Jump to content
The Education Forum

Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...


Recommended Posts

Anybody fancy having a go at explaining this?

http://www.rense.com/general70/pphe.htm]

There are no conspiracies, only coincidences... :lol:

Wonderful...a photo taken who knows when ( how about some DETAILS please) and uncited "experts" claiming the cut is not from a torch (how about a plasma cutter?). Sheesh and then we see its from Bollyn. How compelling.

Do the required legwork and get back to us.

Edited by Craig Lamson
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ron, Jack and other "inside jobbers",

I'm still waiting for evidence that the technology to remotely control Boeing 757's and 767's in a way that would override the pilots and cut off communications was either preinstalled or could have been added surreptitiously. Barring that your theories are nowhere.

Len

:D<_<:P:)<_<:D:P:lol::D

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Len Colby wrote:

Ron, Jack, Mike and other "inside jobbers",

I'm still waiting for evidence that the technology to remotely control Boeing 757's and 767's in a way that would override the pilots and cut off communications was either preinstalled or could have been added surreptitiously. Barring that your theories are nowhere.

Len, the above is precisely why I have such little respect for your methodology of posting links and your resulting conclusions. I also have little respect your labelling me as an "inside jobber," whatever the hell that means. I have NEVER made any claims about remote control, the towers being intentionally demolished, the administration's pre-knowledge, Willie Brown's warning, or the Pentagon. I HAVE made claims about the uncertainty of events, due to the poor and improper investigation of the 9/11 Commission. (See below). Tell me Len, what are my theories on remote control that you are alluding to? Or are you talking about a different Mike?

I've posted links as best as I could find to my comments regarding 9/11. Any emphases in bold are mine.

I didn't think you made a convincing claim for your claims on a stand-down, and the flying abilities of the the alleged highjackers and I said so. I posted information that conflicted with your conclusions.

Quote me Len if you want to. All I ask is you quote me fairly, and not out of context. Show me where I made any claims that would qualify me as an "inside jobber." You'll note that I have made no responses to you or anyone else on the subject of 9/11 in several weeks. It was you that brought my name up, using the tactic of assigning a label to me, and then challenging me to defend theories that I never espoused.

As best as I can tell, my first post on 9/11 was May 9 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...t=0entry62460

My main point was in my conclusion:

Unlike the Warren Report that dwelled incessantly on Lee Oswald's childhood and background, The 9/11 Commission was incredibly succinct in their examination of Atta. Just going to the index, and reading every single word they write about the man they call the tactical leader of the plot takes no more than twenty or thirty minutes at the most. Their basis for most information comes from "friends" or "acquaintances" of Atta's

It's really a damn shame what a shoddy job they did. History will not judge 9/11 Commission kindly, just as it has not the Warren Report.

As I recall, my first post that mentioned your name was this on May 15:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6669

I never claimed 9/11 was any kind of conspiracy. I only claimed the government's investigation was lacking. I did offer criticisms of your postings, specifically your links:

Just as there were people that thought the Warren Report was gospel, there are people today that believe the same thing about the 9/11 Commission Report.
Oft times they ask doubters for proof of the unprovable.
They lump the credible concerns about the Report in with the sensationalistic claims and tend to paint all with a broad brush.
It is quickly becoming a given that the government's investigation into 9/11 was at best, incomplete and, at worst, incompetent and dishonest.

Not even mentioning the collapse of WTC7 in their findings cannot be defended. Not addressing serious concerns about the identities and backgrounds of the alleged highjackers is also indefensible. They identified Mohamed Atta as "the tactical commander of the operation," and spent one page on his life, upbringing, and religious metamorphasis. A careful reading of the footnotes will indicate they got their information from "friends and acquaintances" of Atta's and they did so in a very cursory manner. I could go on, but there really is no point in doing so. Those that accept the government version are going to continue to cast aspersions on views that differ from theirs and are unlikely to be convinced. On the other hand, those that read and study will have to go through the exercise of separating fact from fiction, not an easy task as I mentioned earlier.

To me it boils down to this: The 9/11 Commission failed in its duties. Where do we go from here?

On May 21 I wrote:

Its 43 years after the murder of John Kennedy, and people still debate whether or not Oswald possessed the skills and the weapon to do what the Warren Commission claimed. Anyone can post a link to some "expert's" testimony and make a case for either side.

It's just a shame the 9/11 Commission failed to do a proper job of investigating, relegating the search for the truth in the hands of internet websites. I don't claim to know what happened. I wonder how others can be so sure.

My next post was on May 22: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...topic=5728&st=0

It is true I criticized your use of sources:

I guess its no secret I don't think much of Mr. Colby's "research" or his reasoning on these matters. If other members have been persuaded by what Mr. Colby posted, I would be interested in hearing.

Other than posting a paragraph from a prominent author on 9/11 about the slowness of goverment response, I made no conspiracy claims.

Your response was to accuse me of starting a "xxxx fight' and "mud-slinging."

My last post to you was on May 24: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...indpost&p=63385

Contrary to what you might think, Len, I make/made no claims as to whether there was a standown or not, or whether something else hit the Pentagon.
To tell you the truth, what irritated me and prompted my response was your claim, "So much for stand down, LOL." without even addressing the two later flights. Or without posting information that was convincing beyond doubt. To me all the links you posted are proof to no one but yourself.

I lack the desire or energy to argue any more with you point by point. You've already told me I have no business criticizing your (or anybody's) research. You've as much as called me a mud slinger. I could go over things point by point, or link by link....but that would be more tedium than I'm willing to commit to.

And Len, despite your challenge, it has nothing to do with my courage or lack of it. I suspect you don't like me, and that is understandable. Bottom line, neither of us is going to change the other's mind, if we post links until the cows come home.

I'm willing to listen and willing to learn from others.
Nowhere did I claim to have answers to what happened on 9/11.
I'll close by repeating myself.

If other members have been persuaded by what Mr. Colby posted, I would be interested in hearing.

Peace.

Mike Hogan

Len, I just went back and read all my posts. The thrust of all of them was that I was critical of your methodology in terms of supporting the categorical statements you were making. My main criticism of the US Government was their investigation, particularly concerning the background and flying abilities of a few of the alleged highjackers.

What is it about my posts that define me as an "inside jobber?"

Peace

Mike

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

I was indeed referring to you; I assumed from your posts that you supported the "inside job" (MIHOP) theory. People who back that theory normally claim that the planes were remote controlled. If I misunderstood your position I apologize and I will edit the offending post appropriately. But to be frank me thinks thou 'doth protest too much' by making such a big deal about a piddling error.

Once again you criticize my research and methodology. Considering the gross errors of research and methodology that were displayed the last time you made such criticism I am surprised you'd want to move into that territory again. I have no interest in getting into a tit for tat with you, unless you say something too outrageous to go unresponded to I'll let you have the last word.

Jeeeez,

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Through edit today (June 16) I have completely revised and expanded the original post in this thread, to include new info with fuller citations.

The footnotes included links, but I had to delete them because of a font problem with the quotations mark in the URLs when I tried to transfer the doc file to the forum. However, most of the sources in the notes are easily searchable on the Web.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Through edit today (June 16) I have completely revised and expanded the original post in this thread, to include new info with fuller citations.

The footnotes included links, but I had to delete them because of a font problem with the quotations mark in the URLs when I tried to transfer the doc file to the forum. However, most of the sources in the notes are easily searchable on the Web.

Ron,

Very impressive post, it might take me almost as long to reply to it as you did to write it (over 2 weeks) it seems like you suddenly found some free time.

Please try to post the links again, perhaps you could upload the footnotes to the forum that should eliminate any font problems. I believe you have a website another option would be to post your article footnotes links and all there. A third option would be to try posting the footnotes again perhaps as a seperate message, in my experience shorter messages are less prone to glitches.

While it's true that "most of the sources in the notes are easily searchable on the Web" this would be a very time consuming process for anyone wanting to check your sources, it would undoubtably take a few hours. It is the resposibility of a researcher to document the claims he (or she) makes aand in the age of the Internet it is his (or her) responsibility to provide links to all cited sources that are available online.

Len

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is the resposibility of a researcher to document the claims he (or she) makes aand in the age of the Internet it is his (or her) responsibility to provide links to all cited sources that are available online.

I put a great deal of work into linking all the references, and when I copied and pasted to the forum it didn't work, because the quotation mark font changed, causing the complete URLs to appear instead of hyperlinks, stretching the post out horizontally so as to be completely unreadable. So I had to go back and delete all the URLs, the only expeditious thing I could do. I do not have the time at present to go through over 100 footnotes and change all the quotation marks in the URLs. You can consider this shoddy research work if you wish.

If you go to Google and type in the title of any online article that I've referenced, the link will pop right up. Sorry to put you to all that trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Len Colby advises Ron Ecker:

It is the resposibility of a researcher to document the claims he (or she) makes and in the age of the Internet it is his (or her) responsibility to provide links to all cited sources that are available online.

In the second post of this thread Len Colby makes the claim:

As for the 911 call. Both the operator who took the call and David Felt's brother who heard the tape denied that he (Felt) said anything about smoke or an explosion.

Here is Mr. Colby's cited source: http://911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html

It takes just a minute or two to see that there is no documentation there to support Mr. Colby's claim. There is only the assertion of the website author who proceeds to back his claim with a dead link: http://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002...ver_story.shtml

Len Colby also also advises Ron Ecker:

While it's true that "most of the sources in the notes are easily searchable on the Web" this would be a very time consuming process for anyone wanting to check your sources

Yet ironically in the above link to 911 myths that Mr. Colby is so fond of citing, the author says:

"John Shaw? Yes, it turns out he's the one who actuallly took the call. Glen Cramer was just his supervisor at the time.
Use Google to search for "John Shaw" "Flight 93" and you get the real story
(Emphasis mine), which isn't suspicious at all."

Seems like Len Colby should be lecturing the author of the website he loves to cite rather than Ron Ecker who offered essentially the same thing:

"If you go to Google and type in the title of any online article that I've referenced, the link will pop right up. Sorry to put you to all that trouble."

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites
Len Colby advises Ron Ecker:

It is the resposibility of a researcher to document the claims he (or she) makes and in the age of the Internet it is his (or her) responsibility to provide links to all cited sources that are available online.

In the second post of this thread Len Colby makes the claim:

As for the 911 call. Both the operator who took the call and David Felt's brother who heard the tape denied that he (Felt) said anything about smoke or an explosion.

Here is Mr. Colby's cited source: http://911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html

It takes just a minute or two to see that there is no documentation there to support Mr. Colby's claim. There is only the assertion of the website author who proceeds to back his claim with a dead link: http://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002...ver_story.shtml

The claim IS documented, I advised the site owner and the page now contains a link to an archived copy of the article. It's not uncommon for sites to delete pages or change their URL's. According to the Internet Archive the page was last altered March 16, 2005 and would only have been pulled some time after that [ http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002/11_28/news_cover_story.shtml ] presumably when the 911myth page was posted the link was working it certainly was when the site was created 2 months earlier [ http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/whois.ch?ip=911myths.com ]. I don't imagine this is the first time Mr. Hogan has found a website that links to a page that has since gone offline, that's not the same thing as not providing any links at all.

Len Colby also also advises Ron Ecker:

While it's true that "most of the sources in the notes are easily searchable on the Web" this would be a very time consuming process for anyone wanting to check your sources

Yet ironically in the above link to 911 myths that Mr. Colby is so fond of citing, the author says:

"John Shaw? Yes, it turns out he's the one who actuallly took the call. Glen Cramer was just his supervisor at the time. Use Google to search for "John Shaw" "Flight 93" and you get the real story (Emphasis mine), which isn't suspicious at all."

What Mike leaves out is that immediately after the paragraph he quoted above, the author of the page provides one of the results of such a Google search quoting an article from the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, working link and all, in which Shaw describes the call and says nothing about Felt mentioning smoke or an explosion. This raises a question, was Mike being intentionally deceptive or is he so imperceptive that he failed to notice the quoted passage from the Post-Gazette in a highlighted yellow box less than an centimeter* (fraction of an inch) below the passage he quoted? Once again Mike's criticism of me reflects far more poorly on him than on me. He is hardly one to criticize or "lecture" anyone else about their posts.

Seems like Len Colby should be lecturing the author of the website he loves to cite rather than Ron Ecker who offered essentially the same thing:

"If you go to Google and type in the title of any online article that I've referenced, the link will pop right up. Sorry to put you to all that trouble."

Since Ron didn't provide any links and the author of the page did there is no comparison between the postings.

Mike, a word to the wise, make sure you have your facts straight before you knock me or anybody else, failing to do so tends to explode in your face.

Len

*Unless he is using a very big monitor, but in that case the passage from the Pittsburgh newspaper would be even harder to miss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the resposibility of a researcher to document the claims he (or she) makes aand in the age of the Internet it is his (or her) responsibility to provide links to all cited sources that are available online.

I put a great deal of work into linking all the references, and when I copied and pasted to the forum it didn't work, because the quotation mark font changed, causing the complete URLs to appear instead of hyperlinks, stretching the post out horizontally so as to be completely unreadable. So I had to go back and delete all the URLs, the only expeditious thing I could do. I do not have the time at present to go through over 100 footnotes and change all the quotation marks in the URLs. You can consider this shoddy research work if you wish.

If you go to Google and type in the title of any online article that I've referenced, the link will pop right up. Sorry to put you to all that trouble.

True enough Ron but your article has 107 footnotes from what I guesstimate to be from about 40 different souces, googling and finding them all would be rather time consuming. I sugested that you upload your Word file (either just the footnotes or the whole thing) to the forum. This would make it available for download to anyone interested. That should only take you a minute or two. If you are out of space or can't figure out how to do this send me a PM. Neither I nor anyone else wanting to verify your sources should have to spend extra time tracking them down just because you can't get the the links to post properly when their is an easy solution to the problem.

I am curious Ron, what's all this about qutation marks in URLs? I don't remember ever seeing an URL with apostrophes or quote marks.

Len

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am curious Ron, what's all this about qutation marks in URLs? I don't remember ever seeing an URL with apostrophes or quote marks.

URLs are contained in quotation marks. At least that was my understanding of html, so that's what I do. When I copied and pasted to the forum, all of the straight up and down quotation marks turned into curly quotation marks, and the result was just the complete URLs strung out instead of hyperlinks. (Sometimes, but not always, curly quotation marks and apostrophes in regular text show up on web pages as big black question marks. I guess it depends on the specific font whether or not this happens.)

In any case, the article with links and images is now on my website at http://www.hobrad.com/united.htm. You can now go there and verify all of my sources to your heart's content.

Will you be rebutting every sentence of the article, or just every paragraph? I welcome all comments and questions from forum members, including Len Colby within reason. The article pretty much speaks for itself, I believe, and I'm moving on to something else.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to post
Share on other sites

Len,

Its this simple. You are the one that admonished Ron Ecker about providing links to his sources and you are the one that makes a claim and fails to provide a working link. It would have just taken a few seconds on your part to make sure the link you provided worked. But you didn't.

Instead of providing a direct link to your source, you post a link to a webpage that contains a non-working link to what you are trying to document. Even if the reader were able to find that link he or she would have to read through some fifty paragraphs of an article to find the paragraph that refers to your claim. For the reader that is willing to go through that tedious process, the documentation leaves a lot to be desired anyway.

Once again, you tell Ron:

"It is the responsibility of a researcher to document the claims he (or she) makes and in the age of the Internet it is his (or her) responsibility to provide links to all cited sources that are available online."

Why is it not your responsibilty to at the very least provide a link that works? Laziness? Sloppiness? Or both?

Let me repeat Len. Why is it not your responsibility to see that the links you provide are working?

And yes Len, I saw the link to the Post-Gazette by Ernie Hoffman. Maybe it is you that is being intentionally deceptive or just chronically imperceptive. The fact that the author doesn't provide a complete transcript of the conversation between Felt and Shaw does nothing to support your claim that:

"As for the 911 call. Both the operator who took the call and David Felt's brother who heard the tape denied that he (Felt) said anything about smoke or an explosion."

There is nothing in that article about any denial and you know it.

And anyway, my point was that the author suggests using Google to check his claims, exactly as Ron Ecker did. You can't even acknowledge that, in your desperation to prove me wrong.

These were your parting shots:

"Once again Mike's criticism of me reflects far more poorly on him than on me. He is hardly one to criticize or 'lecture' anyone else about their posts."

and:

"Mike, a word to the wise, make sure you have your facts straight before you knock me or anybody else, failing to do so tends to explode in your face."

I did make sure I had my facts straight, and my original post in this thread speaks for itself. And as long as you employ the methodology of posting links that don't work, or are not germane to your claims, or do not accurately support your claims, I'm going to continue to criticize your methods. Especially when you are so hypocritical in your advice to others. We can let the readers decide for themselves. I'm fine with that.

And Len, read my post again. I was speaking to readers of the thread. I was not "lecturing you." I was not even talking to you. Criticizing? Yes. Ridiculing your research? Maybe. But lecturing? Not really. Try and get it right, Len.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike this debate, or whatever you want to label it, between us is entirely tangential to the points raised by Ron's article. I asked him to provide working links to support his claims and he has since done so. I therefore consider the "case closed".

The time I spent replying to you I could have much better spent doing other things, including responding to Ron's post itself. This is my last reply to you on this issue, unless you say something too outrageous to go unresponded to. There is a saying in these parts "deixe ele late só" which roughly translates as, "let him bark alone" which is my intention; you can continue barking I'm done with this matter.

Your analogy comparing providing a link that has since gone dead to not providing any is false. Comparing a rhetorical suggestion to use Google immediately followed by the result of such a search with a link to a superficially similar suggestion to use the search engine in lieu of providing links is even further off the mark.

Len,

Its this simple. You are the one that admonished Ron Ecker about providing links to his sources and you are the one that makes a claim and fails to provide a working link. It would have just taken a few seconds on your part to make sure the link you provided worked. But you didn't.

Instead of providing a direct link to your source, you post a link to a webpage that contains a non-working link to what you are trying to document.

(The rest of Mike's comments are quoted in Arial Black font and in quotation marks)

- The link I provided, to the 911myths site, was and is working.

- The link on that page to an article which quotes John Shaw and Gordon Felt as saying Mark Felt made no mention of smoke or and explosion is now working and was working about a year ago when I first looked at the page.

I am NOT knocking Ron here, when I said his post was impressive I meant it sincerely, I was merely urging him to make links available. To certain degree I did Ron a favor i) by putting his article on his site he has made it available to a wider audience ii) by documenting his claims with working links he has strengthened it.

Some of the links Ron has now provided are now dead (one at least is). I am not knocking him for that but to be consistent YOU should. A London Daily Mirror article he cited is now offline. BTW the article says incorrectly that Cramer took the 911 call. [Ron the Internet Archive link to the most recent version is: http://web.archive.org/web/20041023075651/...ll&siteid=50143 ]

"Even if the reader were able to find that link…"

See above

"...he or she would have to read through some fifty paragraphs of an article to find the paragraph that refers to your claim. For the reader that is willing to go through that tedious process the documentation leaves a lot to be desired anyway."

This is an absurd objection.

-I assume that most members of this forum know how to use their browser's "Find (on this page)" or "Search" functions.

-It took me about 9 seconds to find the paragraph that way with IE. The relevant passage was quoted on the "Myths" page. Your complaints that I cited the "Myths" page instead of the original and that the one has to read too far into the original to find the quote are contradictory.

-What should I or the webmaster of "Myths" have done differently? It's a long article and there is no way to link directly to the relevant paragraph or section. By your 'logic' anyone who cites an excerpt from the middle or end of a long webpage is in error.

Comparing to Ron's article again, he wrote, "The FBI confiscated the tape, and Cramer was reportedly told not to discuss the call," he provided three footnotes to support these claims. The reader has to do a good bit or reading to find the relevant passages in the first two. Cramer being "told not to discuss the call" is only mentioned in the third. That is the above mentioned London Mirror article which is now offline, Ron's claim is only documented some 30 plus paragraphs into the article. Even if the link was working if Ron's readers read the articles in the order he listed them from beginning to end he or she would have to go through about 75 paragraphs before reaching the relevant passage. Ron also cites the 9/11 Commission report and testimony, in several cases the relevant passages are many paragraphs down from the top of the page. So to be consistent YOU should criticize Ron now, not doing so would be hypocritical.

Why does "the documentation leave(s) a lot to be desired"? The author of the Pittsburg Pulp article is reporting what Shaw and Felt told him.

"Once again, you tell Ron:

"It is the responsibility of a researcher to document the claims he (or she) makes and in the age of the Internet it is his (or her) responsibility to provide links to all cited sources that are available online."

Why is it not your responsibilty to at the very least provide a link that works? Laziness? Sloppiness? Or both?

Let me repeat Len. Why is it not your responsibility to see that the links you provide are working?"

See above

"And yes Len, I saw the link to the Post-Gazette by Ernie Hoffman. Maybe it is you that is being intentionally deceptive or just chronically imperceptive. The fact that the author doesn't provide a complete transcript of the conversation between Felt and Shaw does nothing to support your claim that:

"As for the 911 call. Both the operator who took the call and David Felt's brother who heard the tape denied that he (Felt) said anything about smoke or an explosion."

There is nothing in that article about any denial and you know it."

Neither I nor the author of the page claimed that the article had "a complete transcript of the conversation between Felt and Shaw" or that it supports the claim that "the operator who took the call and David Felt's brother who heard the tape denied that he (Felt) said anything about smoke or an explosion." The "Myths" webmaster and I only cited it as evidence that Shaw said nothing about Felt saying anything about smoke or an explosion. Your use of a strawman shows desperation your part.

The author of the "Myths" page wrote:

"John Shaw? Yes, it turns out he's the one who actuallly took the call. Glen Cramer was just his supervisor at the time. Use Google to search for "John Shaw" "Flight 93" and you get the real story, which isn't suspicious at all"

http://www.911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html

Nothing in there about Shaw or Gordon felt denying that David Felt said what Cramer claimed he did. He had already dealt with that.

My exact words were:

What Mike leaves out is that immediately after the paragraph he quoted above, the author of the page provides one of the results of such a Google search quoting an article from the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, working link and all, in which Shaw describes the call and says nothing about Felt mentioning smoke or an explosion.
(emphasis added)

Obviously saying nothing about something precludes denying it.

"And anyway, my point was that the author suggests using Google to check his claims, exactly as Ron Ecker did. You can't even acknowledge that, in your desperation to prove me wrong."

There is no desperation on my part. The author's suggestion to use "Google to check his claims" was not, "exactly as Ron Ecker did". The author suggested using Google but his suggestion was immediately followed by the result of such a search that documented his claim, thus the suggestion was largely rhetorical. As far as I can tell Mike Williams, the owner of the site, documents all his claims with references and when possible with links to webpages. Ron on the other hand suggested using Google INSTEAD of providing links. Your previous post deceptively omitted that crucial difference between the two 'suggestions' to use Google.

"These were your parting shots:

"Once again Mike's criticism of me reflects far more poorly on him than on me. He is hardly one to criticize or 'lecture' anyone else about their posts."

and:

"Mike, a word to the wise, make sure you have your facts straight before you knock me or anybody else, failing to do so tends to explode in your face."

I did make sure I had my facts straight, and my original post in this thread speaks for itself. And as long as you employ the methodology of posting links that don't work, or are not germane to your claims, or do not accurately support your claims"

-As already mentioned the link I provided was and is working, the link in page I cited was working when I first read the page and is now working.

-Which of my links wasn't germane to or doesn't support my claims?

-If you had "your facts straight" but cited them in a deceptive manner that's worse than not having them straight.

"I'm going to continue to criticize your methods. Especially when you are so hypocritical in your advice to others. We can let the readers decide for themselves. I'm fine with that."

I was NOT being hypocritical for reasons cited above. I have shown there are similar 'problems' in Ron's article, I am NOT criticizing Ron for them, I consider it normal that links go dead and that researchers will back their claims by citing articles which only document their claims after many paragraphs. To not be hypocritical YOU should knock Ron. I agree letting, "readers decide for themselves" is our best option.

"And Len, read my post again. I was speaking to readers of the thread. I was not "lecturing you." I was not even talking to you. Criticizing? Yes. Ridiculing your research? Maybe. But lecturing? Not really. Try and get it right, Len."

Well finally you make a semi-legitimate complaint irrelevant as it maybe. I stand accused and I'm guilty I did indicate incorrectly in half a sentence that you had address me directly in second person, send me to the gallows! As to whether 'ridicule' or 'lecture' would have been the most appropriate verb to use I will NOT waste my time with hairsplitting semantics.

Len

Edited by Len Colby
Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if the link was working if Ron's readers read the articles in the order he listed them from beginning to end he or she would have to go through about 75 paragraphs before reaching the relevant passage. Ron also cites the 9/11 Commission report and testimony, in several cases the relevant passages are many paragraphs down from the top of the page.

Please tell me how to link to a particular paragraph in a long article or transcript of testimony online. I would like to know how to do that.

BTW the article says incorrectly that Cramer took the 911 call.

If you're referring to my article, please quote where I say that Cramer took the call. (Or link to the specific paragraph in the long article. I would like to see you do that.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...