Obfuscation, bubba style.
- Thread starter lonesomebob
- Start date
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Yeah, my mistake:embarassed::embarassed:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Jim, in all probability the fuel tank did blow up as we are told. I got into this by agreeing with Mark that one should ask questions and not just blindly believe what the Government tells you like all the other sheeple.
Of course the Government doesn't like people who ask questions and they get labelled as racist, paranoid, crazy, climate change deniers, and the unkindest cut of all grumpy old white guys.
Of course the Government doesn't like people who ask questions and they get labelled as racist, paranoid, crazy, climate change deniers, and the unkindest cut of all grumpy old white guys.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
It certainly looks that way to me.
My father was at Pan Am for thirty years, he ended his career as a Safety Engineer. He was involved with the investigation into the Pan Am Boing 377 Stratocrusier that disapeared on its way to Hawaii.
I have long been interested in this sort of thing and followed this investigation closely.
They had litterally hundreds of investigators, people with no axe to grind. People who do this for a living, looked into this, over several years...........
Most, but not all agree with the Fuel tank scenario.
Plus, wouldn't a Government Conspiracy have gotten rid of the evidence?
They recovered most of the aircraft and it is still sitting in a hanger. If they were trying to hide evidence of a missile strike, or bomb residue, would the aircraft still be there?
Remeber OCCAM'S RAZOR.............
Occam's razor is more commonly described as 'the simplest answer is most often correct,' although this is an oversimplification. The 'correct' interpretation is that entities should not be multiplied needlessly.
Researchers should avoid 'stacking' information to prove a theory if a simpler explanation fits the observations. Occam's razor is the process of paring down information to make finding the truth easier.
One famous example of Occam's razor in action is found in conspiracy theories surrounding the NASA moon landings.
Many conspiracy theorists believe that the first Moon Landing was staged and filmed in a studio, part of an elaborate hoax. Their justification relies upon many twisted and convoluted theories, whereas the NASA argument is fairly straightforward.
The conspiracy line of reasoning contains too many suppositions: "If this happened, then this may have happened." Too many 'ifs' is a sign that a statement needs 'Occamizing' and clarifying.
Therefore, using Occam's razor, the NASA argument should be regarded as correct. This is not the same as saying that it is proved, only that it is best to investigate the simplest theory first.
Read more: Occam's Razor - The Simplest Answer is Usually Correct
My father was at Pan Am for thirty years, he ended his career as a Safety Engineer. He was involved with the investigation into the Pan Am Boing 377 Stratocrusier that disapeared on its way to Hawaii.
I have long been interested in this sort of thing and followed this investigation closely.
They had litterally hundreds of investigators, people with no axe to grind. People who do this for a living, looked into this, over several years...........
Most, but not all agree with the Fuel tank scenario.
Plus, wouldn't a Government Conspiracy have gotten rid of the evidence?
They recovered most of the aircraft and it is still sitting in a hanger. If they were trying to hide evidence of a missile strike, or bomb residue, would the aircraft still be there?
Remeber OCCAM'S RAZOR.............
Occam's razor is more commonly described as 'the simplest answer is most often correct,' although this is an oversimplification. The 'correct' interpretation is that entities should not be multiplied needlessly.
Researchers should avoid 'stacking' information to prove a theory if a simpler explanation fits the observations. Occam's razor is the process of paring down information to make finding the truth easier.
One famous example of Occam's razor in action is found in conspiracy theories surrounding the NASA moon landings.
Many conspiracy theorists believe that the first Moon Landing was staged and filmed in a studio, part of an elaborate hoax. Their justification relies upon many twisted and convoluted theories, whereas the NASA argument is fairly straightforward.
The conspiracy line of reasoning contains too many suppositions: "If this happened, then this may have happened." Too many 'ifs' is a sign that a statement needs 'Occamizing' and clarifying.
Therefore, using Occam's razor, the NASA argument should be regarded as correct. This is not the same as saying that it is proved, only that it is best to investigate the simplest theory first.
Read more: Occam's Razor - The Simplest Answer is Usually Correct
Last edited:
Right you are, Mark!
LB never claims that he knows anything, or that what he posts is the truth. He just posts crazy shit.
He's trolling.....plain and simple :idea:
You know, that pisses some people off and they respond :shout:
Others just get amused :laugh: (at first) and then bored with it :snore: (very quickly) and put him on "Ignore".
Guess which one I am :lol:
IMHO...(and if there is anything that I DO KNOW, it is my own humble opinion), we'd all be better off without him.
However, in his defense, I did see a post by him in a forum other than the Paddock, so he's not totally without redeeming value....just not far from it (IMHO, again, LB, IMHO!!).
I'd sign a petition to get him banned....but he'd probably sign it, too....
He's just that kinda guy :stunned:
Cheers!
Doug
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Call it what you will Doug, but I would rather have someone throwing this stuff into the arena and provoking our frequent disagreements, than be stuck listening to certain other members of this fine forum. :heart:
Like a moth to a flame, even those who choose to "ignore" come forth. 'Tis the "light surrounded by darkness" that brings them in, you know. :~¶
Cheeky, coming from our little prince of pouting tantrums indeed.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
It's all a matter of perspective. To someone with a liberal bent, Fechter -- with is "DemocRats stole the election" or "liberals advocate beastility" crap, the list is endless - reads like the world's biggest asshole. I'm sure Jim and I may read the same to folks on the other side of the aisle.
The difference is Fechter can't keep his hands off his keyboard and vomit stream of ideas to himself. If Faux News says, he has to post it here. I don't agree with everything Jim Craik says/writes, but he's not here starting obnoxious threads just to cause a ruckus. Fechter is.
Al W. used to be that way, saw the error of his ways and settled down and actually contributes reasonable opinions now. But it's like whack a mole. One settles down adn two -- we've got Fechter and crazy Larry now -- pop up.
Which is why every time you or Keith or someone else makes a call for politeness in the Paddock -- a reasonable request -- I ask you to look at the source. And no matter how much you may disagree with Jim, or me, neither of us start shit here. Fechter does.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Show me a thread I started with some obnoxious statement about the "other side."
Go!
Go!
Jeff,
Whether this thread is absolute crap or worthwhile is certainly debatable. Regardless, you are often the first to start calling people names and initiating the rapid degeneration of any thread just as in post #5 above and post #8 on the "Leaving public service" thread. Blaming LonesomeBob is easy but perhaps looking in the mirror first would be an appropriate first step
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
I'm wrong for suggesting folks who think the President ordered the shot down of a TWA airliner, or covered it up, are lunatics? WTF?
*I* didn't start thread. Someone else put up that craziness and then others agreed with it/expanded on it. Calling it what it is -- lunacy -- wasn't "rapid degeneration". The thread was "rapid degeneration" the minute it started.
Oh, and on that mirror thing. A suggestion. The fact that you marginally, or sometimes completely agree, with what Lonesome Nutjob has to say doesn't make it any less offensive. He's the root cause of most of the shit on this board right now.
*I* didn't start thread. Someone else put up that craziness and then others agreed with it/expanded on it. Calling it what it is -- lunacy -- wasn't "rapid degeneration". The thread was "rapid degeneration" the minute it started.
Oh, and on that mirror thing. A suggestion. The fact that you marginally, or sometimes completely agree, with what Lonesome Nutjob has to say doesn't make it any less offensive. He's the root cause of most of the shit on this board right now.
Since my name has been mentioned I will comment that I can live with LB for two very simple reasons.
1. I have no idea what he is on about when he gets into the realms of US politics. I don't really understand any of it. I did try (as did other UK members) but we soon got embroiled in a mess of words for which there seemed to be no simple translation that we can relate to our own experience - so now we (I) don't bother anymore.
2. He has never personally been rude or impolite to me, called me names or been determined to "out" me as some kind of reactionary racist "old white guy" which may well be a term familiar and in constant use in the United States, but is a term that is completely alien (and not a little offensive) to us.
That is all.
Quick edit: I even had to look up the meaning of the word in the title of this thread - you have to remember that I am tick 'cos I got kicked out of school at 15, so anyone that continually argues with me must be a whole lot ticker than me.
That is all...
So what does Bubba mean anyhow? :shifty:
1. I have no idea what he is on about when he gets into the realms of US politics. I don't really understand any of it. I did try (as did other UK members) but we soon got embroiled in a mess of words for which there seemed to be no simple translation that we can relate to our own experience - so now we (I) don't bother anymore.
2. He has never personally been rude or impolite to me, called me names or been determined to "out" me as some kind of reactionary racist "old white guy" which may well be a term familiar and in constant use in the United States, but is a term that is completely alien (and not a little offensive) to us.
That is all.
Quick edit: I even had to look up the meaning of the word in the title of this thread - you have to remember that I am tick 'cos I got kicked out of school at 15, so anyone that continually argues with me must be a whole lot ticker than me.
That is all...
So what does Bubba mean anyhow? :shifty:
Last edited:
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Like I said Keith, matter of perspective. He says things that are incredibly offensive to those with a liberal bent. I understand that a lot of what he says is just noise to you - no problem with that. But what he is saying/posting is causing most of the crap on this board.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Bubba? Derogatory term for old southern white guys....lol.....
I really don't get it guys! I made a point to counter the standard, "bobs a twat for posting shit", by saying I for one, would rather have that and the resulting (cough), 'debate', than the alternative. That alternative being selfrighteousness and/or nothing.
Although we all get too heated, too often, I occasionally learn something.
But what really irks me most, is the 'Liberals' (American type of Liberals, not the literal types), are most frequently the ones who cry foul, claim they are being attacked, must defend themselves and ultimately lower the tone and throw insults at those of us who dare to have less liberal views.
"go awy and play, we adults are talking" is such utterly crass, bollox, I nearly puked when I read it. Jeff, trys hard, is clearly intelegent, yet is so focused upon pointing out that other viewpoints are wrong, he rarly seems to check himself.
I am too pissed off right now to continue, but please Bob (lets drop the Fechter shit shall we?), keep on posting your shit. It does make some of us think. It's just a shame it only serves to make others roll out their particular 'party line'.
Although we all get too heated, too often, I occasionally learn something.
But what really irks me most, is the 'Liberals' (American type of Liberals, not the literal types), are most frequently the ones who cry foul, claim they are being attacked, must defend themselves and ultimately lower the tone and throw insults at those of us who dare to have less liberal views.
"go awy and play, we adults are talking" is such utterly crass, bollox, I nearly puked when I read it. Jeff, trys hard, is clearly intelegent, yet is so focused upon pointing out that other viewpoints are wrong, he rarly seems to check himself.
I am too pissed off right now to continue, but please Bob (lets drop the Fechter shit shall we?), keep on posting your shit. It does make some of us think. It's just a shame it only serves to make others roll out their particular 'party line'.
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
It's all a matter of perspective.
You are one of the FIRST to start whining when someone uses language you don't like or says something you don't agree with. The FIRST.
I have no idea why you are blind to the fact that some if not most of the stuff that Lonesome Nutjob posts is just as offensive to others as you claim what the "American liberals" post is to you. And here you are begging Fechter to continue posting that crap -- Liberals Support Beastility! DemocRats stole the election! -- rather than asking him to do what you demand of "us," which is post politely in terms that don't offend you.
Bottom line: Fechter starts shit. It doesn't bother you. Jim or I respond. You don't like the response and get bent of shape.
See how silly that looks?
Or maybe you don't. You're clearly a smart guy but why this isn't apparent to you I have no clue, other than it's a simple matter of perspective.
You guys get so worked up with Jim but he doesn't start crap like Fechter does, over an and over and over and over and over. Total nonsense that is offensive, and yet you consider it thought provoking? Really?
You are one of the FIRST to start whining when someone uses language you don't like or says something you don't agree with. The FIRST.
I have no idea why you are blind to the fact that some if not most of the stuff that Lonesome Nutjob posts is just as offensive to others as you claim what the "American liberals" post is to you. And here you are begging Fechter to continue posting that crap -- Liberals Support Beastility! DemocRats stole the election! -- rather than asking him to do what you demand of "us," which is post politely in terms that don't offend you.
Bottom line: Fechter starts shit. It doesn't bother you. Jim or I respond. You don't like the response and get bent of shape.
See how silly that looks?
Or maybe you don't. You're clearly a smart guy but why this isn't apparent to you I have no clue, other than it's a simple matter of perspective.
You guys get so worked up with Jim but he doesn't start crap like Fechter does, over an and over and over and over and over. Total nonsense that is offensive, and yet you consider it thought provoking? Really?
