Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
Lanny, again....comprehension is just not your strong point. So I will explain.
|
No, it appears your ability to write sucks ass as hard as your taste in hockey teams does. It seesm that everyone else who read the post, and the article, came up with the same thing I did.
Quote:
The article was about how someone who was once like you and believed incredible stories like "The missile from the hairy gnome that killed Kennedy."
Instead of just sitting around and swapping CT stories over beers this enterprising fellow decided to prove once and for all that he and the CT's were right. So he set up an experiment and low and behold...he found that his experiment showed that the official story was right.
When he tried to show this to others he was personally attacked. Not his evidence (whatever it may be) but him personally. Hence my last statement.
That is what the article was about.
Understand?
|
I understand what you are saying, but the article appears to be full of crap. Did it outline any of the details of this guy's experiments? Nope. Did is give the reason why the 9/11 Scholars were igoring this guy? Nope. Frankly, the article sounds like sour grapes. The 9/11 Scholars are all about peer review. They live by it in their professional lives, so it is VERY unlikely that they are just going to dismiss this guy's findings like you suggest. I get the feeling that he submitted his work to the 9/11 Scolars for review, they looked at his findings and pointed out some inconsistent data, and this guy took it personally. Sounds like this guy ran to the press to grind his axe rather than take the criticism from the peer review. If this guy's data is so spot on, why is he not publishing it in the article and why is he not having it independently reviewed? Seems like a load of bull**** to me.
The article is weak from the word go. The writer did a **** poor job at trying to get any point across other than all conspiracy theories are nutty (failing to recognize that the government's story is a conspiracy theory itself). There should have been more details in the story, and there wasn't. Bad reporting, no story, and a stupid link from a stupid person. All-in-all, you're having a very bad 24 hours.
