|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
11th March 2015, 09:39 AM | #401 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 231
|
|
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it." |
|
11th March 2015, 10:50 AM | #402 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
11th March 2015, 11:56 AM | #403 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
|
11th March 2015, 12:17 PM | #404 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
Are you sure about that? It says a verdict is being delivered without court appearances.
Then again, it's a fairly recent addition, so perhaps someone finally got through to Harrit that the video, the science experiment, and god knows what other circus acts he had dreamt up, won't be of any use for him in court... |
11th March 2015, 12:54 PM | #405 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
11th March 2015, 01:19 PM | #406 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 231
|
|
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it." |
|
11th March 2015, 01:37 PM | #407 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
12th March 2015, 01:36 AM | #408 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
The Niels Harrit Fan Club on Facebook will post its spin in a few hours, they say:
https://www.facebook.com/Niels.Harri...iation.society |
12th March 2015, 01:59 AM | #409 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
By the way: Harrit's wife, Pernille Grumme, so far has nothing to say on Facebook about Niels' heroic fight against the windmills of the Danish courts. Her priorities must lie elsewhere. For example, on February 20, she shared this anti-semitic dreck by Kevin Barrett on Iran's PressTV:
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/02...ist-coup-detat
Originally Posted by Barrett
|
12th March 2015, 04:58 AM | #410 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
I looked at Grumme's FB page... It's pretty scary how she sees the world. She is definitely an antisemitic paranoid "crazy". She's pretty open about her views... And although these may not be her husband's views... I would imagine he's not far apart it at all. That's not good.
I wonder of all those people who think Neils is the next best thing to sliced bread are aware of all this and if they would change their views? Guilt by association? I wouldn't be comfortable having these two on my team. |
12th March 2015, 05:05 AM | #411 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
I have so far not heard or read anything by Harrit that would indicate he is an anti-semite himself, and my Danish debunking contacts who know him better (having personally met etc.) don't think he is.
But CTs are boiling hot at the Grumme/Harrit household, with Pernille being solidly into chem trails, too. If my girl friend were an anti-semite, I'd have problem with that... |
12th March 2015, 05:23 AM | #412 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
Today's schedule at the Eastern High Court is listed here:
http://www.domstol.dk/oestrelandsret...s/TO120315.HTM (Google Translation) The Harrit entry is titled "Main Negotiation". Harrit has no advocate, the other party (journalist Søren K. Villemoes and Weekendavisen's chief editor Anne Knudsen) are represented by Attorney S. Juul. Country Judges: Lone Dahl Frandsen, Sanne Kolmos and Morten Ruben Brage, who are also scheduled at 10 am for a different case (a "Sentencing without a hearing"). Procedings are described as "Civil appeal proceedings between private parties. Person Question". It looks to me as if today both sides have under 15 minutes each to state their case, and a decision will be delivered on some other day. I read that anyone can order a paper copy of court decisions, and also of material submitted before hearings, but it costs DKK 175 / US$ 25 |
12th March 2015, 08:19 AM | #413 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 231
|
The court ruling will be given on april 9th. 2015
|
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it." |
|
12th March 2015, 09:00 AM | #414 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
A brief blurb on the days events in court, courtesy of the English-language version of the University of Copenhagen student newspaper:
http://universitypost.dk/article/cou...pot-libel-case The zinger of the day goes to Willemoes:
Quote:
|
12th March 2015, 10:08 AM | #415 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
12th March 2015, 01:16 PM | #416 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
Quote:
Not so sure he could have been a great lawyer ? |
12th March 2015, 01:34 PM | #417 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
I need someone familiar with Danish law to explain something to me. Is this hearing to decide if Harrit is indeed crazy (or his views are) or if Søren Willemoes remarks were slander (in a way that hurt Harrits reputation)?
If Harrit is presenting his views of 9/11 this would indicate the former. He seems to be asking the court to rule on his views. |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
12th March 2015, 01:52 PM | #418 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
|
12th March 2015, 02:05 PM | #419 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
12th March 2015, 02:25 PM | #420 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
|
12th March 2015, 02:30 PM | #421 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
12th March 2015, 02:43 PM | #422 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
DGM, if you watch the YT clip in post 407 it's pretty clear his intentions were to only give his presentation to his witnesses and judges in the hope he will gain followers.
I don't think he even understood why he was going to court. |
12th March 2015, 02:48 PM | #423 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
12th March 2015, 02:54 PM | #424 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
They weren't, but at least it wouldn't have been a waste of the court's time, seeing as the judges will pretty much ignore all the crap Harrit presented instead.
And if Harrit had realised that, he could have saved the money he will now have to pay to cover Willemoes' attorney costs. |
12th March 2015, 03:09 PM | #425 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
12th March 2015, 03:11 PM | #426 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
From my understanding. Harrit screwed himself by soliciting the journalist response. He put himself out there to be judged. Willemoes did not go after Harrit he was only commenting on what he felt was in public record. If Willemoes had started this out of whole cloth without Harrit initiating the event he would have had to support his comments as to the content.
This is my understanding of the lower court ruling. |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
12th March 2015, 04:18 PM | #427 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
Specifically, he put himself out there to be judged by journalists -- people who cannot reasonably be expected to apply expert scientific judgment and who reach large audiences. Hence he has to consider the consequences of inexpert judgment rendered widely -- a judgment he explicitly invited.
Naturally I'm sympathetic to the idea that a journalist should have a suitable basis for what he publishes, and I gather that Danish law is strict on this point. So I guess we'll see what the judges determine would be a suitable basis for the statement. It seemed to me more like an offhand comment, and I surmise a suitable basis might include what was generally known or being said about Harrit. I don't know how Danish appeals work, but I'm betting that rehashing his case in chief during oral arguments was probably not advisable. I'm betting he should have presented arguments showing how the lower court erred. If, as it has been reported here, he was simply looking to get his 9/11 arguments heard in some sort of court, then I bet the judges will disregard all or most of it. |
13th March 2015, 01:52 AM | #428 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
The one thing that is for certain, nobody knows what the judges decision is although I expect the Truther spin will include much hope for the verdict being in Harrit's favour.
IMO for what it's worth, the "evidence" presented by Harrit is not relevant to the case and cannot be verified as factual. The so called evidence was created by Harrit and verified by Harrit, I'm not so sure a judge would take this seriously. They may however do a bit of their own research on Harrit and find he only has a standing on conspiracy sites. Who knows what they will do or think ? |
13th March 2015, 02:54 AM | #429 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
13th March 2015, 04:09 AM | #430 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
|
Claus Larsen and I (911facts.dk) were at the High Court hearings yesterday.
Read our take on it here in English: http://911facts.dk/?page_id=7023 Kind regards, Steen |
13th March 2015, 04:37 AM | #431 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
Thank you Steen (edit) and Claus.
Sounds like Harrit continued where he left off in the county court, where iirc both the judge and Søren K. Willemoes' attourney had to assist him in the proper legal language. |
13th March 2015, 04:47 AM | #432 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,232
|
Thanks Steen... It's hard to understand exactly the vibes of the court proceeding, but it seems as if Niels was trying to present his arguments for NT and CD as the being valid and so referring to him for making those arguments as a crackpot was libelous. He needed, to show the court, he believed that his work was "serious science"... It hardly seems possible in a brief court hearing. NH has earned the label of a bit of a loose canon because his work in not rigorous and he ventures into areas he has no expertise especially political motives such as the "inside job". I think he will not prevail in this case.
|
13th March 2015, 05:00 AM | #433 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
Thanks, it's good to hear from someone who was actually there.
Wish I had been there, I'm looking forward to Harrit's youtube video which should be out soon, let's see how the two versions of events compare. So glad Harrit bought his bag of dust (what was he thinking of ) |
13th March 2015, 05:06 AM | #434 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 18,667
|
I didn't know you were going to witness the court hearings - excellent that you you did!
Wow. I understand now why Villemoes feels sorry for Harrit. They collected 15,000 US$ for Harrit's legal troubles, and he doesn't hire an attorney to look up libel cases for him?? What tosse is so stupid?? |
13th March 2015, 05:26 AM | #435 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Denmark
Posts: 334
|
So interesting.
I certainly hope that we can keep calling that crackpot a crackpot! The vigor with which he is referred to as "professor" and "doctor" is by the way amusing. His level of education is "Licentiate", which is something along the way of a forerunner of the Ph.D. Licentiate degrees generally have fewer requirements than Ph.Ds To be called a "doctor" in Denmark, you have to have a higher doctorate level..... He does not have such a degree. With regards to the "professor", he has as far as I can see, never held the position of professor anywhere. His job description has been "lecturer", which is often translated as "assistant professor", but is a far cry from being a "full professor". His area of science was by the way protein chemistry and organic chemistry. http://scholar.google.dk/scholar?hl=...+harrit+&btnG= |
13th March 2015, 05:47 AM | #436 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,692
|
Thanks a lot, Claus and Steen.
It's like déjà vu all over again. Pretty much the same that happened with Pedro Amorós here, except that Amorós had a lawyer, who focused on the authenticity of the "faces of Bélmez", trying to prove that Amorós' theories were sound and that the reporter (Javier Cavanilles) had no basis for saying that the faces were a fraud, rather than on what was actually judged (libel). Of course, the sentence didn't rule on the authenticity at all. It was not its task. And Harrit is down the same road. |
13th March 2015, 06:02 AM | #437 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,046
|
|
13th March 2015, 07:03 AM | #438 |
Scholar
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 62
|
|
13th March 2015, 07:12 AM | #439 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,502
|
Here's a link to the request to Help Raise $15K And here's the update saying they'd reached their fundraising goal It's anybody's guess as to where the money came from: genuine donations from supporters? Existing AE911Truth money cannily shuffled around/re-allocated? Single donation from a rich madman? It wouldn't surprise me if a only fraction of the full amount was raised, and it also wouldn't surprise me if no money at all was raised. (good work on the coverage of Harrit's court appearance, an entertaining read) |
13th March 2015, 07:29 AM | #440 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|