|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Conspiracy theorists have an emotional
commitment, not to uncovering the truth, but to discrediting the 'system'. |
That is absolutely incorrect. It is not unpatriotic to wish to expose the lies that have been made in these cases.
We know what the facts are in these cases and the truth has been uncovered long ago.
I have nothing against "the system" or my government in the way you think.
I think the question is; what are you afraid of? You know most of this stuff is true.
Why can't you accept your government continues to lie and cover up things?
Even if they came into these things after-the-fact, they are still lying in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Actually, I don�t expect them to roll over anytime soon and admit their guilt. But why do you and others defend them and call us the bad guys? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
What's logically impossible prove is "Fundafied's" claim that the scientific method is not limited.
And material logic only applies to material things and relationships.
You can't logically demand material evidence of spiritual existence.
Actually, you can demand it, but since spiritual energy is superior to material energy (though they come from the same energetic source) it won't do you any good.
Man proposes, God disposes ... |
"Spiritual" energy does not exist, as there is zero evidence for it. It is a figment of the weakminded, childish, and self-indulgent.
The scientific method is not limited, and that is indeed logically provable simply by looking at what it is, and secondly by observing the extraordinary results it has yeilded over the years.
There is no god, so spirit, no soul, no afterlife. And unless you want to bring some certifiable evidence to the contrary we shall continue this discussion in light of these facts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
arjuna
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
The scientific method is not "limited", and to see it that way is in fact an example of deeply flawed and limited thinking, with perhaps a dash of ignorance thrown in for good measure.
Your comment about sadness and dissapointment absolutely reeks of the most repulsive kind of arrogance, while also indicating a serious lack of understanding about what science is and what it does. Your idea that you are the one who can see clearly while experts in the field are blinded speaks of a profoundly rooted self delusionment mixed with the arrogance I have already mentioned. |
Who are you trying to impress?
If you are a serious scientist, you should have understood me already. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not trying to impress anyone.
I have understood you, and understood that your position is eroneous.
Last edited by Funkdafied on Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Any scientist who doesn't wish he/she could be the next Newton, Darwin, Einstein is already dead. It's human nature to want to be successful in your chosen field. To say that scientists stay in a rut because it's easy would only be claimed by someone who doesn't really understand humans--or has a vested interest in an anti-science point of view. That may not hold for an older person near the end of his career. |
In an earlier post, arjuna wrote:
| Quote: |
One minor example of the folly of "grant committees" is what the current winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine had to go through to achieve their breakthroughs. Capecchi was turned down by NIH on his first proposal to investigate gene targeting. Evans had the same experiences in the UK. These were pretty minor advances. A revolutionary proposal that shakes the fundamental beliefs of science is guaranteed to be rejected.
How long did it take scientists to take the idea of the jumping genes by McClintock seriously? She stopped talking about it because no one took it seriously, and she knew the power of ridicule could destroy her career.
Harry Noller of UCSC has been studying ribosomes for a long time. It is all but proven now that rRNA catalyzes the peptidyl transferase reaction. Do you think "grant committees" would have accepted such a proposal in the 1960's? He never even proposed such a thing because he knew he wouldn't get funding for such a heretical idea. |
These are some interesting examples, and they point out that grant committees are sometimes not well-run and (hopefully) have improved since the 1960s. I think a lot of people who do sit on scientific grant committees nowadays realize that these kinds of situations can take place, and that the process of grant issuing needs to take into consideration some real "blue sky" ideas. I remember reading a couple of years ago that NASA gave $100,000 to an antigravity research project; the project and the theory behind it went against everything everybody understands about gravity and electromagnetism, and the demonstration experiment has never been duplicated, but they were willing to throw some money at the project just to see what would happen.
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| While new ideas meet resistance at first, over time, as evidence mounts, the new idea gets accepted because it is the explanation that best fits the available evidence. |
And, because the "project" of science is such a broad, encompassing one with so many people in so many fields involved around the world. Even when one particular field seems obsessed with a particular theory or approach, research results from allied fields will work to either confirm or undermine the "accepted paradigm".
| Quote: |
| This is not what happens with conspiracy theories. The trend there is that if one explanation doesn't get accepted, another and another alternative explanation gets put forward while the 'evidence' remains essentially the same. Conspiracy theorists have an emotional commitment, not to uncovering the truth, but to discrediting the 'system'. |
One would assume that with conspiracy theories that address historical events, the theory(ies) would get more precise and refined with further research. With all the paperwork done on the JFK multi-assassination theory, the results would yield a very precise and refined model of who made the decisions, and what was the mindset of the assassination participants. This doesn't seem to be the case. Refining the theory doesn't seem to be all that important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
One would assume that with conspiracy theories that address historical events, the theory(ies) would get more precise and refined with further research. With all the paperwork done on the JFK multi-assassination theory, the results would yield a very precise and refined model of who made the decisions, and what was the mindset of the assassination participants. This doesn't seem to be the case. Refining the theory doesn't seem to be all that important. |
The Single Bullet Theory has not been proven and researchers are not required to do anything.
We rest our case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regi, I'm dying here. Are you a flat earther?
Please let it be so.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A poster wrote:
"I'm not one for conspiracy theories and I'm totally confused by all the different premises offered for the assasination. I don't know how much of the file JFK was fabricated or not."
Can someone just answer me one question?
Did or do scientists believe that one bullet did all that damage?
This bullet: (CE399) from the National Archives? The so caller "stretcher bullet or magic bullet� Stretcher because it suddenly appeared on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital and thus has fails in chain of custody. Magic because it did extensive damage to two people and ended up unscathed.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dude stop holding out on me. I need to know..
I can't work out if you or that website is taking the piss...
I really, really hope not^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
This bullet: (CE399) from the National Archives? The so caller "stretcher bullet or magic bullet� Stretcher because it suddenly appeared on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital and thus has fails in chain of custody. Magic because it did extensive damage to two people and ended up unscathed.
|
Four months ago you were waving a photograph saying it was proof positive that the SS collaborated in the assassination of Kennedy. Once that has been discounted, all you've got left is a picture of a bullet. As I said above, you haven't really found anything new, nor is your theory of who (other than Oswald) assassinated Kennedy any more refined or precise than it was before. ** shrug ** |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey look. We do not need to prove anything.
You need to prove the SBT.
Nothing further is required to be proven by us.
I decided that since you have a certain skill and you were insistant on dragging that argument on until hell froze over , that I would give you credit for the particular field you are trained in and drop the matter.
Additionally, since I was naming specific people and they are now dead, I also feel I should give them a certain amount of respect. I remain convinced , however that they were forced to be in on it.
United States Secret Service Agents do not just sit there with their thumbs up their arse when the President is hit and shots are flying. It just ain't going happen unless they were told to do just that.
Your ridiculous argument that because the photographer says there was no conspiracy, there wasn't, remains just that.
However, the case not rest on the SSA's involvement. The SBT has been disproved and that is all that matters.
You have no right to ask us anything. You need to prove the
THEORY that the government used to bury this matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
Hey look. We do not need to prove anything.
You need to prove the SBT.
Nothing further is required to be proven by us. |
Well, no....  what you're doing there is avoiding responsibility for proving or defending the theory that you are advocating. It's YOUR theory. If you're not going to take the trouble to defend it, it's no skin off my nose.
| Quote: |
| I decided that since you have a certain skill and you were insistant on dragging that argument on until hell froze over , that I would give you credit for the particular field you are trained in and drop the matter. |
I think it would be more correct to state that although you put forward that particular photo as proof positive - in your opinion - that the Secret Service allowed Kennedy to be shot more than once, I was able to conduct a careful analysis of the photo demonstrating that no such conclusion could be drawn.
| Quote: |
| United States Secret Service Agents do not just sit there with their thumbs up their arse when the President is hit and shots are flying. It just ain't going happen unless they were told to do just that. |
Or, to take Occam's razor, for a few seconds they were simply not aware that an assassination attempt was in progress. This IS a possibility that has been discussed before, and any reasonable person would conclude that it was/is a possibility.
| Quote: |
| Your ridiculous argument that because the photographer says there was no conspiracy, there wasn't, remains just that. |
Well, no. What happened was that I discovered, by a few simple mouse clicks, that the man who took the photograph - obviously the best possible source as to the photograph's reliability and interpretability - has concluded that nothing in his photograph(s) discounts the conclusions made by the Warren commission.
You were quite shocked by this, and declined to respond for several days, as you slowly built up an argument/delusion in your mind that what Robert Altgens thinks about his own photographs doesn't matter.
It IS a piece of evidence that YOU put forward to advance your theory, which I was able to discount through careful analysis. And after you read my analysis, you agreed with me and said that the photograph can't be shown to demonstrate that the secret service participated in the Kennedy assassination.
| Quote: |
You have no right to ask us anything. You need to prove the
THEORY that the government used to bury this matter. |
If "we" have no right to ask you anything, then by the same token, what right do you have to ask us to listen to you?
AGAIN, by the way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
You would try the patience of Job, MOS. What by the way is your reason for defending the government anyway? They have been caught in their lie and most people do not believe them. Why do you?
There are no theories involving understanding that the SBT could not have, and did not happen. I have no theory. Do you get it this time?
I say simply that YOUR theory , the Single Bullet theory or magic bullet theory did not happen. It has been picked apart by able scientists and is false. It is not hard to understand why it is false even for the layman.
You can not prove that the SBT could be true. We do not need to do anything. But in fact we have , 81% of the American people have voted in polls and do not believe this nonsense, so why do you?
I will be waiting for you to prove the SBT is true. The ball is in your court.
Since you can not do this, the premise contained in the Warren Report is false, and indicates a cover-up. I can understand why they had to do it and most people realize it was to heal the nation.
But to continue to defend this bald faced lie is unexcusable.
Therefore , you are either cognitively impaired or complicit in the crime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anyway, to get back to the topic of the thread...
It is true that a large number of new ideas, approaches or even technical inventions are summarily dismissed when they are presented to the public or to grant committees, or to venture capital companies. There are dozens of cautionary tales, for example the story of the man who invented photocopying:
http://members.tripod.com/~earthdude1/xerox/index.html
But it is also true that many concepts and fads are taken up and held on to, even after evidence turns up later that questions their validity. In the field of Education, some good examples are the current debate about Learning Styles. Learning Styles has been adopted wholeheartedly in many elementary schools in the UK, but there is serious debate about whether the Learning Styles approach to children's education yields better learners or test scores than conventional methods. Another good example is the ongoing debate about Whole Language and its effectiveness as a method of teaching literacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_language
The lesson to be learned here is that, for some strange reason, sometimes good ideas are immediately discounted, but also sometimes dubious ideas and theories are adopted whole-hog and held on to, even when they later turn out to be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
You would try the patience of Job, MOS. What by the way is your reason for defending the government anyway? They have been caught in their lie and most people do not believe them. Why do you?
There are no theories involving understanding that the SBT could not have, and did not happen. I have no theory. Do you get it this time?
I say simply that YOUR theory , the Single Bullet theory or magic bullet theory did not happen. It has been picked apart by able scientists and is false. It is not hard to understand why it is false even for the layman.
You can not prove that the SBT could be true. We do not need to do anything. But in fact we have , 81% of the American people have voted in polls and do not believe this nonsense, so why do you?
I will be waiting for you to prove the SBT is true. The ball is in your court.
Since you can not do this, the premise contained in the Warren Report is false, and indicates a cover-up. I can understand why they had to do it and most people realize it was to heal the nation.
But to continue to defend this bald faced lie is unexcusable.
Therefore , you are either cognitively impaired or complicit in the crime. |
The only thing I am doing - and have done - is to apply the normal standards of skepticism and analysis that any reasonable person would apply. To something that someone has been waving in everybody's face and saying, "READ THIS! BELIEVE THIS!" rabidly for the past several months. I've read what you've written, and based on what you've written and the evidence you've posted on this forum, I don't believe your hypotheses on the Kennedy assassination are true. It's unfortunate that you take my personal conclusions as evidence of a wider conspiracy within society, but that's not my concern. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
