Long pointless bullying threads? I have to admit I have missed them.
Let's have some more rancorous arguments over political correctness, jokes about child abuse and racism. Agreeing with each other is so gay (and using homophobic similees!)
Attention all moon landing sceptics Page 18
Quote: sootyj @ July 21 2009, 7:38 PM BSTInfairness I have never known DaButt to get riled. How ever much some people may have expected him to.
I've had these same discussions (and many even more contentious ones) on a dozen or more forums and my blood pressure has never risen the slightest bit. Sometimes the other guy starts with the name calling and personal attacks within the first 5 minutes, but I never lose my cool. The only time I can remember losing my temper was when someone said something loathsome about my kids. Even then, I think my response was a simple "f**k you."
I think we should keep the rest of this discussion for the BCG Meet.
Tim, welcome to BCG's 100% Full-on Conspiracy Club. The straitjacket is complimentary but must be worn while browsing the forum. 
I would say in Tim's defence (at the risk of getting labelled a 9/11 conspiracist... What am I talking about, at the risk? At the certainty of being labelled, I mean), it doesn't take thousands of people in the know to stop the Air Force flying over the Pentagon. It defeats the point of a military command structure that places decisions into as few hands as possible.
Quote: Afinkawan @ July 21 2009, 10:01 AM BSTFor the moon landings to have been faked, there have to be thousands of scientists involved.
Ditto, is the argument from the Moon Landing folk, not thousands but few, with small roles and not enough knowledge to see the full picture.
To answer some minor points earlier.
Quote: DaButt @ July 21 2009, 3:51 AM BSTBut just because you haven't visited Latvia it doesn't mean Latvia doesn't exist. And if you question its existence you should accept criticism because you're living in a fantasy world.
The analogy misleads. You mix Latvia (a place, just like the moon) with an action or event (moon landing, going to a place we all know exists). No one is claiming the moon / Latvia doesn't exist. For your analogy to remain true, it should read: "Just because you haven't been to Latvia / the Moon for yourself, I'm telling you that my uncle / an astronaut went there. Here's the snapshots / videos, his diary / scientific results etc." That's a rather different scenario. You may believe Latvia exists but believing someone went there is another thing.
Quote: DaButt @ July 21 2009, 3:51 AM BSTI've never seen an electron but I have no problem accepting them as explained by science.
That's faith. And if you haven't researched fully for yourself, the electron, it's also blind faith taken second-hand. Another parallel to science / religion. No one has seen an elecron. It is a concept derived from mathematical models. With it, the maths and behaviour work. However, it's a black box, the reality may be beyond our ability to conceive, while still fulfilling the maths. Everyone who accepts the current popular model of an electron takes a step of faith; a belief in something unseen; scientific truth by majority, despite the fact that only a minority (if any one man), even within the scientific world, can understand all the complexities.
If other equally valid models can be produced, would the orthodoxy of science welcome them or rubbish them? I think you know the answer. Yet another parallel.
Quote: Griff @ July 22 2009, 11:03 AM BSTThis is exactly what happened with quantum mechanics. A new model was produced which overturned everything that had previously been understood. The new model was accepted, because it was experimentally proven.
I'm not sure here but wasn't the new model clearly required in advance because the maths predicted it and the contemporary model couldn't explain the weirder behaviour of sub-atomic particles? And it wasn't so much an overturning as a necessary redefining, an addition of a new layer to make everything work? Or have I got that muddled?
Quote: SlagA @ July 22 2009, 11:00 AM BSTIt defeats the point of a military command structure that places decisions into as few hands as possible.
It's not the commander who reveals the secrets it's, the guy who files the papers (Julius Rosenberg), or the junior engineer (Vanunu). There's always some one typing, buffing the floors guarding the fence who gets suspicious. An airbase has 100s of staff some one notices, some one always notices.
Quote: SlagA @ July 22 2009, 11:00 AM BSTDitto, is the argument from the Moon Landing folk, not thousands but few, with small roles and not enough knowledge to see the full picture.
Those 1000s of people who built the computers, wrote the programmers and designed the systems. Were utterly fooled for days at a time? I could build a talking robot if I mastered electronics, but it's unlikely.
Quote: Griff @ July 22 2009, 11:44 AM BSTI never notice.
In fairness Griff you don't actually work some where where vast criminal conspiracies take place.
As an aside, I would point out that not only did no-one in the military/FAA get fired or demoted over the shambolic and criminal lack of air response on that day, the majority of them were actually promoted within a couple of years.
Quote: Griff @ July 22 2009, 11:41 AM BSTWaves, not particles, or rather, both at the same time. Uncertainty, not certainty.
Yes but these phenomena (waves / particles / both) were already observable in the maths and in experiment. It was the behaviour (observed / predicted) that prompted the necessary explanation as to why they occurred?
The idea that we're protected by our airforces is a joke.
Hull's been buzzed by Russian Bears several times, that bloke landed a Cesna on Red Square. Generally when airforces have tried to tighten security they end up shooting down passenger liners.
I think the US shotdown a Libyan airliner at one point. After that it wouldn't surprise me if they decided domestic defence jets would fly unarmed and rarely.
Quote: Griff @ July 22 2009, 11:50 AM BSTInspector Morse says different.
And now he's dead...
Griff just what is it you do?
"Those 1000s of people who built the computers, wrote the programmers and designed the systems. Were utterly fooled for days at a time?"
Yes but computer engineers are building a computer. They're not going to get a visit from top brass who'll explain the computer is just part of an elaborate hoax? Why would the grunts need to know everything about a conspiracy to fulfil a small role? Is what a conspiracist would ask.
However, mine was a rhetorical question. 
Quote: Griff @ July 22 2009, 11:55 AM BSTI'm not going to get into a long detailed discussion of quantum mechanics history.
If you are determined to believe science is a closed shop, nothing I can say will convince you.
Sorry, I shall stop asking questions.
Quote: SlagA @ July 22 2009, 11:00 AM BSTThat's faith. And if you haven't researched fully for yourself, the electron, it's also blind faith taken second-hand. Another parallel to science / religion. No one has seen an elecron. It is a concept derived from mathematical models. With it, the maths and behaviour work.
I can't agree with the parallel to religion argument. No-one (to my knowledge) has ever worked on a mathematical principal that God or some all powerful deity exists. The best argument I ever heard for that came from a surprising source. Stephen Hawkin. In his conclusion to A Brief History of Time he put forward that one explanation of the imbalance between matter and anti-matter was that the universe was designed that way. However string theory since I believe has offered a more scientific explanation.
I have my own theory for what it's worth. I believe that all that we see and know is our version of reality. We only use a fraction of our brain power and I believe that if we could harness the greater parts of that we would perhaps be able to see that our reality is perhaps only one of several or even thousands. I'm going for a lie down now
Quote: sootyj @ July 22 2009, 11:53 AM BSTThe idea that we're protected by our airforces is a joke.
The previous year the USAF had been scrambled and intercepted commercial airplanes which had deviated only slightly off course, or had lost communication on scores of occasions, following a simply FAA/USAF protocol. This was SOP for even minor infractions over US airspace. The Air Force did not have to obtain any Pentagon approval prior to scrambling planes.
This protocol was changed two months before 9/11, when it was decided that in a case of suspected hijacking or terrorist activity, after being notified by the FAA, the the Air Force would have to seek permission from the Pentagon before scrambling interception jets. This was criticised at the time by the Air Force as potentially slowing down response in an emergency (by having to track down and obtain permission from a senior Pentagon official), but were told that hijacked planes were not a "fast response" priority.
The old protocol was reinstated after 9/11.
(The evidence for this is all available from documents released under the Freedom Of Information Act.)
Quote: Tim Walker @ July 22 2009, 12:00 PM BSTThe previous year the USAF had been scrambled and intercepted commercial airplanes which had deviated only slightly off course, or had lost communication on scores of occasions, following a simply FAA/USAF protocol. The Air Force did not have to obtain Pentagon approval prior to scrambling planes.
This protocol was changed two months before 9/11, when it was decided that in any case of suspected hijacking or terrorist activity, after being notified by the FAA, the the Air Force would have to seek permission from the Pentagon before scrambling interception jets. This was criticised at the time by the Air Force as potentially slowing down response in an emergency, but were told that hijacked planes were not a "fast response" priority.
The old protocol was reinstated after 9/11.
(The evidence for this is all available from documents released under the Freedom Of Information Act.)
Part of GWBs general degrading and budget cutting on homeland security prior to 9/11. As a conservative he was interested in expensive arms expenditure then not doing anything with them.
Quote: sootyj @ July 22 2009, 12:03 PM BSTPart of GWBs general degrading and budget cutting on homeland security prior to 9/11. As a conservative he was interested in expensive arms expenditure then not doing anything with them.
This was nothing to do with budget. This was a specific change in the protocol, not based on any evidence, that wasn't stopping air force response, just confusing and prolonging the chain of command algorithm which would lead to a response. It took away the decision of scrambling jets from the FAA/USAF to the Pentagon, and ultimately to Rumsfeld and Cheney.