Evan Burton

I don't see how we can support such a corrupt regime:

http://www.smh.com.au/world/karzai-steals-...91102-htfz.html

So what are the options?

Get out?

Remove the current government and conduct new elections?

Just accept the situation and try to work within it?

Let me now pose a question: has Mr Lear done a FOIA request regarding the engine serial numbers?

The silence to this very simple question is telling. Has any truther done a FOIA request for the serial numbers?

The Apollo 17 site.

Case closed - Apollo really did happen.

Closed this topic as discussion regarding member personal information was leading to privacy concerns.

The thread is delving too much into personal information of Forum members, and after discussion amongst the Mods, a decision has been made to close the thread.

If Maggie wishes to post the 'nasty' e-mails she claims I sent her, she can contact Peter who can post them for her, or open the thread briefly to allow the e-mails to be published.

As normal, this is completely untrue. There is a banned word that describes what Maggie has uttered; it gives a false impression of my communication with her and misleads people.

In AUG 08 I had e-mail contact with her - at Maggie's request - to help her upload some images. I also discussed her avatar and the Forum requirement for it to be changed. This has been previous discussed on the Forum and the e-mails shown.

In MAR 09 - after I was IP banned IIRC - I sent an email to her again regarding the avatars. IIRC, it was on the DPF that Jan and Maggie gave a false account of why they were not posting there and the requirement for avatars. The worst thing in the e-mail I said was:

"Nice try at making me look like the bad guy, but dimwits like you seem to forget some things:"

In MAY 09, I taunted Maggie about the IP ban and how ineffective it was. I said, in part:

I see you are online at the DPF. Ooops - was that me? Or was it a minion? Perhaps you'd best ban everyone from your site. I (or my minions) could be anyone or anywhere. Perhaps I'm one of your members. Who knows? I just find it so laughable that you claim the moral high ground and have the hypocrisy to IP ban someone who isn't even a member there!

So, come on Maggie: show us the "nasty" e-mails. I give you full permission to show any and all e-mails or PMs from me to you... or any other member of the DPF. Please do not show my e-mail address.

I always keep copies of my e-mails, and so can reproduce all the e-mails I have sent to you. Let me remind you of the dates:

12 AUG 08 (x 2)

14 AUG 08

21 AUG 08

22 AUG 08

23 AUG 08

02 MAR 09

14 MAY 09

Shall we see who is being accurate?

And yet you won't allow a non-member to view your site. How open!

No. The DPF allow non members to view their site. The DPF just don't like stalkers watching every move of some of their members for hours and hours almost every day. They have many visitors from the EF but not all of them stalk.

As a matter of interest, how are you able to identify Evan to block his IP (I understand it would be easy to identify a Brazil IP)? furthermore how do you know who is visiting your site from the Education Forum?

I wanted to ban Evan's IP on my home computer as he sent me nasty emails and I didn't want any more from him. I got the IP from his email.

I would imagine the DPF could determine my IP by looking at all the IPs who had visited, and eliminating all those outside NSW. That would have left very few, if more than one.

Since I have made no secret of my location, and my IP resolves to my geographic region, it would have been pretty easy to block me. Of course, that's assuming I have a static IP (which I do). Even if they couldn't pinpoint me exactly and had a dynamic IP, they just need to block a range of IPs.

Of course, as soon as I move away from my home network, the IP block is ineffective.

Len, internet access from work blocks access to chat sites such as the EF and DPF.

Correct. It has been proven repeatedly that threads or posts were not removed or censored (except when they violated Forum rules)......

I personally know this to be a disingenuous statement based upon my experiences with you on this Forum.

Michael, could you cite an example of this? I don't think it is true but am always willing to admit error if I am wrong.

Removed offensive word (assh**e) from this post.

No. I have no problems with disagreements. It was the disappearing threads, censorship, hypocrisy and double standards which was rampant that I had trouble with. Not to mention the patronizing tone of some.

All in your mind dear lady.

Correct. It has been proven repeatedly that threads or posts were not removed or censored (except when they violated Forum rules). It was even shown that Maggie and Jan were completely incorrect in their version of some events - and they still continue to elsewhere propagate a version they know to be incorrect.

And yet you won't allow a non-member to view your site. How open!

No. We allow non members to view our site. We just don't like stalkers watching every move of some of our members for hours and hours almost every day. We have many visitors from the EF but not all of them stalk.

Hang on: you claim I'm spending hours and hours there every day, "stalking". Jack claims I'm always here, ready to pop up at a moments notice if he posts. Yet I spend my days at work, where both the EF and DPF are blocked. So who is being untruthful: you or Jack, because I have about 20 witnesses who see me at work every day (that's called proof Maggie; you're probably unfamiliar with it).

And yet you won't allow a non-member to view your site. How open!

1. Methodology - the desire to believe a conspiracy always seems to override a commitment to recognised standards of academic research - (I could cite lots of examples but it’s not really fair to keep picking on Jack).

This varies quite widely; some people just 'believe' because it suits their agenda / beliefs. Others do conduct research, but how that research is conducted and what conclusions are drawn....

2. The historian’s fallacy - conspiracists always judge actors in historical events in the light of known outcomes and thereby miss all nuances and details which might have led historical actors in different directions.

This is a very important point, and one that is often ignored. We can very easily ascribe motives or question actions - with hindsight - but dismiss explanations because we don't believe it / think it unlikely. Just consider how many things that you have done could be twisted or misinterpreted.

Have you ever just driven somewhere on a whim? What if your presence there was questioned? So you just drove there on a whim? Yeah, sure. How many times have you driven somewhere on a whim before? Why did you go there? Why now, and not the weekend? Suddenly it becomes 'suspicious'.

In a 'pressure' situation, have you ever made an illogical decision? A bad decision that you later look at and can't explain why you did it? How would it look if someone accused you of making that decision deliberately for nefarious reasons?

Have you ever just done something nice for someone, and have had them question why you did it and 'what you were up to'?

4. Conspiracy sells well - books on Diana, Marilyn or JFK sell in their millions - where there is money there is always ingenuity and invention.

A small minority, but sometimes a very vocal one that attracts followers.

5. Conspiracy diverts intelligent people from genuine political action which might reduce corruption and the abuse of power in our democratic systems.

Strongly agree. If some people put half the effort into investigating real conspiracies as they did for nonsense ones like Apollo and 9-11, imagine the good they could do.

6. Conspiracy theory uses intuition rather than evidence to establish causation - the 'this must be' approach.

"This must be therefore what evidence is there to support this claim" rather than the scientific "Here are the observations therefore what conclusions can I draw".

7. Conspiracy theory has an extraordinary way of establishing motive - 'cui bono?' Let us imagine a victim of a fatal road traffic accident for a moment. We shall call him 'Charles' for we are in that kind of mood. 'Charles' dies horribly and painfully in the tangled wreckage of his car because he has been driving too fast and was drunk. 'Charles' was well insured and leaves his wife and family considerably better off for his passing. Cui bono? Who do we arrest on a murder charge?

I think this is linked / the same as 2. Ask what is possible, and then what is probable.

8. Believing in things that are not true is not good for your mental health and well being - My advice to anyone who has a friend who might start talking about the 'communists' who are after him or the lizard people who are ruling the planet or the Illuminati, or the Zionists, or the CIA or whatever the particular expression might be is to tell him or her gently but firmly not to be so bloody daft for once full blown psychosis takes hold it is a very long and difficult road back.

A level of suspicion is healthy and indeed warranted... but all too often it develops into wide-ranging paranoia.

Boy, am I glad I've been on holiday whilst this has been going on. Here is my 2c worth (and that is what it is worth):

- Jack has made many mistakes in various Apollo / 9-11 studies. These have been pointed out to him by many people - including people who have no association with this board.

- Jack has a track record of not addressing the Apollo / 9-11 rebuttals but instead either ignoring them (and repeating his original claims) or claiming the people making the rebuttals are somehow participating in some type of an organised campaign against him / his claims.

- Jack has a track record of claiming those who vigorously rebut his Apollo / 9-11 claims are acting on the behest of governments or secret agencies.

- I'd like to point out I make no claims - and indeed have stated I am but a layman and have shown little, if any interest - in the area of JFK, in which Jack is considered to be an expert by many people.

- The DPF have banned my IP, even though I have not even tried to become a member there. In my opinion, this speaks volumes about the controlling group's idea regarding openness.

- I believe in letting everyone present their own opinions and evidence for their opinions, and allowing others to attack the said opinions (i.e. the opinion, not the person). The resulting debate allows others to determine the veracity of the statements made by the various posters.

- If I make opinions / statements with which other members disagree with, I expect to be taken to task over them and asked to defend them to the best of my ability. To be asked to do so is not an attack on me, but rather an expected trial by which all ideas should be subjected.

- Play the ball, not the person. When the person refuses to defend their posted opinions, however, they should expect that the lack of defence reflects poorly on the poster and their willingness / ability to defend their stated argument. Comment on that unwillingness - in moderation and restraint - should not be considered to be a personal attack.

THE PRISONER reference is a good one.

I think were some very imaginative designs, etc, in all of the Century 21 Productions series, but I can't think of anything that was particularly startling. All of them were known at the time (forward swept wing, swing wing, forward canard, VSTOL, parasitic launch to orbit, etc). Perhaps the most forward thinking item was in an episode of UFO where an alien device was hiding in all the space junk. The problems with the accumulation of space junk are very real.

I'll combine the threads so as not to lose any posts.

We see a pattern here Jack:

- Bobcat questions, answers found. Do the untruthers publish answers? No - they keep repeating the questions.

- Seatphone questions, answers found. Do untruthers publish corrected details (yes, the initial information was AA was wrong)? No - they still make the same claims, ignoring the evidence.

- Mobile phone questions, answers found. Do untruthers retract claims? No - many still make the same claim that mobile calls were impossible.

- Wreckage questions, images provided (including on this Forum - see Lear thread). Do untruthers admit there was wreckage? No (see your post above, #5).

- Serial number questions. See Lear thread for details of what will have part numbers and what would have serial numbers. Now - have untruthers lodged a FOIA request to see parts that might have serial numbers? I don't know. So, Jack, perhaps you can clear that part up - have they?

**************

Terry,

I don't think there is any need for the continuation of the powers, but I could be wrong. Are there any aspects of the proclamation that intelligence / law enforcement agencies consider critical to remain in force? If so, why?

If there is enough discussion, it might be worthy of it's own thread.

If you listen to some of the anti-vaxers, you can get a "homeopathic" vaccination. If you believe them, then get that and then expose yourself to the virus. Those who survive will help produce better vaccines.

Stop the paranoia. Are there risks? Yes, but they are relatively small. If you don't need the vaccination, then don't get it. If you are in a respiratory risk group or are in a position where you might be exposed the the virus, then you'd be wise to get it.

Wow. The ENVELOPE.

Use BIG LETTERS to attach importance to WHAT I SAY.

For me, it's the OA100 Flight Details and Authorisation.

Unless using a specific company / organisation name like I did, it's normally just called a passenger manifest. Lear is correct about one thing though: a copy has to remain with a responsible person on the ground. Which explains why these:

etc

etc.

Lear calls himself an "expert" on DFDRs? That would be hilarious if it weren't another example of Lear's tenuous grip on reality and overblown opinion of his aviation credentials.

Fair point David, but two thoughts:

- I'm not going to waste what would be a large amount of my time disproving this nonsense; it lends such wild claims an air of credibility; and

- Like all the other disproven claims, the untruthers will ignore the evidence when it doesn't suit their agenda and just keep on making false claims (see the 'Bobcat' mystery, no wreckage found, cannot make cell phone calls, no seat phones fitted, intercepts in less than 15 mins, anti-aircraft defences, etc, etc).

So, where is the FOIA request, asking for the serial numbers, and the subsequent admission that none existed? Hmm?

The insanity continues. Not only do these vile creatures claim that 9-11 victims never existed, they also question the 9-11 Victims Fund. There have been lies spread on various forums about the fund, completely untrue claims such as recipients of monies from the fund were required to "keep quiet" about 9-11, that a proviso of the money was that they answer no questions about their relatives, etc.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence - and a desire to seek factual information - could discover such a claim was false:

VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

(Updated July 11, 2002)

Section 9 – Waiver/Certification

9.1 What does it mean to waive rights to file a lawsuit?

- If you are an injured Victim, you will, once your claim is submitted and deemed substantially complete, waive your right to file a lawsuit against any entity seeking compensation for the injury sustained by the September 11 attacks. This waiver does not apply to a civil action to recover collateral source obligations or to a civil action against any person who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act.

- If the Victim is deceased, the claimant will waive his or her rights to file an action seeking compensation for the Victim's death. This waiver does not apply to a civil action to recover collateral source obligations or to a civil action against any person who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act. The statute may be interpreted to mean that the submission of a claim for a deceased Victim will waive the rights of other beneficiaries of that Victim to file a lawsuit.

9.2 Whose rights are waived by filing a claim?

The claimant’s rights are waived. The statute may be interpreted to mean that the submission of a claim for a deceased Victim will waive the rights of other beneficiaries of that Victim to file a lawsuit

9.3 If I apply for compensation for an Advance Benefit, do I give up my rights?

Yes, once you submit the Eligibility and Application for Advance Benefits part of the new Compensation Form (or the previously published Eligibility Form and Application for Advance Benefits) and it is deemed substantially complete you will have waived your rights. The Act provides that upon the submission of a claim under the Fund, the claimant waives the right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any Federal or State court for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, except that this limitation does not apply to civil actions to recover collateral source obligations or to a civil action against any person who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act.

9.4 When do I give up my rights to file other claims in court?

You waive your rights once your submission of a claim is deemed substantially complete based on the determination of a Claims Evaluator. If you apply for an Advance Benefit and the Special Master determines that you have submitted a substantially complete Eligibility and Application for Advance Benefits part of the new Compensation Form (or the previously published Eligibility Form and Application for Advance Benefits) you will have been deemed to have filed claim and will be giving up your rights to bring a lawsuit. If you do not request Advance Benefits, you will be deemed to have filed and will be giving up your rights to bring a lawsuit if the Special Master determines you have submitted a substantially complete Personal Injury Compensation Form or Compensation Form for Deceased Victims, as well as the Eligibility and Application for Advance Benefits (form or part).

9.5 Will submission of a claim to the Fund affect other benefits I get?

That will depend on the particular benefit program. You should check with the administrators of the programs from which you receive benefits. If you are receiving workers compensation benefits, you should check with your carrier or union or employer to make sure you have obtained all the necessary information, agreements or waivers.

9.6 Is a notice of claim or intent filed with the Port Authority, the City of New York, or a Workers' Compensation carrier considered a civil action that would bar a claim with the Victim Compensation Fund?

No. A notice of claim or intent filed with the Port Authority, the City of New York, or a Workers' Compensation carrier does not constitute a civil action in federal or state court. If you have filed such notices, you may still file a claim with the Victim Compensation Fund. However, if you proceed with a lawsuit (or are made a party to a lawsuit) in state or federal court for damages as a result of the crashes, you will not be able to claim from the Victim Compensation Fund, unless it is a civil action to recover collateral source obligations or a civil action against any person who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act.

9.7 I’ve filed a claim, and one of my family members objected because he wants to file a lawsuit. Will my claim be processed?

The Fund will process the claim if it is filed by an eligible personal representative and that claimant is not a party to an action in state or federal court seeking damages as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks and if there is no legitimate objection to the claim. We cannot advise on how the court will address the issue of waiver or whether the family member will be permitted to pursue a lawsuit.

9.8 Q&As Regarding Lawsuits Against Terrorist Conspiracy Participants

Question A

Q: If I file a claim under the Fund, may I also file or be a party to a lawsuit against someone who "is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act?"

A: Yes.

Question B

Q: What happens if I file a claim with the Fund and also file a lawsuit against someone who is not a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act?"

A: Section 405©(3)((i) states that a claimant to the Fund "waives the right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any Federal or State court for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001," and makes exceptions only for lawsuits "to recover collateral source obligations" and lawsuits against a defendant that is a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act." If you file a claim with the Fund and also file a lawsuit against someone who is not a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act," you are still eligible for compensation from the Fund, but your lawsuit will be dismissed. This rule applies regardless of whether you file your claim with the Fund before or after filing the lawsuit.

Question C

Q: Who will decide whether a defendant is in fact a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act?"

A: In all cases, regardless of whether you file your claim with the Fund before or after filing the lawsuit, the court will decide the issue whether a defendant is a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act." If the court determines that the plaintiff has submitted a claim to the Fund and that a defendant is not a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act," then it must dismiss the lawsuit against that defendant (unless the lawsuit is one to recover collateral source obligations).

http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/victimcompensation/faq9.pdf

But it mean they can't sue the Government, or Bush, etc, if they were shown to have been involved in a MIHOP / LIHOP, right?

NO.

Q: If I file a claim under the Fund, may I also file or be a party to a lawsuit against someone who "is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act?"

A: Yes.

So, once again the 'truth movement' shows that truth is the last thing it wants.

Speaking as one of the Mods here, I see no problem with twit.

What other parts are there?

Fuselage parts

Landing gear parts

So do any parts match the claimed aircraft? SURPRISE - yes they do:

Which matches part of the leading edge slat control system on the B767.

Here are other parts recovered:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/...ecord.asp?ID=45

BTW, I agree with Len: these days, Lear is a whacko.