Yes. Do you? How is our employment relevant to the topic?
[Moderated]Gravy's witness "summary" does not reflect reality.
- Thread starter Lyte Trip
- Start date
Yes. Do you? How is our employment relevant to the topic?
I don't shake when confronting cowards and liars. Shouldn't you be in your characteristic mode by now--running away at top speed with your tail tucked between your legs?
You like to bet? I tell you what: I'll bet heavily that you can't interest any real reporters in your nonsense.
You imbecile, he saw the burnt bodies of passengers. How can even an agenda-driven moron like yourself ignore something so--relevant?
Demanding that a craven, lying scoundrel show his bogus "evidence" to a real reporter is what I intend to keep doing until until you flee for good. A psycho who makes up utter crap to mock the deaths of murder victims is talking about emotional disorders?!? You ought to try reading your own drivel, creep.
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
I have to somewhat agree with Lyte, that you are not debating the situation rationally Pomeroo. Don't sink to his (unbearably submerged) level, usually located on the bottom of a hippies feet.
You seem a nice bloke on your TV show, but perhaps forums dont reflect your personality very well. All you seem to do is "Fraud", "lunatic", "Insane", "moron", "fantasist", "Crazy idiot" etc etc. You often come off as a pompous elitist. Which is a shame, as you seem like an extremely decent man on camera.
You seem a nice bloke on your TV show, but perhaps forums dont reflect your personality very well. All you seem to do is "Fraud", "lunatic", "Insane", "moron", "fantasist", "Crazy idiot" etc etc. You often come off as a pompous elitist. Which is a shame, as you seem like an extremely decent man on camera.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Gravy's witness list is a list of public statements. How do you figure that he needs to defend it? Speak to the witness that made the PUBLIC statements after all they are theirs.
You make reasonable points, Walrus. But, let's look a bit closer.
A television show such as 'Hardfire' attempts to provide information. As host, I assume that the audience isn't as familiar with the topic as the debaters are. Ad hominem arguments waste time because they communicate no information. My job is to keep the discussion on track.
In this forum, the battle lines are drawn. Most of us understand that the fantasy movement consists of irrational, agenda-driven crackpots whose beliefs are unfalsifiable. There is an illusion of debate, but no real debate is taking place. The conspiracy liars trot out their favorite myths and the debunkers, for the umpteenth time, demolish them. It's kabuki theater, highly stylized and an entertaining spectacle. An honest exchange of ideas it is not.
I express my irritation with a few repeat offenders whom I regard as frauds. I attempt to present substantive arguments, which tend to be ignored, but I constantly remind readers that the fantasist in question is not offering anything backed by real evidence or supported by logic.
Lyte Trip used to strike me as an ordinary charlatan with a particularly silly hobby-horse. When he blithely states that a man like Bidlack, who smelled the burnt flesh of the passengers on Flight 77, was "fooled," he crosses a line. I don't care if he's incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. I regard Lyte Trip as a conscienceless scoundrel. His behavior is all the more objectionable as he can't possibly hope to peddle his snake oil to the rationalists here. Why, then, does he select this forum to promote his extremely offensive deceptions?
Ask him why he refuses to take his "incontrovertible evidence" to a real news outlet. He will evade the question, usually by fleeing. Scorn is the appropriate response to such moral idiots.
...as opposed to the burnt flesh of Pentagon workers?
Wow. You said it Walrus.
Yeah Ronald, what he said. Except the "hippies feet" part.
Okay, back to the big question: When will you share your "incontrovertible proof" with a real news outlet?
There must be someone working as a journalist who wants to win a Pulitzer Prize. Why won't you make any effort at all to break the biggest story of all time?
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
So UK
As I was saying, the technique where he has to try to focus on only one piece of evidence that is the weakest so it's easy to question. In this case he is questioning some eyewitness testimony because he knows that it's not worth anyones effort to go find and talk to them. But of course this evidence is only one portion of a pile of evidence. All of which he dismisses on guess what? Correct, eyewitness testimony. And eyewitness testimony that contradicts his own claims that they are based on. All the while accusing others of not being scientific.
Many witnesses have claimed seeing the planes hit the poles and hitting the pentagon. Some may be right, some may be wrong. The eyewitness testimony on its own not being conclusive. but combined with all the rest of the physical evidence which Lyte dismisses. And does so by calling it "the suspect". yes, that's probably the "scientific" term for that kind of investigative process.
And why does he do this? Because he doesn't have a case. He has 3 people who THINK they saw the plane fly to the north. And again, from that he completely makes up the rest, none of which has any evidence to back it up. As opposed to Gravey, who has a mountain of evidence that all adds up perfectly and that Lyte cannot deny. Again, hence the trying to poke at a small slice and dismiss the rest.
No amount of photoshop work can change that this is nothing more than a song and dance to make up for Lytes complete lack of data. He simply gets angry that Gravey is constantly reminding him of this and so feels the need to attack a small part of Gravey's case (because he can't go against the whole thing).
As I was saying, the technique where he has to try to focus on only one piece of evidence that is the weakest so it's easy to question. In this case he is questioning some eyewitness testimony because he knows that it's not worth anyones effort to go find and talk to them. But of course this evidence is only one portion of a pile of evidence. All of which he dismisses on guess what? Correct, eyewitness testimony. And eyewitness testimony that contradicts his own claims that they are based on. All the while accusing others of not being scientific.
Many witnesses have claimed seeing the planes hit the poles and hitting the pentagon. Some may be right, some may be wrong. The eyewitness testimony on its own not being conclusive. but combined with all the rest of the physical evidence which Lyte dismisses. And does so by calling it "the suspect". yes, that's probably the "scientific" term for that kind of investigative process.
And why does he do this? Because he doesn't have a case. He has 3 people who THINK they saw the plane fly to the north. And again, from that he completely makes up the rest, none of which has any evidence to back it up. As opposed to Gravey, who has a mountain of evidence that all adds up perfectly and that Lyte cannot deny. Again, hence the trying to poke at a small slice and dismiss the rest.
No amount of photoshop work can change that this is nothing more than a song and dance to make up for Lytes complete lack of data. He simply gets angry that Gravey is constantly reminding him of this and so feels the need to attack a small part of Gravey's case (because he can't go against the whole thing).
A W Smith
Philosopher
Totovader
Game Warden
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2007
- Messages
- 3,321
Like every other thread that Lyte Trip is involved in- he runs it into the ground to make sure he doesn't have to answer any questions.
This needs to go to moderation, immediately.
The OP isn't even worth a response- it's a fallacious attack on serious research.
This needs to go to moderation, immediately.
The OP isn't even worth a response- it's a fallacious attack on serious research.
Totovader,
Can you please the list the 105 or get Gravy to list the 105?
And detail how they saw the actual impact without contraciting any other part of the story?
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Lyte:
This just in from a city editor I know (or my vivid imagination and the watching of too many Lou Grant reruns) .....
"Please inform Mr. Trip, that this is not how journalism works. The statements of the 105 witnesses are already recorded for posterity. The task of the journalist-activist is to research those 105 witnesses' testimony and disprove each. If they have three or four contradictions, it seems they aren't even with the normal margin of statistical anomaly. They should have at least twenty such contradictions just to get budget approval to follow up on the story in the first place. And before we'd publish it? They'd need to get at least (or close to) fifty per cent to offer, on the record, information that contradicted the accepted block of evidence."
So, you see Craig, the compiler compiles. Gravy just did the research and placing together all the info you (and we) were too lazy to do. It's not the job of the compiler to go out and research your 105 witnesses. (Yours... yes.... they're Royal Flush that beats your full boat with 4s and 2s! You need to find a way to discredit another 100 witnesses, Lyte!)
And that's why you're here, ain't it? You need something more for the Researchers Edition. (Well, a researcher or two would help, wu'nt it?) So while you're here trolling and running back and high-fiving your buds that you've got Gravy on the run, and ratcheting up two more DVD sales per week, you expect someone here to take the bait, itemize all 105 for you, and then let you cherry pick and quote mine some new material.
[Dana Carvey doing Geo HW Bush] Not gonna happen! Wudn't be prudent! Gotta do your own work! Wudn't be prudent.[/Dana Carvey going Geo HW Bush]
Go pump your sales and pimp your material elsewhere!
This just in from a city editor I know (or my vivid imagination and the watching of too many Lou Grant reruns) .....
"Please inform Mr. Trip, that this is not how journalism works. The statements of the 105 witnesses are already recorded for posterity. The task of the journalist-activist is to research those 105 witnesses' testimony and disprove each. If they have three or four contradictions, it seems they aren't even with the normal margin of statistical anomaly. They should have at least twenty such contradictions just to get budget approval to follow up on the story in the first place. And before we'd publish it? They'd need to get at least (or close to) fifty per cent to offer, on the record, information that contradicted the accepted block of evidence."
So, you see Craig, the compiler compiles. Gravy just did the research and placing together all the info you (and we) were too lazy to do. It's not the job of the compiler to go out and research your 105 witnesses. (Yours... yes.... they're Royal Flush that beats your full boat with 4s and 2s! You need to find a way to discredit another 100 witnesses, Lyte!)
And that's why you're here, ain't it? You need something more for the Researchers Edition. (Well, a researcher or two would help, wu'nt it?) So while you're here trolling and running back and high-fiving your buds that you've got Gravy on the run, and ratcheting up two more DVD sales per week, you expect someone here to take the bait, itemize all 105 for you, and then let you cherry pick and quote mine some new material.
[Dana Carvey doing Geo HW Bush] Not gonna happen! Wudn't be prudent! Gotta do your own work! Wudn't be prudent.[/Dana Carvey going Geo HW Bush]
Go pump your sales and pimp your material elsewhere!
Last edited:
A W Smith
Philosopher
Two sales a week? You really think its that many? By his own admission the researchers edition hasn't been released yet. They need researchers first.
Foolmewunz,
You are missing the point of my challenge.
Gravy made a claim that he has not backed up with evidence.
I am publicly challenging the veracity of that claim.
Neither Gravy, you, or your "city editor" friend has supported the incorrect notion that 105 witnesses reported having seen the impact with evidence.
You are missing the point of my challenge.
Gravy made a claim that he has not backed up with evidence.
I am publicly challenging the veracity of that claim.
Neither Gravy, you, or your "city editor" friend has supported the incorrect notion that 105 witnesses reported having seen the impact with evidence.
