Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Len Colby]

Peter,

As a journalist you can spend time and effort tracking down witnesses, you interview them. Sometimes you make notes, sometimes you record them. If you're a former TV type, you might even film them. Amazingly, I suppose, Danny has done this a few times and even - gosh no! - he sells DVD's of those interviewed on his website.

And then someone comes along wittering on about "little documentation".

Perhaps it's me, but is their an absence of intelligence involved in making such statements?

The cited page wasn’t from Hopsicker thought it uses his research without citing or naming him. Thus there was no documentation for that part of the post. Even if one recognized who the author was referencing one would have to go to his site and do a search to find any references. As for Hopsicker he often cites anonymous sources and often makes claims not supported by evidence.

[Len Colby]

Does anybody seriously believe that Peter did the research to verify the accuracy of the 50 claims? Funny neither Drago or Hogan seem to be bothered by that, but then again their standards are (at least) double mine.

I wonder what makes Colby believe I even read Peter's post? Typical of his limited mindset.

Have you read it yet?

Have you read every post I've made on this forum?

Have you read every post Jack or Peter has made?

Edited February 24, 2008 by Len Colby

[Len Colby]

I wonder if any of the “truthers” would be willing to respond to post # 17 and/or the following

(post # 20) are citations forthcoming for the following claims?

“Atta wore a crucifix. Atta went gambling on a Republican lobbyists yacht one week before 9/11. Atta was a drug smuggler.”

As has been pointed out previously the Abramoff claim (“gambling on a Republican lobbyists yacht”) is unsubstantiated, Hopsicker (the apperent souce) with his usually dedication to accuracy seems to have simply misquoted an article. AFAIK there is no proof any of the hijackers were on any of the cruises and no indication that Atta was a among the 1 - 3 that MIGHT have been. As written here it makes it sound like “Atta” was on Abramoff’s personal yacht s opposed to a paid cruise, a bend the truther strikes again!

http://911myths.com/html/atta_and_abramoff.html

OR

(post # 24)

“Was I wrong in my claim that there was “little documentation”? If so list the documentation provided.

Was I wrong in saying Hopsicker’s claim that Atta was on a casino cruise boat owned by Abramoff was unsubstantiated? If so show how I was in error. Ditto if I was wrong about the author of particular POS making it sound like the terrorist was on the lobbyist’s private yacht.”

No, no the facts of the case it seems is the last thing Guyatt, Lemkin and Hogan what to discuss. Attacking the messenger is a lot easier!

[Michael Hogan]

Does anybody seriously believe that Peter did the research to verify the accuracy of the 50 claims? Funny neither Drago or Hogan seem to be bothered by that, but then again their standards are (at least) double mine.

I wonder what makes Colby believe I even read Peter's post? Typical of his limited mindset.

Have you read it yet?

Have you read every post I've made on this forum?

Have you read every post Jack or Peter has made?

Typical of your limited mindset.

[Len Colby]

Does anybody seriously believe that Peter did the research to verify the accuracy of the 50 claims? Funny neither Drago or Hogan seem to be bothered by that, but then again their standards are (at least) double mine.

I wonder what makes Colby believe I even read Peter's post? Typical of his limited mindset.

Have you read it yet?

Have you read every post I've made on this forum?

Have you read every post Jack or Peter has made?

Typical of your limited mindset.

No, your reluctance to answer is reflective of yours!

[Michael Hogan]

Does anybody seriously believe that Peter did the research to verify the accuracy of the 50 claims? Funny neither Drago or Hogan seem to be bothered by that, but then again their standards are (at least) double mine.

I wonder what makes Colby believe I even read Peter's post? Typical of his limited mindset.

Have you read it yet?

Have you read every post I've made on this forum?

Have you read every post Jack or Peter has made?

Typical of your limited mindset.

No, your reluctance to answer is reflective of yours!

First of all, you're not my interrogator. You didn't bother answering mine: What made you believe I read Peter's post? Instead, you responded with three irrelevant questions. Here you go: No, no, and no.

But I read enough of your posts to know that no one could possibly be paying you for such lightweight stuff.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Does anyone believe LC has ever done any research to verify the official version of everything he spouts.

I think so; most, if not all, of his posts contain references for the statements he makes. It is very rarely - if ever - he has been proven incorrect with regard to these posts.

I disagree Evan. Allow me to cite the Mengele thread as an example -- although as I've said previously, the subject of LC's ability and credibility simply is not an important issue for any sensible person to waste their time on.

[Guest David Guyatt]

First of all, you're not my interrogator. You didn't bother answering mine: What made you believe I read Peter's post? Instead, you responded with three irrelevant questions. Here you go: No, no, and no.

But I read enough of your posts to know that no one could possibly be paying you for such lightweight stuff.

Deflection is the better part of valour.

I agree with you Michael, in not believing him to be a paid disinformation agent, also for the reasons you offer. But let's also not discount the internal ego boosting that contrarianism provides.

[Guest David Guyatt]

Sorry to utilise that often glibly misused word, but is the author able to document some of the incontrovertible evidence, or is this mere hyperbole on his part?

[Ron Ecker]

The evidence was incontrovertible that al-Qaeda was behind the September 11 attacks; Osama bin Laden had been videotaped bragging to his colleagues about his role in the preparations.

So much for Shenon's credibility. The Bin Laden "confession tape" was obviously fake. You would think that Western intelligence would know better than to cast a fat-nosed, cheeky actor to play the lead character. But then I'm sure they assume that their audience is stupid, which may be a safe assumption.

I agree that Bin Laden is dead. The only things "inside Bin Laden's mind today" are maggots. This may have been true even before 9/11 (a la the Afghan rebel leader taken out on the eve of the attacks).

The unfortunate thing for the actors who portray Bin Laden in videos and audio tapes is that their careers are so limited. They're typecast, and shouldn't be working for such dangerous people.

[Christopher Hall]

Who is Philip Shenon?

His book sounds interesting, and I will take a look at it on Amazon.

I guess that this explains why Sandy Berger risked his career and his freedom to steal and destroy documents from the National Archives relaing to the threat of OBL during the 2d Clinton Administration.....

Here's a review of The Commission by Evan Thomas of the New York Times. Shenon's book is currently #19 on their hardcover nonfiction bestseller list.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/books/04thom.html

Thanks, again, Michael.

I will take a look at it.

I also agree with Ron that the confession tape is a fake.

[Len Colby]

Have you read it yet?

Have you read every post I've made on this forum?

Have you read every post Jack or Peter has made?

Typical of your limited mindset.

No, your reluctance to answer is reflective of yours!

My, my Mike you seem to have gotten a bit bent out of shape:

First of all, you're not my interrogator. You didn't bother answering mine:

You reworded that for your post above, you hadn’t previously asked me a question. According to Drago that makes you something I’m not allowed to say.

What made you believe I read Peter's post?

I assumed you were following this thread. Perhaps you like I often skim or skip Lemkin’s posts.

Instead, you responded with three irrelevant questions.

Not quite as irrelevant as you might imagine. I’ll take the liberty of repeating them for clarity:

"Have you read it [Peter’s post] yet?"

No,

I don’t believe you

"Have you read every post I've made on this forum?"

no,

But that hasn’t stopped you from repeatedly making negative comments about my “mindset” “approach” yadda, yadda. You of course can argue as below that you’ve “read enough of” my posts to reach such a judgment by the same token I’d “read enough of” Lemkin’s post to conclude that it consisted of “lots of wild claims with little documentation” yet in my case you concurred that my reaching such a conclusion was erroneous, you’ve graduated from double standards to hypocrisy.

"Have you read every post Jack or Peter has made?"

no.

But you read enough of Jack’s to conclude that he’s a “careful scholar”? See above.

"But I read enough of your posts to know that no one could possibly be paying you for such lightweight stuff."

See above

So Mike do think it would be fair to say that your declaration that “the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot.” when in fact his name appears well over three hundred times on dozens of pages in the report was “typical of your limited mindset”? How about when you whined that some of the pages I cited were too long? How about when you claimed that a quote I included in one of my posts couldn’t be found on the page I linked, when in fact it could?

[Len Colby]

Does anyone believe LC has ever done any research to verify the official version of everything he spouts.

I think so; most, if not all, of his posts contain references for the statements he makes. It is very rarely - if ever - he has been proven incorrect with regard to these posts.

I disagree Evan. Allow me to cite the Mengele thread as an example

Where exactly did I make claims I didn't document or was I shown to be wrong on that thread! Oh yeah that's right you don't believe in documenting your claims. That certainlly does make it easier to slip in false ones.

-- although as I've said previously, the subject of LC's ability and credibility simply is not an important issue for any sensible person to waste their time on.

I guess you aren't a "sensible person" then because you keep returning to it, ditto Lemkin, Hogan and Drago.

[Len Colby]

I wonder if any of the “truthers” would be willing to respond to post # 17 and/or the following

(post # 20) are citations forthcoming for the following claims?

“Atta wore a crucifix. Atta went gambling on a Republican lobbyists yacht one week before 9/11. Atta was a drug smuggler.”

As has been pointed out previously the Abramoff claim (“gambling on a Republican lobbyists yacht”) is unsubstantiated, Hopsicker (the apperent souce) with his usually dedication to accuracy seems to have simply misquoted an article. AFAIK there is no proof any of the hijackers were on any of the cruises and no indication that Atta was a among the 1 - 3 that MIGHT have been. As written here it makes it sound like “Atta” was on Abramoff’s personal yacht s opposed to a paid cruise, a bend the truther strikes again!

http://911myths.com/html/atta_and_abramoff.html

OR

(post # 24)

“Was I wrong in my claim that there was “little documentation”? If so list the documentation provided.

Was I wrong in saying Hopsicker’s claim that Atta was on a casino cruise boat owned by Abramoff was unsubstantiated? If so show how I was in error. Ditto if I was wrong about the author of particular POS making it sound like the terrorist was on the lobbyist’s private yacht.”

No, no the facts of the case it seems is the last thing Guyatt, Lemkin and Hogan what to discuss. Attacking the messenger is a lot easier!

Still waiting

[Michael Hogan]

You reworded that for your post above, you hadn’t previously asked me a question. According to Drago that makes you something I’m not allowed to say.

Wrong again. If you want to intimate that I am a xxxx, at least get your facts straight. Here's the previously asked question along with a declarative statement.

I wonder what makes Colby believe I even read Peter's post? Typical of his limited mindset.

What made you believe I read Peter's post?

I assumed you were following this thread. Perhaps you like I often skim or skip Lemkin’s posts.

"Have you read it [Peter’s post] yet?"

No.

I don’t believe you

Your two statements above are irreconcilable. Indicative of your extremely limited mindset and why most here (Evan excluded) consider you a lightweight.

So Mike do think it would be fair to say that your declaration that “the 9/11 Commission devoted barely one page to Atta, the man they called the ringleader of the plot.” when in fact his name appears well over three hundred times on dozens of pages in the report was “typical of your limited mindset”? How about when you whined that some of the pages I cited were too long? How about when you claimed that a quote I included in one of my posts couldn’t be found on the page I linked, when in fact it could?

Like I said, no one would be foolish enough to pay you to write this stuff.