Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8863 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-21-2018 1:33 AM
146 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 144 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 838,722 Year: 13,545/29,783 Month: 991/1,576 Week: 203/303 Day: 0/27 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Conspiracy Theories: It's all in your mind!
Percy
Member
Posts: 17653
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 61 of 110 (700297)
06-01-2013 6:34 AM


A Test Subject
I don't see the point of trying to convince Prototypical there wasn't a conspiracy - all evidence indicates it isn't possible to talk a conspiracy theorist out of his conspiracies. Proto seems much more useful as a test subject or example of the pathology to see if he conforms to the hypothesis put forth by the psychological research briefly described in Message 1. For instance, is he "cynical about the world in general"? Does he have "low self-worth, especially with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large"? Does he appear to be reacting to a sense of "uncertainty and powerlessness"? Has he performed "repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable narrative"?

There *is* one thing I wonder about conspiracy theorists that the pschologists haven't addressed yet, at least not in the studies that were the focus of the NYT article. For things that have actually happened, evidence eventually comes to light. As time passes and evidence supporting conspiracy scenarios never emerges, how come conspiracy theorists still hold to their theories? How come they don't continue the "repeated reassessments of information" in light of the lack of emerging evidence?

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by NoNukes, posted 06-01-2013 10:13 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 65 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 3:13 AM Percy has responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5777
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 62 of 110 (700314)
06-01-2013 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ProtoTypical
05-31-2013 10:38 PM


Re: How can you tell?
I am presuming that the gas station owner would have a finer sense of the appropriate words to use. It would be interesting to know how many minutes.

Provide a primary source for this claim.

The Mitchell 25D that hit the Empire state building had a wingspan of 67'7" and had a maximum take off weight of 35,000 lbs and cruises at about 180mph. The 757 has a wingspan of 124'10", has a max take off weight of 255,000lbs and cruises at about 500mph.

What is your point here? Incredulity is not evidence. Do you have anything from a structural engineer to back your suspicions?

Don't you find it even a little odd for that glass to be there right in the middle of the impact hole?

Do you think the Pentagon uses house quality glass for windows?

No Doc. Very obviously not crashing. Instead it is placing your 500 mph 757 precisely where you intend it to be. Remember, 1500ft is 2.046 seconds at 500mph.

Again, your personal incredulity is evidence of nothing. Give us something from an aviation expert saying that with the training he had he could not have piloted a plane into the ground.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ProtoTypical, posted 05-31-2013 10:38 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 110 (700317)
06-01-2013 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
06-01-2013 6:34 AM


Re: A Test Subject
How come they don't continue the "repeated reassessments of information" in light of the lack of emerging evidence?

Because the conspiracy theorists are convinced the stuff that does not have an airtight fit is the evidence, while everything that does fit is manufactured government MIB conspiracy. And boy can these theorists find 'cracks'.

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/passengers.html

quote:
Is it a just coincidence the most of the passengers on Flight 77 with military backgrounds were Navy and that the crash at the Pentagon happened in the Navy's command center which took the heaviest casualties?

Yeah, I'm sure this is a coincidence. It's not like there are a dozen service branches to pick from. But to this guy, there is something absolutely sinister about the number of Navy victims compared to the other branches of service.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 06-01-2013 6:34 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1768
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 64 of 110 (700328)
06-02-2013 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr Adequate
06-01-2013 1:04 AM


Re: How can you tell?
Right. The one person you've found who makes any claim claims that there was one that she knows of. Rather than 85. There's a difference.

The one person that I found is the FBI agent who filed the legal document stating that there were 85 cameras that could have been 'potentially responsive' to the FOIA request. Upon reviewing 29 of them she says that she found one that did.

So if the thought occurs to me that it seems odd that there is no better picture of the event and then I see that there are indeed 85 cameras that could have captured the event this information reinforces the thought that it is odd that there is no better picture of the event or even another blurry picture of the event.

I do not understand why she only reviewed 29 of the tapes.

Yes, the things you don't know about claims for which you can produce no primary source are awfully suspicious.

Well this is where I read it. National Geographic

but you are right, I can not produce Mr Velasquez to testify.

The fact remains that the hole it made in the building was less than one-third the size of its wingspan, suggesting that when planes crash into things they don't behave like you think they should.

Nor the way that you think they should if you thought that a plane with a 185ft wingspan left a 20ft hole. It is mostly irrelevant though.

What I'm mainly seeing in the middle of the impact hole is fire.

That's nice but doesn't answer the question. Don't you find it incongruous for a window to remain in the area that the tail section of a 757 has just passed through? Blast proof or not. Isn't just one case of failing to adhere to the law of cause and effect enough to give you pause?

But he did have a commercial pilot's license. So the quibble seems irrelevant. "How could he have driven the car? Sure, he had a driver's license, but he was never a chauffeur!"

The relevant part is that he couldn't even convince someone to rent him a little plane.

Your comparison is just ludicrous. It is more like you jumping in an F1 car for the first time and being capable of winning the race.

Here is a pilots description of what Hanjour acheived.

quote:
So, to sum up. Hani Hanjour, took a 757, with zero time in type, did the maneuver described above, a 400 knot 330 degree sprialing dive at 2500 fpm, only gaining 30 knots, then 30 knots more descending from 2200 feet at full power, with a very steady hand as to not overshoot or hit the lawn, inside ground effect, at 460 knots impact speed, but was refused to rent a 172 cause he couldnt land it at 65 knots? C'mon... sounds like a bad B movie...

Now try to keep your imagination in check. I really have no idea how hard that would be to do and neither do you. All I am saying is isn't it remarkable.This doesn't mean that I think that flight 77 is still flying around somewhere. This doesn't mean that I think that it wasn't a jet or that GW is the antichrist.

Something else which you apparently can't even imagine, done for reasons you can't conceive of, as supported by the fact that you don't know how long it took for investigators to collect evidence from the Citgo gas station?

I would imagine that you would like to prevail in this discussion using logic and facts instead of misrepresentation and exaggeration. You should stow your accusations. I have not said one thing about there being a conspiracy. I have only pointed out things that seem to be inconsistent like a window still hanging directly in the spot where a big plane has just been or the FBI showing up 'within minutes', while the bodies of their comrades still burned, to collect the gas station video.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-01-2013 1:04 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2013 10:48 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 86 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-03-2013 6:32 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1768
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 65 of 110 (700329)
06-02-2013 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
06-01-2013 6:34 AM


Re: A Test Subject
I don't see the point of trying to convince Prototypical there wasn't a conspiracy

Nor do I. I do see the point of trying to address the particular questions with something more than

DA writes:

What I'm mainly seeing in the middle of the impact hole is fire.

I mean, I see a window there don't you? How can that window be there? I am not asking this because I think that Donald Rumsfeld is a sociopath.

Proto seems much more useful as a test subject or example of the pathology to see if he conforms to the hypothesis put forth by the psychological research briefly described in Message 1.

is he "cynical about the world in general"?

I don't think that I would qualify as being overly cynical. If I recognize correctly that some people are motivated by self interest does that make me cynical?

Does he have "low self-worth, especially with regard to their sense of agency in the world at large"?

I am a nobody with very close to no agency in the world at large. This doesn't particularly bother me. I am regarded with some affection by a handful of people and that is plenty for me. At the same time, I likely have more power and agency than 2/3 of the people in the world.

Does he appear to be reacting to a sense of "uncertainty and powerlessness"?

Well I am certainly uncertain about a great many things and essentially powerless over almost everything. I ask questions so as to become more certain and I have little concern for my own amount of power but it does concern me if power is being abused.

Has he performed "repeated reassessments of information in an attempt to create a coherent and understandable narrative"?

That is what I am doing right now. To be honest, I would rather not revisit 9/11 so much as I usually end up saddened and depressed. Again, I would not describe myself as a conspiracy theorist. I am simply aware of some things that seem to be inconsistent.

How come they don't continue the "repeated reassessments of information" in light of the lack of emerging evidence?

I tend to reassess my evaluations when new evidence does emerge not when it fails to emerge.

Let me offer some more study material.

Take the Kennedy assassination. I have a vague understanding of the events of that day and as I understand it there is some controversy about whether LHO could have fired those three shots by himself. I have no clue as to who was behind the deed but I suspect that all of the information has not been made public. Does that make me a cynical conspiracy theorist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 06-01-2013 6:34 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 06-02-2013 7:10 AM ProtoTypical has responded
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2013 10:41 AM ProtoTypical has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17653
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 66 of 110 (700333)
06-02-2013 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by ProtoTypical
06-02-2013 3:13 AM


Re: A Test Subject
Prototypical writes:

How come they don't continue the "repeated reassessments of information" in light of the lack of emerging evidence?

I tend to reassess my evaluations when new evidence does emerge not when it fails to emerge.

What you have is evidence that Flight 77 isn't what hit the Pentagon. Where is the evidence of what did actually hit the Pentagon? Where did Flight 77 go, and where are all the people who were on it?

For the sake of this thread these are rhetorical questions. The actual question is what effect these kinds of questions have on the thinking of conspiracy theorists, or even whether they consider such questions.

--Percy

PS - A jetliner flying just a few hundred feet above the ground does tend to cause one's eyes to turn upward. Just came across this: Flight 77: Some Eyewitness Accounts


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 3:13 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 7:43 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 70 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 11:22 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 72 by Coragyps, posted 06-02-2013 1:11 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1607 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 67 of 110 (700335)
06-02-2013 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
06-02-2013 7:10 AM


Re: A Test Subject
It astounds me that people think that the conspirators can fabricate dozen of eye-witness accounts but can't fake better security footage.
I've seen teenagers fake authentic looking film of alien invasion, but the American government couldn't do better than a white blur?

It seems like conspiracy theorists only demand evidence from authority figures - and not from anyone else.
If they don't get 'enough' evidence, they start making completely unevidenced claims about planes 'disappearing' and hundreds of people being silenced.
I understand people wanting to get as much evidence as possible - but why then abandon evidence gathering when positing their alternative hypothesises?

They appear to consider a lack of evidence of "Event A" is automatically evidence of "Event B".
It reminds me of IDists thinking that disproving evolution provides evidence of Intelligent Design.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Instead, all they have is a lack of mundane evidence - but, for some strange reason, that is enough for them.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 06-02-2013 7:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 110 (700338)
06-02-2013 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by ProtoTypical
06-02-2013 3:13 AM


Re: A Test Subject
I tend to reassess my evaluations when new evidence does emerge not when it fails to emerge.

You will never change your mind about Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon. Not ever. You are already convinced. You may even have locked on to an alternative scenario that is way more poorly evidenced than is the official version.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 3:13 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 4:05 PM NoNukes has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 69 of 110 (700339)
06-02-2013 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by ProtoTypical
06-02-2013 3:05 AM


Re: How can you tell?
The one person that I found is the FBI agent who filed the legal document stating that there were 85 cameras that could have been 'potentially responsive' to the FOIA request. Upon reviewing 29 of them she says that she found one that did.

So, just to check, you no longer claim that "The FBI admits to having 83 videos that captured the event."

Well this is where I read it. National Geographic

but you are right, I can not produce Mr Velasquez to testify.

So, minutes (but we don't know how many) after he reported the biggest crime of the century, the police turned up and collected potential evidence. This is very suspicious, because

Nor the way that you think they should if you thought that a plane with a 185ft wingspan left a 20ft hole. It is mostly irrelevant though.

Why did you bring it up, then?

That's nice but doesn't answer the question. Don't you find it incongruous for a window to remain in the area that the tail section of a 757 has just passed through?

What, where? I'm seeing glass above the hole, not in it. The absence of stuff in the hole is kinda what makes it a hole.

Blast proof or not. Isn't just one case of failing to adhere to the law of cause and effect enough to give you pause?

Well, as we've seen, its alleged "failure to adhere to the law of cause and effect" gives no pause to the guy who supplied the glass. Maybe he knows more about it than both of us.

The relevant part is that he couldn't even convince someone to rent him a little plane.

If they thought he'd be a danger to himself and others, they're right.

Your comparison is just ludicrous. It is more like you jumping in an F1 car for the first time and being capable of winning the race.

No it isn't. What he did is more like what he actually did. But if you like analogies, let's hear from some pilots:

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

I really have no idea how hard that would be to do and neither do you. All I am saying is isn't it remarkable.

If you don't know how hard it would be, then on what basis do you call it remarkable?

He was licensed to fly commercial planes, 'cos of him having learned to fly commercial planes. All he had to do with this one was point its nose at the Pentagon, put the pedal to the metal, shout "Allah akbar!" and hit a target ten times wider than a commercial runway.

Let's hear from some more pilots.

Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.

George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."

So if they're right, and it was possible, indeed "fairly easy" to hit the Pentagon, that would kind of explain what happened to the plane; why lots of eyewitnesses saw the plane hitting; the presence of DNA from the passengers at the crash site; and the presence of plane parts at the crash site, including, could I remind you, the "black box" on which your account, if accurate, of Hanjour's maneuvers must actually rest. If, on the other hand, these experienced plane pilots are wrong about the subject of piloting planes, then these things become rather harder to understand.

I would imagine that you would like to prevail in this discussion using logic and facts instead of misrepresentation and exaggeration. You should stow your accusations. I have not said one thing about there being a conspiracy.

Which is why I didn't say "... (2) A conspiracy."

I asked which was more likely, the version supported by the evidence, or ... something ... which you can't even imagine. Apparently you yourself find it impossible even to conceive of anything other than the evidenced account being true. That was my point. If you had offered an actual conspiracy theory, I couldn't have made it.

However, in post 26, you wrote:

Prototypical, post #26 writes:

My point is simply to ask what would a conspiracy actually look like?

Do you still claim that it looks like a conspiracy?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 3:05 AM ProtoTypical has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 3:49 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1768
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 70 of 110 (700343)
06-02-2013 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
06-02-2013 7:10 AM


Re: A Test Subject
What you have is evidence that Flight 77 isn't what hit the Pentagon. Where is the evidence of what did actually hit the Pentagon? Where did Flight 77 go, and where are all the people who were on it?

Why should I consider those questions when trying to explain the presence of the intact windows in the middle of the impact hole in the Pentagon? If I observe evidence for genetic evolution does that mean that I also have to address concerns about how the Jews managed to cross the Red Sea?

I am trying to remain fixed on any apparent inconsistencies in the physical evidence. It has not been me introducing wild theories about what some inconsistency might imply.

While the fact that some physical evidence causes difficulties for the rest of the explanation is good reason to closely examine that evidence it should not be used as a reason to dismiss that evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 06-02-2013 7:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2013 12:52 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16035
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 71 of 110 (700346)
06-02-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by ProtoTypical
06-02-2013 11:22 AM


Re: A Test Subject
Why should I consider those questions when trying to explain the presence of the intact windows in the middle of the impact hole in the Pentagon?

What is it with these windows? Clearly something blew a hole in the building without shattering adjacent blast-proof windows, to the complete unsurprise of the guy who supplied the windows. Why in the world should this be harder for a plane impact than for anything else?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 11:22 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5344
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 72 of 110 (700350)
06-02-2013 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
06-02-2013 7:10 AM


Re: A Test Subject
Where did Flight 77 go, and where are all the people who were on it?

Bermuda isn't all that far from DC. And the Triangle is real close, once you get there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 06-02-2013 7:10 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Panda, posted 06-02-2013 1:27 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

    
Panda
Member (Idle past 1607 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 73 of 110 (700352)
06-02-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Coragyps
06-02-2013 1:11 PM


Re: A Test Subject
Coragyps writes:

Bermuda isn't all that far from DC. And the Triangle is real close, once you get there.


I had heard that the Bermuda Triangle had mysteriously disappeared....

"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Coragyps, posted 06-02-2013 1:11 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by ProtoTypical, posted 06-02-2013 4:29 PM Panda has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1768
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 74 of 110 (700371)
06-02-2013 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
06-02-2013 10:48 AM


Re: How can you tell?
So, just to check, you no longer claim that "The FBI admits to having 83 videos that captured the event."

Obviously, as I provided the clarification. Do you still maintain that there is nothing odd about only getting one fuzzy picture from 85 cameras that could have potentially captured the event? You know, the cameras that you had no reason to believe were there.

So, minutes (but we don't know how many) after he reported the biggest crime of the century, the police turned up and collected potential evidence. This is very suspicious, because

I agree that Velasquez's choice of words is pretty thin grounds for suspicion. If I had used that expression it would mean that the FBI were there within 15 minutes or so. If the FBI were there within 15 minutes I would say that that was odd. If it was an hour later then it was not so odd.

Why did you bring it up, then?

You brought it up Doc.

What, where? I'm seeing glass above the hole, not in it. The absence of stuff in the hole is kinda what makes it a hole.

The bottom of the two windows are no more than 20 ft off of the ground. I find it astounding that a plane that big went into that hole. I suppose that is an argument from incredulity but the incredulousness of an event must have a threshold beyond which it becomes a valid reason for doubt.

Well, as we've seen, its alleged "failure to adhere to the law of cause and effect" gives no pause to the guy who supplied the glass. Maybe he knows more about it than both of us.

No doubt that he does. Must be some pretty good stuff. They should have built the rest of the wall out of it.

No it isn't. What he did is more like what he actually did. But if you like analogies, let's hear from some pilots:

Here is a list of pilots who support the summary that I quoted up thread. Are your references somehow more valid than mine?

Do you still claim that it looks like a conspiracy?

It was a question. What magnitude of discrepancy would it take for you to reassess your position that all of the facts have been laid bare and that no one is concealing anything?

When Slick Willy was denying his oral interactions in the oval orifice at what point did you wonder if he was telling the truth?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2013 10:48 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-02-2013 8:15 PM ProtoTypical has responded

  
ProtoTypical
Member
Posts: 1768
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 75 of 110 (700375)
06-02-2013 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by NoNukes
06-02-2013 10:41 AM


Re: A Test Subject
You will never change your mind about Flight 77 not hitting the Pentagon. Not ever. You are already convinced. You may even have locked on to an alternative scenario that is way more poorly evidenced than is the official version.

You see I never claimed that it didn't. Isn't this an example of you jumping to conclusions in the same way that you are accusing the CTists of? Making inferences, failing to observe all the evidence and approaching the situation with prejudice?

I am a little curious if I do fall under the description outlined in the OP study. Any psychologists here who have read a bunch of my 1000 posts care to comment?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2013 10:41 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by NoNukes, posted 06-02-2013 6:01 PM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018