opposed to fully automatic. I've watched the matrix, they spent like half an hour trying to do that with machineguns and it didn't work. And if there's one historical source I can trust, it's the matrix. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:Joking aside, I know a guy who served in the CIA during early parts of the Vietnam War who said that members of the Company in that era were firmly convinced that LBJ was behind it all. He kind of half subscribed to it himself (I don't), but it does speak to unorthodox attitudes among spooks in the mid-to-late '60s. It also probably reflects on them a good deal since the CIA isn't known for its support of social progress and all that. I prefer my own theory where Kennedy nobly arranged his own assassination so that Johnson cculd use the political goodwill to enact their legislative agenda PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
This is all very interesting because it just goes to show you that the Secret Service was thinking about a lot of poo poo, even back then. We know about the crazy Lincoln in which JFK was killed, the armor and special plexiglas top that wasn't used. I'm sure SS would have preferred that they always use the closed top, but it was hard to convince a politician that you should put a barrier between them and the people. Likewise, it makes all the sense in the world for the follow car to have an AR-15 on board, even in its early stages of development. With proper cleaning and maintenance, the AR would have been the perfect medicine, for urban counter-sniper to laying down suppressing fire to get out of an ambush. No doubt agents tried that poo poo out on the range and were like "yes please." From reading the wiki synopsis, it looks like the author of Mortal Error tries to make the AR-15/M16 out to be an unreliable or dangerous platform, using examples of weapon failures in Vietnam. But we all know those failures weren't because of the design, they were because proper maintenance procedures weren't used or taught. They certainly didn't involve any indictment of the AR as an unsafe design. It's exactly the kind of sloppy elision you find over and over in conspiracy lit. e: PupsOfWar posted:I prefer my own theory where Kennedy nobly arranged his own assassination so that Johnson cculd use the political goodwill to enact their legislative agenda The Last Temptation of JFK woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Hmm, I guess AddMEonFacebook fled once he figured out that he doesn't have any proof for his accusations. I think that we at least managed to convince him that anecdotal evidence is bullshit, maybe
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah I know, but doing that from one moving vehicle to another, in one shot, without trying seems a bit far fetched. Ya think? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
As a bit of an aside I was introduced to the Mysterious Universe podcast by some friends and it is great fun. In 4 episodes I've learned about fairies, goatmen, psychics, and that apparently there are things that are too crazy for even the hosts of this podcast to believe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Hmm, I guess AddMEonFacebook fled once he figured out that he doesn't have any proof for his accusations. I think that we at least managed to convince him that anecdotal evidence is bullshit, maybe Nah he/she just went to work, or sleep, or something. There's no winning that battle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Tolstoy basically predicts WW1 in 1894.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:This is all very interesting because it just goes to show you that the Secret Service was thinking about a lot of poo poo, even back then. We know about the crazy Lincoln in which JFK was killed, the armor and special plexiglas top that wasn't used. I'm sure SS would have preferred that they always use the closed top, but it was hard to convince a politician that you should put a barrier between them and the people. In Kennedy's defense, he was in that car with the top down all the time and he only ever got murdered once.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure an easy target like that is asking for it. Given the way he presented himself, he should be happy for all the times he didn't get shot. Edit: Gobbo, come back! We miss you! Also, how do your parents feel about the current police discussion going on in America? I have to imagine Vancouver can feel the heat of our southern winds. Shbobdb fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:21
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Hmm, I guess AddMEonFacebook fled once he figured out that he doesn't have any proof for his accusations. I think that we at least managed to convince him that anecdotal evidence is bullshit, maybe Nah. I'm still here. I did like your points on anecdotal evidence, and I'm going to have to watch that philosophy video. I wasn't trying to strawman your point about it, I was just saying that people do use a lot of anecdotal evidence just naturally because it helps fill up their world-view. It'll just happen subconsciously. You laid out scenario a and and scenario b for what happened on 9/11, but really there are a number of alternatives to both scenarios. The "total conspiracy nut" might go for scenario b and "the sheeple" might go for scenario a, but come on, there are definitely other possibilities. Maybe they simply funded Osama Bin Laden to carry out the attacks and because they knew the date, they were able to use it as a cover for the other things they did that day like destroying building 7. Why did noone die in building 7? It seems like they knew something was going to happen to that building.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
The logic does flesh out that you are accepting a number of premises on faith to believe the official story. Questioning the official story doesn't necessitate believing everything that anyone ever said about 9/11. The only premise you have to accept to question the story is that there was probably a bomb that destroyed building 7. Just that one premise vs. the half dozen premises that lead to the conclusion that it was terrorists and the government wasn't involved. What is the evidence that building 7 was destroyed by terrorists? It didn't even get hit by a plane. That's undeniable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:47
|
|
|
Now you reveal not having done even a little research about WTC 7. Here's what you are not getting. There are a million "possibilities" but none of them has been borne out by investigation, whereas the "official story" has been, and not just by the government. You can talk about the statistical likelihood of this thing or that thing happening but that's not the way life works. All you have is a vague sense of being lied to and that's true, but your perception of what you're being lied to about is totally wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Now you reveal not having done even a little research about WTC 7. How do you think science ever advances without people making hypotheses? If I know I'm being lied to, why accept the lie? Why not be annoying instead? It should bother you when you know you're being lied to. Demand the truth! The investigation was not satisfactory with regard to building 7. AddMEonFacebook fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:How do you think science ever advances without people making hypotheses? If I know I'm being lied to, why accept the lie? Hypotheses are supposed to be informed by observation. You're supposed to learn what has already been discovered before you go asserting a new hypothesis. In this case, if you truly wanted to be qualified to weigh in on what caused building 7 to collapse, you would want to read the official explanation for why it did. Do you know what that is?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
I would be interested in seeing anything that proves fluoride in water improves dental health. What is added to our water isn't dental grade anything. It's toxic waste that comes off of fertilizer plant scrubbers, and these scrubbers are installed exactly for the purpose of keeping the toxic fluoride from escaping into the environment and poisoning it. The industrial plants, instead of losing money disposing of this toxic waste, actually make money by selling it to municipalities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Hypotheses are supposed to be informed by observation. You're supposed to learn what has already been discovered before you go asserting a new hypothesis. In this case, if you truly wanted to be qualified to weigh in on what caused building 7 to collapse, you would want to read the official explanation for why it did. Do you know what that is? The official explanation, I believe, is that debris from the towers caused it to collapse. Further up the line, that all this happened because of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden being angry over US military bases in Saudi Arabia
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean, the obvious answer is that fluoride was put in the water so corporations could save money. Everything else is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:I would be interested in seeing anything that proves fluoride in water improves dental health. Recorded history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:07
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Further up the line, that all this happened because of Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden being angry over US military bases in Saudi Arabia I think even reading about the subject for five minutes could yield a slightly more penetrating analysis than this, even if all you read was Al-Qaeda communiques in translation. Edit: And not just the 9/11 one in isolation.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Recorded history. There have been so many advances in health, especially dental health. What makes you think it's the fluoride in municipal water supplies that is actually helping people's teeth? This is much different from dental grade fluoride treatments, which I know have good research involved with them. I'm talking about the WATER SUPPLY, not the DENTIST'S OFFICE!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think even reading about the subject for five minutes could yield a slightly more penetrating analysis than this, even if all you read was Al-Qaeda communiques in translation. It's paraphrased, duh. I'm not trying to create a penetrating analysis of their motives.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:There have been so many advances in health, especially dental health. What makes you think it's the fluoride in municipal water supplies that is actually helping people's teeth? Recorded history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Recorded history. Quote an article or something. You're just being arrogant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Quote an article or something. You're just being arrogant. No you're being willfully ignorant. Is the character you're playing capable of believing anything it's told?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Quote an article or something. You're just being arrogant. Quote something that shows it isn't true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:The industrial plants, instead of losing money disposing of this toxic waste, actually make money by selling it to municipalities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
I was a WTC 7 skeptic but in the early pages of this very thread a reasonable argument is laid about regarding a) The loss of water pressure and failure of the fire suppression system (no sprinklers) b) Completely unprecedented damage from debris
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:Quote an article or something. You're just being arrogant. Thats ignorant, you're just so ignorant. Why don't you quit being so ignorant? God, you're just ignorant and I can't respond to you. Move to somewhere without safe water supplies and then complain about flouridation. I have a sneaking suspicion your delusions on 9/11 and a global healthcare agenda causing ww1 are related to your thoughts on jews, banking, and the holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Quote something that shows it isn't true. Ok. quote:
http://www.apfn.org/THEWINDS/archive/medical/fluoride01-98.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
(citation required) Can you link the research from EPA and Harvard?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:(citation required) fixed. np quote:REFERENCES: now you AddMEonFacebook fucked around with this message at 02:41 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:fixed. np http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm National Academy of Sciences on Fluoride in Drinking Water quote:What is the National Academy of Sciences and why is its opinion important? Gee, who should I trust to have a better understanding of science, the National Academy of Science, or Joe Schizophrenic on SA?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
You linked a made up website good job. Recorded history shows otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:46
|
|
AddMEonFacebook posted:fixed. np Do you even read this poo poo? The relied upon statements in the 1991 EPA study are: quote:Bone Fractures. There is some suggestion from epidemiological studies that the incidence of certain bone fractures may be greater in some communities with either naturally high or adjusted fluoride levels. However, there are a number of confounding factors that need resolution to determine whether or not an association exists. Additionally, other studies do not show an increase in the incidence of bone fractures; one study provided evidence of a lower incidence of bone fractures in an optimally fluoridated community as compared to a similar community with trace levels of fluoride in the water. Therefore, further research is required. and quote:Optimal fluoridation of drinking water does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data available to date, including the new studies prepared for this report. While the presence of fluoride in sources other than drinking water reduces the ability to discriminate between exposure in fluoridated as compared to non-fluoridated communizes, no trends in cancer risk, including the risk of osteosarcoma, were attributed to the introduction of fluoride into drinking water in these new studies. During two time periods, 1973-1980 and 1981-1987, there was an unexplained increase of osteosarcoma in males under age 20. The reason for this increase remains to be clarified, but an extensive analysis reveals that it is unrelated to the introduction and duration of fluoridation. These are not negative remarks - neutral at best. Meanwhile.... quote:Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction in dental caries. Although the comparative degree of measurable benefit has been reduced recently as other fluoride sources have become available in non-fluoridated areas, the benefits of water fluoridation are still clearly evident. Fewer caries are associated with fewer abscesses and extractions of teeth and with improved health. The health and economic benefits of water fluoridation accrue to individuals of all ages and socioeconomic groups, especially to poor children. The only way you can read that EPA report negatively is if you cannot read at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 19:24 |
|
|
Did you even read that? They say it's dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 02:47
|
|