Evan Burton

And just a reminder that it was 38 years ago today that Buzz and Neil first set foot upon the lunar surface.

I can see the calls for impeachment being only strengthened by this move.

J.F.K'S WOMEN: THE SCANDALS REVEALED

Broadcast Date: Friday 20 July 2007

Channel: Free to Air / SBS

Broadcast Time: 7.30 pm

Classifications: Other, PG (CC)

Timeslot Duration: 60 mins

(From the US, in English) (Documentary)

never mind - I found the Executive Order:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20070717-3.html

That is extraordinary! I cannot understand how he continues to make such fatal errors.

Do you have a link for the Russian story, and for the Executive Order?

If I could poke my head in here and give my 2c worth...

Being a sailor, I've heard streams of invective that contain swear words from around the globe. It doesn't phase me one little bit. If I haven't been called it, I probably will be someday. And my language can be VERY 'colourful' at times.

That being said, I think it says something for the posters who can make their points - forcefully & convincingly - without swearing. If you feel it necessary to insult an opponent, it shows a little class if you are able to do it without resorting to swearing. Indeed, the old adage says that the art of diplomacy is being able to tell someone to go to hell in such a way as to make them look forward to the journey!

(climbs off soapbox)

One of the most difficult things would be - using Stephen's example - trying to differentiate a "nutter" from a "disinfo agent".

I mean, we have all probably encountered people who genuinely believe in what we would personally consider to be an "outlandish" theory. Are all of these people nutters? Are all of these people government agents? Some of each? How do we tell?

Thanks once again for proving Jack's point , disinformation artist Colby .... Here are the Twenty Five to Suppress the Truth ... Also known as The 25 Rules of Disinformation .

You just used several of them .... Like number 5 , 10 , 15 , 17 , and last but certainly not least , number 18 !!

Congrats on being one of the most obvious of disinfo artists on this forum .

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil

2. Become incredulous and indignant

3. Create rumor mongers

4. Use a straw man

* 5. SIDETRACK OPPONENTS WITH NAME CALLING , RIDICULE

6. Hit and Run

7. Question motives

8. Invoke authority

9. Play Dumb

* 10. ASSOCIATE OPPONENT CHARGES WITH OLD NEWS

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions

12. Enigmas have no solution

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic

14. Demand complete solutions

* 15. FIT THE FACTS TO ALTERNATE CONCLUSIONS

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses

* 17. CHANGE THE SUBJECT

* 18. EMOTIONALIZE, ANTAGONIZE, AND GOAD

19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs

20. False evidence

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor

22. Manufacture a new truth

23. Create bigger distractions

24. Silence critics

25. Vanish

You keep playing the same record. One would expect that if you were posting information that would threaten national security by revealing such a massive cover up of enormous proportions, you'd have to be "silenced".

Yet you can still freely post here, a board which many non-members consider a respectable and valuable source of information.

You have claimed that you have been banned elsewhere because they presumably do not want to know the "truth" and fear your discoveries - yet others still freely post.

Consider Turbonium - a poster on UM, ApolloHoax, and BAUT. A person who believes that the Moon landings were faked just as fervently as you. A person who presents well thought out (for the most part) arguments in support of their views.

A person who is mercilessly taken to task over their views by those that disagree - yet they are still able to post... on all the various boards. They are even considered to be a 'valuable member' despite their contrary views.

Yet you claim that you have been banned, or cannot post, or that your posts are altered, or that your websites are hacked, etc, etc.

Please, PLEASE tell me you think Turbo is some type of "disinformation agent" - I want to tell him myself if you do.

Why don't you let your posts stand or fall on their own merits? That's how science works - a theory must be able to withstand attack by critics. If it doesn't, then its value must be re-examined.

I'm sure that you will claim that myself, as a moderator, will prevent you from showing the "truth"; that I will edit out the most damning of your revelations?

Well, here's an offer - start a thread regarding your most persuasive and damning evidence showing that Apollo was somehow faked.

I will NOT moderate the thread, or yourself for what has been said in the thread, in any way shape or form.

I will also refrain from contacting any of the other moderators regarding any posts you make within that thread. Any replies I have will be open and contained within the thread. I will also refrain from asking publicly for the mods to act in any way with regard to the thread. I will restrain myself to addressing your arguments, and no more.

Furthermore, I'll request that the other mods not involve themselves in your posts, regardless of how it affects me, UNLESS it is a flagrant violation of decency which would threaten the board as a whole. That means personal attacks on me are fair game, whilst I cannot respond in the same way to you (I am still bound by the board rules).

This gives you ALL the advantage whilst restraining me.

How about it?

Stephen, I think that there are true aspects of all the possibilities. There are nutters. There are troublemakers (flamers). There are disinformation agents. There are people who repeat what they have heard as gospel, and there are people just trying to understand.

Don't assume just because someone states inaccurate data that they are a "disinfo agent". That is why it is so important to double / triple check facts as best you can, verify what has been stated.

A refutation of Jeff Kings calculations would seem to come from Frank Greening, a person (though a chemist by trade) that at least provides calculations that can be checked by others.

Dr Greening is also no friend of the "Official" camp, having expressed doubts about the official story. Likewise, he has invoked the ire of the "truther" camp. I think it could be best said that Dr Greening sits on no-ones side, and lets his opinions stand on their own evidence - right or wrong.

I particularly liked the discussion over the Australian Army insignia.

One was claiming it was an example of NWO (the new sun rising), though they showed no proof.

Another took offense at that comment, but showed no proof to the contrary.

From there on it just degenerated.

I don't suppose anyone investigated its origins - evil or otherwise?

http://www.911oz.com/forum/public/viewtopic.php?t=250

Gaze in wonder....

Hi Peter - welcome to the Forum.

Could I ask you to summarise points made in the videos? I have limited bandwidth, and so it can take me up to two times the length of a vid to actually download it!

Thanks!

...since it is pretty hard to accept that a pilot would state that everything was fine one minute, and suddenly plummet out of the sky the next...

Well, depending on what was said, it is actually pretty understandable. I'm not familiar with the details, so any links would be helpful.

Saying "everything is fine" is actually unusual, perhaps a sign of poor radio discipline. You normally only report if anything is wrong, not report all is well. Perhaps what was actually said was a 'OPS NORMAL' call. These are given at regular intervals (usually 30 mins) to report that your operations are normal in cases where you don't have a pre-planned position to be in at that time, such as operating within an area (e.g. airwork below 10,000 [feet] within 20 miles of XYZ [airfield designator]).

Since the aircraft was on a point-to-point flight plan, it is more likely it was a joining call. Again, you don't report that all is well, simply that you are there and your intentions. For example:

"All stations Horn Island, Cessna N123A is 15 miles to the southwest, leaving 10,000 for a right base runway 15, Cessna N123A"

I'm presuming that the aircraft was landing at an 'uncontrolled' airport (i.e. no Air Traffic Control or only a UNICOM).

Anyway, things can go wrong very quickly. There are numerous examples of air accidents happening without the aircraft issuing a Mayday call. To give some related examples which I was personally involved in:

Blown tyre on takeoff - recovered safely.

Double generator failure - total loss of aircraft electrical power and comms - daytime in circuit at military airfield, returned safely.

Double generator failure - total loss of aircraft electrical power and comms - nighttime, over water, below lowest safe altitude whilst doing contact investigation, regained single generator and returned safely.

Loss of braking traction on grass runway - aircraft impacted trees - nill injuries to crew, aircraft eventually flown off island some 4 weeks later.

Things can happen suddenly.

LOL!

You guys crack me up.

Incidentally, mentioning the Egypt thread, I saw that some people used the photo of the glass pyramid (in Paris?) as an example of New World Order symbols. I laughed until I stopped.

It's not censorship - it's accuracy.

Correction made.

Thought this was very good - the new BAUT logo!

Apparently SOMEBODY ELSE hung the title "MIT physicist" on him, as he fully explains on his excellent 911 website PLAGUE PUPPY, which I only discovered today. He is a MEDICAL DOCTOR with MIT electrical engineering and biology degrees...

And you continued to use that incorrect information until corrected. We have all been guilty of using incorrect information at some time or another, I am sure.

Did you discover this error using the link I provided where he explains himself what his qualifications were? That he was not a "MIT physicist"?

You know, the one right before you started to ask other posters what their qualifications were.

No sir, a-h. I pay NO attention to ANYTHING you say.

Even when I am right. A telling statement. Still, as is your want....

After questions were raised about the Dr. King article, I contacted Dr. Fetzer, who provided

me with information and websites.

I did not continue using the information I had received from a 911 activist, which I

posted. I spent several hours studying the Plague Puppy website and the associated

Judy Wood website before posting information found there. Your chastisement

is unfounded, a-h.

With all due respect,

Jack

As long as the correction is made, I am happy. You will have no objection if I correct the thread title? And would you correct your opening post?

Thanks!

Apparently SOMEBODY ELSE hung the title "MIT physicist" on him, as he fully explains on his excellent 911 website PLAGUE PUPPY, which I only discovered today. He is a MEDICAL DOCTOR with MIT electrical engineering and biology degrees...

And you continued to use that incorrect information until corrected. We have all been guilty of using incorrect information at some time or another, I am sure.

Did you discover this error using the link I provided where he explains himself what his qualifications were? That he was not a "MIT physicist"?

You know, the one right before you started to ask other posters what their qualifications were.

Jack,

In fairness, by referring to him as an MIT physicist one would be led to believe that he was a member of the staff at the physics department at MIT, which he seems not to be.

John

Precisely my point. Based on my own understanding, I can't comment on the validity of Jeff King's analysis; I simply don't have the expertise.

I can comment if he is being given titles / standing to which he apparently does not qualify for.

Oh, we know that you are associated with Australian Military Aviation...simply by googling. But does that qualify you to comment on engineering or astronautics or political assassination?

Jack

I can make uninformed comment on engineering. It should be given as much or as little weight as any other layman commenting on such matters.

I can make uninformed comment on political assassination - though I try to stay away from that area.

Astronautics? That's a different matter. I have a strong background in aeronautics: graduate of the RAAF School of Air Traffic Control, graduate of the RAAF School of Air Navigation, Advanced Diploma of Applied Science (Aviation), private pilot, Electronic Mission Co-ordinator aboard Coastwatch aircraft, currently involved in RAN operational airworthiness and standards, and 3500+ hours in my logbooks. I am also an amateur historian in manned spaceflight, and have been for over 20 years. I can't always speak authoritatively on technical aspects of astronautics but with my aeronautical background, I can speak authoritatively on general aspects of manned spaceflight. I think my posts here supply evidence of my expertise in that field.

AS IT HAPPENED: HITLER'S WAR ON AMERICA

Broadcast Date: Friday 13 July 2007

Channel: Free to Air / SBS

Broadcast Time: 8.30 pm

Classifications: Documentary, PG WS

Timeslot Duration: 60 mins

In 1937 Hitler was shown the prototype of a long-range bomber. He believed such a plane could bring America to its knees. When engineers were unable to solve the problem of how to get a plane to America and back without refuelling, Messerschmitt presented a stopgap solution whereby bombers would be refuelled mid-flight with the help of another aircraft. The Americans had by now, however, entered the war and were building their own bombers. Another idea was to send men on suicide missions. Large cargo planes would carry small planes over the Atlantic. The fighter planes would then disengage and their pilots would steer them into the skyscrapers of New York - a 9/11 scenario contemplated half a century earlier. (From Germany, in English, German and Russian, English subtitles) (Documentary)

Jack,

You are simply trying to shift attention away from my original point - he is not a MIT physicist. A graduate of MIT? Yes. An Electrical Engineer? Yes. A MIT physicist? No. Just because I have done a number of courses in meteorology, I would not expect someone to call me a meteorologist.

As far as my qualifications go for analysing a building collapse - I have none. I leave that to the people who do have qualifications and expertise in that field. I then see what other experts say about that analysis. I see what professional societies / groups / organisations in those fields say about the analysis. Lacking the necessary expertise to determine the validity of an analysis for myself, I base my opinion on the level of agreement amongst them.

Peter,

Before making a conclusion, have a look at the following links:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b...d%206-22-07.pdf

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulat...ase4/index.html

http://www.structuremag.org/archives/2007/...eling-Mar07.pdf

http://911stories.googlepages.com/accounts...instabilityande

Take the information presented in the links, and give them to people who have the appropriate qualifications for examination (assuming you don't hold such qualifications).

Let me know what your take on it is afterwards.

I think calling him a "MIT physicist" is stretching the truth, don't you?

PlaguePuppy is the nom-de-net of Jeff King, a 60 year old former electrical engineer and more recently a Family Practice physician. I graduated from MIT with an SB degree in 1974, with a combined Biology-EE major (this was before a Bio-Medical Engineering Department existed), and before settling down to do clinical medicine I worked for about eight years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering. For the past 27 years I have been working full time as a family physician, doing office-based primary care here in the rural San Joaquin Valley of central California.

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Con...the%20Evidence/

Nothing new there. We have been discussing this in the "Identifying 9/11 aircraft" thread.

Jack, do you mind if I merge your thread with that one? Seems logical to keep all the information in one thread where it can easily be found and referred to.