Matthew Lewis

IIRC Jack was reminded several times that the link for his bio was broken and he flatly refused to fix it. He had ample opportunity to fix it.

So? Its just more proof that there are gullible people out there, even in Hollywood. Or do you think "The Core" had a basis in reality too? How would something sprayed at 30,000+ feet be aimed? It could take weeks to reach the ground. By the time it did it would be so dissipated you'd be lucky to detect anything at all. Biologicals have an even worse chance as they would likely be rendered inert by the increased UV exposure.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/detritus we can see the definition of I see nothing that says it MUST be geological or medical. Andy seemed to use the term correctly; there was just a spelling error. So what? Can anybody here claim they have never misspelled a word?

But the point is they did let the public know so apparently the French and British don't "seem to think that its okay not to bother telling the world that two nuke equiped subs colided and there was no public interest that this even took place." I was commenting from a military perspective where again, there was no loss of life, no release of nuclear materials, and the collision not likely caused by a mechanical failure that would recall other subs, then the military, which is generally secretive by nature wouldn't have much reason to tell anybody. This is not without precedent. Sure the public knows when the military has a jet crash even if there is no loss fo life but total loss of a plane but I guarantee there are plenty of more accidents that just never even make the news at all. I then gave a possible reason for the delay. One that is also not without precedent. As for the JFK reference, as I've never gone to that forum, how would I be expected to understand the reference?

Yea, I wonder why they bothered to tell us JFK was killed at all. BK How is that in any way related? ETA: And maybe it is just me, but I took your answer to be sarcastic. You asked a question, I gave a plausible answer. Why the perceived hostility?

I actually found it surprising that it was released already. With no loss of life, no release of nuclear materials and the collision not likely caused by a mechanical failure that would recall other subs what is the reason to let the public know at all? But as for the delay, the incident was probably released after their investigations, at least preliminary, were concluded.

I was going to say something about how fake the picture looked but I thought that was obvious.

Considering the source and how nearly everything I've found on "The Daily Squib" points to satire with less humor than the Onion, I'm voting fake. Here's an example from their site. http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117&a=1634 Or this http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=120&a=1616 titled "Katie Holmes Escape Attempt Fails Again" If that site had an article saying the sky was blue, rain was wet, and fire was hot I would feel the need to check each one of those myself.

I don't know about Track but I know a guy at work named Trig. He told me it was a Scandanavian name. Still, neither are as bad as some I've seen (Number 3 bus station, violence, etc.)

Creationism is religion. Should we teach religion is science class? What about the separation of church and state?

Jack is the one that made it an issue by repeatedly refusing to update his bio link when asked. There is also the fact that he has made it an issue in the past when other members did not have a photo that was up to his standards. If he feels he can enforce the rules should he not live by them as well?

I got the email and while it was addressed only to me, it was clear that it was a generic email sent to multiple people. That was further obvious when the same email was repeated word for word in a new topic on this forum. It also did not say "ANYONE WHO REFUSED TO UPDATE A LINK TO THEIR BIOGRAPHY was part of a conspiracy to wreck the forum." What it said was this In fact, nowhere in the email did it say anything about a refusal to update. Perhaps Jack should read closer next time. On a related note, I still can't understand why Jack can't just update the link in his signature. Why should he not follow the same rules as anyone else?

Since there is really no proof that "chemtrails' even exist, I would have to say no. Now THAT'S sarcasm! If you say so. Everything I've seen points to normal contrails from commercial jet traffic.

Since there is really no proof that "chemtrails' even exist, I would have to say no.

Wow. You predicted something that happened nearly a year ago. Color me impressed. Then we are in agreement as to "Colby's" motives behind such absurd protestations. There's hope for you yet! Apparently you do not understand sarcasm (note the emoticon rolling its eyes). For "predicting" something that came to pass nearly a year before the prediction I put you in the same class as so called "psychics", palm readers, and astrologists. None of which I think has any merit.

Wow. You predicted something that happened nearly a year ago. Color me impressed.

Thank God good taste prevailed. But hey, takes one to know one. It takes a childish witch hunt to know a childish witch hunt? Perhaps you could point out where I have engaged in a witch hunt of any sort. In the face of such idiocy, the only intelligent and sane response is what your are reading at this very instant. ad hominem noted The mind boggles at such a sophisticated understanding of the workings of propaganda and disruption. One simply cannot put a price tag on such lofty logic. Creating the illusion of a single erudite, encyclopedically knowledgeable "person" who can stand as the living, human refutation to the best of "his" enemy's champions has no value whatsoever, right? Did I say no value? Thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. I said it would be more cost effective if you have multiple people to have them post as multiple people. They could still then have the benefit of each other's research as well as the benefit of more people posting on "their" side and the benefits of having distinctive personal styles. Which appears better? One person opposing many or multiple people? ad hominem noted Yes. Not to mention your motives, personal courage, and perhaps even sanity. Then apparently nearly everyone on the internet is insane according to you, including most on this forum that happen to post on other forums. If I had no personal courage then why would I even come to a forum where I had to use my real name? Your paranoia is showing.

I was about to post nearly the same thing but you said it all much more eloquently than I ever could. I probably would have added something about a childish witch hunt as well. Another thing, even if it could be proven that Colby's post are written by more than one person it could still be possible that some of them are directly copied from other sources. It is also possible that some posts are made while drunk or under the influence of other substances. It would prove nothing. I personally still fail to see why it would be better or cost effective to have multiple people post under one name. Why not have each person on the supposed team post as a different verifiable person? Surely this would be better right? Then each could have their own personal writing style but still benefit from other's research. Each would also be able to post at different times whenever their shift was. Multiple people on a team posting as one person seems like an incredible waste of time and money. But when have witch hunts ever been sensible? And for the record, this is the only forum I ever use my real name on. Should this cast doubt on my identity as well?

I would say "mostly" coincidence. They do have some superb athletes. But, there are allegations in women's gymnastics that they are skirting the age rules. The women have to be turning 16 this year (other events are 14 I believe), mostly for safety reasons. Supposedly some of their athletes when competing in previous events had provided documentation that showed they were as young as 14. The only verification of age for the olympics is a state issued passport. I'm sure anyone could see how easy that would be to fake if the competing country wanted to. Karolyi one of the US coaches, says the Chinese women look too yound and are way too small. They have the smallest average team in the competition (4 foot 9 inches and 77 pounds). http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/be...hina-ages_N.htm http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9491 http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/summer08/gym...tory?id=3527997 They also look much younger than the US competitors, or for that matter most of the competitors on most other teams.

Olympic Child Singing Star Revealed As Fake In the grand scheme of things, this doesn't really matter a great deal. So why am I left with a sour taste in my mouth? Shame, because at the time I was hugely impressed with the opening ceremony as a spectacle (although the Bird's Nest designer thought the total opposite). Now I feel thoroughly bemused, whereas previously I felt astonished. What else wasn't as it seemed at the time? The second one with the girl is terrible but the fireworks I don't see as a big deal. The fireworks were really there, they just couldn't be assured they would be able to film them live from a helicopter so tv audiences saw the CGI while the real fireworks happened.

Thanks, Bill. I was hoping to see some shooting event coverage by NBC. Chicks with guns is, of course, my favorite genre. Chris Across their various channels (NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, Telemundo, USA, Oxygen, Universal HD) NBC is supposedly showing all sports with US competition. If you click on "TV schedule" in the olymipcs section on the front page of Yahoo you'll get here http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/schedule/television and hopefully you can catch some of that shooting.

My understanding of the turn. The only one that knows for sure why he did the turn to descend is dead now. He dies when he crashed the plane. But I have seen experts speculate that he may have been too high when he aquired his "target". If he had been following the navigational beacon near the airport near the Pentagon, he may not have known exactly how far away he was until he visually saw the Pentagon. Yes, normally one could descend sooner but that depends on knowing exactly where one is.

I'm not a moderator but I don't see the resemblance at all.

Sir...you have contributed nothing to this forum since I have been here except harassment. You should be ashamed. Jack http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp That's funny Jack. And wrong. I have contributed a miltary viewpoint in threads that have called for it. I have occasionally commented on 911 threads, offering links to back up most arguments. And I have submitted personal research regarding contrails. Just because you don't agree with my viewpoint doesn't mean I have contributed nothing. As far as harassment, I feel I have received more from you. Or do you not remember your pestering about my avatar dating back to before an avatar picture was even required and concluding recently with the photo not being good enough for you (even though the same photo was supposedly good enough to identify me as wearing a military uniform, a conclusion you were wrong on then and never admitted). Or how about your previous insistence that my job must have something to do with my posting here. Yes...I thought it odd that you were allowed to post a golf ball as a photo of yourself. When I questioned that, you were allowed to post a silhouette of a man on a motorcycle. When I questioned that, you made it slightly larger...but still not an ID photo. And you criticize ME for breaking rules! You are not a researcher. You are an opposer. Jack http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp The golf ball was posted when a photo avatar was NOT mandatory. It was an option within the forum software and not a picture I provided. I was neither allowed nor disallowed as it was not against the rules. You however saw fit at the time to insist I must have a photo avatar when it was NOT required. When the rules changed, I promptly complied. The photo then posted was hardly a silhouette. On other forums it is easily recognizable. This forum however is more restrictive in the avatar size. However, you still somehow thought it was recognizable enough to think you could identify me wearing a uniform. That still makes me chuckle. The photo was within the rules as it was a photo of myself. The rules do not state that the photo has to be "an ID photo" only a photograph so your current concern is invalid. The photo as it stands is recognizable. No rules have been broken. If a MODERATOR (hint: not you no matter how much you continue your harassment) says that I should change it or zoom in more, then I will. Just because I sometimes oppose you does not mean I have not done any research. Do my years of personal research on contrails count for nothing? I was studying that long before I had heard of the mythical "chemtrails". Or how about the time I spent searching through video archives for the Tom Clancy interview on CNN the morning of 911? Is that not research? Your statement is laughable Jack.

Sir...you have contributed nothing to this forum since I have been here except harassment. You should be ashamed. Jack http://library.uta.edu/findingAids/AR407.jsp That's funny Jack. And wrong. I have contributed a miltary viewpoint in threads that have called for it. I have occasionally commented on 911 threads, offering links to back up most arguments. And I have submitted personal research regarding contrails. Just because you don't agree with my viewpoint doesn't mean I have contributed nothing. As far as harassment, I feel I have received more from you. Or do you not remember your pestering about my avatar dating back to before an avatar picture was even required and concluding recently with the photo not being good enough for you (even though the same photo was supposedly good enough to identify me as wearing a military uniform, a conclusion you were wrong on then and never admitted). Or how about your previous insistence that my job must have something to do with my posting here.