..."Subjects Mods Feel Sensitive About."

Then this forum would make a lot more sense.

Who's with me?:D

..."Subjects Mods Feel Sensitive About."

Then this forum would make a lot more sense.

Who's with me?:D
I concur. Or they should just rename the forum after me since any thread I start is immediately closed or moved here without a redirect.

I concur. Or they should just rename the forum after me since any thread I start is immediately closed or moved here without a redirect.

What's even more interesting is that you have almost 3,000 posts. :p

..."Subjects Mods Feel Sensitive About."

Then this forum would make a lot more sense.

Who's with me?:D

or how about: "Subjects That Mod's Have No Clue About"

or: "Subjects That Mods Can Pretend To Be Certain About"

or possibly: "Mods: The Mind & A Lack There Of..."

Then there's always the ever popular: "Predisposed, Predictable & Moderately Annoying"

for those with an appreciative flair for the imaginative:

"Moderators & The History of Self Prescribed Psychotropic Drug Abuse without Rock N Roll"

and finally, for those with a true appreciation for both the nostalgic & the ever present:

"Moderators: We Have Proof That EVERYTHING You Know Is Wrong"

What's very interesting is that the mods act as if they have something to lose if this information comes out, so they have to dismiss it as "pseudoscience."

what about "crack pots anonomious"?:p:D

what about "crack pots anonomious"?:p:D

Sounds like a plan!

Sounds like a plan!

Hey, I got one!

What about "No sheeples allowed"?

how about through the looking glass?
or red pill, black pill.

how about "here there be stupid people"?:p

or "I see stupid people":D

Why not go for neutral:

Alternative science
Speculative science
Non-mainstream science

as suggestions.

what about "crack pots anonomious"?:p:D
By "crackpot" I assume you mean people who know how to cite peer-reviewed publications like Nature and Science Magazine.

..."Subjects Mods Feel Sensitive About."

Then this forum would make a lot more sense.

Who's with me?:D

You're new here, aren't you? Why are you so interested in restructuring the forum, if you haven't been here long enough to even get a feel for it.

It's almost as if you're a disgruntled ex-member, returned under a new name...

You're new here, aren't you? Why are you so interested in restructuring the forum, if you haven't been here long enough to even get a feel for it.

It's almost as if you're a disgruntled ex-member, returned under a new name...


You gotta admit MR. R, with all due respect (and I mean that), some of the mods here are about as open minded and imaginative as a sprung bear trap.

It's one thing to have a laugh, and quite another to be down right predictable.

how about "here there be stupid people"?:p

or "I see stupid people"

You mean this:

http://e-biscuit.com/images/uploads/iseedumbpeopleig0.jpg
;)

It's one thing to have a laugh, and quite another to be down right predictable.

Is this about the mods or the crackpots ?

Is this about the mods or the crackpots ?

You're confusing the synonymous.

You're new here, aren't you? Why are you so interested in restructuring the forum, if you haven't been here long enough to even get a feel for it.

It's almost as if you're a disgruntled ex-member, returned under a new name...

That is more than likely the case. We'll have to start the betting pool in the mod forum again over which kook it is.

Why not go for neutral:

Alternative science
Speculative science
Non-mainstream science

as suggestions.Science isn't speculative, it attempts to be black and white, not some multicoloured spectral hue. This is the main reason Pseudo (false) science is the name of the subforum.

The problem is there are 15 year old's speculating things based upon science fiction and you're asking they be included in the Science forums. Unfortunately if they aren't made aware of their speculation being nothing but scifi, they will grow up to be complete wack jobs that nobody will take seriously.

In essence perhaps it should be called "The School of Hard Knocks" (albeit maybe it's a lot softer than some usually find in such schools)

Why not go for neutral:

Alternative science
Speculative science
Non-mainstream science

as suggestions.

Or "Total Lack of science"

Or "Total Lack of science"

"The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, a continual flight from wonder."

Albert Einstein

So?

"If an elderly but distinguished scientist says that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; but if he says that it is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Arthur C. Clarke

Ah, platitudes.
But no actual content...

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' "

Max Planck

"A wall isn't for banging your head against"
Me

Science isn't speculative, it attempts to be black and white, not some multicoloured spectral hue. This is the main reason Pseudo (false) science is the name of the subforum.
Science is, of course, in part speculation. Science is not simply the specific testing portion of research. Science is a complicated set of activities that include speculation, brainstorming, wondering, hypothesizing, exploratory discussion, etc.

The problem is there are 15 year old's speculating things based upon science fiction and you're asking they be included in the Science forums.
Actually I would guess the most irritating ones are older. But whatever their age, those posts can be shifted to a differently titled subforum.

Why not go for neutral:

Alternative science
Speculative science
Non-mainstream science

as suggestions.

Any of those would be better. I think that speculative science would be the most apt :-).

Originally Posted by Stryder
Science isn't speculative, it attempts to be black and white, not some multicoloured spectral hue. This is the main reason Pseudo (false) science is the name of the subforum.

Science is, of course, in part speculation. Science is not simply the specific testing portion of research. Science is a complicated set of activities that include speculation, brainstorming, wondering, hypothesizing, exploratory discussion, etc.

Nicely said.


The problem is there are 15 year old's speculating things based upon science fiction and you're asking they be included in the Science forums.

Actually I would guess the most irritating ones are older. But whatever their age, those posts can be shifted to a differently titled subforum.

Or perhaps they could be left with this forum and theories that clearly have more merit (a certain conspiracy comes to mind) could be shifted over to the new forum. At the very least, certain absurdly large threads should be allowed their own forum, where theories that are forcefully contained in a single thread would be allowed a little more breathing room.

You're new here, aren't you? Why are you so interested in restructuring the forum, if you haven't been here long enough to even get a feel for it.

It's almost as if you're a disgruntled ex-member, returned under a new name...

Actually I'm really a new member. It's just that I'm a member on a few forums and so I can tell when the forums are a police-state. Mods shouldn't be injecting their opinions onto the forum in the sense of moving around things they don't agree with or locking threads, or limiting threads. They should keep things civil. That's all.

Actually I'm really a new member. It's just that I'm a member on a few forums and so I can tell when the forums are a police-state. Mods shouldn't be injecting their opinions onto the forum in the sense of moving around things they don't agree with or locking threads, or limiting threads. They should keep things civil. That's all.

Incidentally which forums are you a member of? I mean are they casual forums, gamer forums, etc You'll find depending on the type of forums you deal with there will be a fairly different way of operating. Sciforums while being casual attempts to try and underline the need to be Scientific and that underlining obviously means that "...the Seed needs to be separated from the Chaff."

Science isn't speculative, it attempts to be black and white, not some multicoloured spectral hue. This is the main reason Pseudo (false) science is the name of the subforum.

The problem is there are 15 year old's speculating things based upon science fiction and you're asking they be included in the Science forums. Unfortunately if they aren't made aware of their speculation being nothing but scifi, they will grow up to be complete wack jobs that nobody will take seriously.

In essence perhaps it should be called "The School of Hard Knocks" (albeit maybe it's a lot softer than some usually find in such schools)

You must think you're better than everyone else. You must think everything you have learned is right. The problem with your arrogance is that it blinds you from the actual truth.

Yes science is black and white, that's why it was so obvious to me what type of mods you people were. I am willing to bet that NONE of the mods has ever checked ANYTHING they put in "pseudoscience" to make sure if its a valid claim. They simply dismiss it if that isn't what they learned in high school or college.

"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." - Henry Ford

Maybe this quote should be on the top banner.

Why not go for neutral:

Alternative science
Speculative science
Non-mainstream science

as suggestions.

Perfect, except we need to drop one word to make it relevant:

Alternative, Non-mainstream, Speculations

Incidentally which forums are you a member of? I mean are they casual forums, gamer forums, etc You'll find depending on the type of forums you deal with there will be a fairly different way of operating. Sciforums while being casual attempts to try and underline the need to be Scientific and that underlining obviously means that "...the Seed needs to be separated from the Chaff."

I've been in a couple science forums, general discussion forums, game forums, dating forums (lol), etc.

So I know how mods act. THEY DON'T INJECT SUBJECTIVITY.

Perfect, except we need to drop one word to make it relevant:

Alternative, Non-mainstream, Speculations

No offense but that's retarded. Speculation suggests that one doesn't have hard evidence to back it up.

When you look at how the towers fell, just simply looking, you KNOW something is wrong. There has been time in history where buildings were on fire for hours and didn't fall, and we should expect the twins towers to fall like it did? And tower 7 to fall for NO reason? BS!

No offense but that's retarded. Speculation suggests that one doesn't have hard evidence to back it up.

If by retarded, you're referring to your analytical interpretations and definitions, then no, it isn't retarded based on that fact that whatever is moved into this forum is not a branch of science.

When you look at how the towers fell, just simply looking, you KNOW something is wrong. There has been time in history where buildings were on fire for hours and didn't fall, and we should expect the twins towers to fall like it did? And tower 7 to fall for NO reason? BS!

Your ill-informed speculations are prime for such a forum, and further demonstrate the need to remove the word, 'science' from the descriptor.

I've been in a couple science forums, general discussion forums, game forums, dating forums (lol), etc.

So I know how mods act. THEY DON'T INJECT SUBJECTIVITY.

Scyents, I must admit I'm curious to see these supposedly objective forums :-p.

Pseudoscience: is defined as a body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method.

The 9/11 truth's evaluation of how the towers fell doesn't adhere to the scientific method?

The Earth Expanding Theory backed by peer-reviewed science isn't adhering to the scienctific method?

Science is truth. Science isn't "what I believe....because my mommy told me back in the day."

Scyents, I must admit I'm curious to see these supposedly objective forums :-p.

Well for start, this is the only forum that moves topics without a valid reason.

Well for start, this is the only forum that moves topics without a valid reason.

Unfortunately not all Sciforumers can be taught the right forum to post in:
Http://sciforums.stryderunknown.co.uk/images/elephant1.jpg

This is why moderators have to move things.

Unfortunately not all Sciforumers can be taught the right forum to post in:
Http://sciforums.stryderunknown.co.uk/images/elephant1.jpg

This is why moderators have to move things.

I have decided to summit to your will. I now accept you as my personal savior. :D

Edit: You are actually the first mod ever to post these obnoxious pictures. If you think that makes you funny, it does. Because I'm laughing at you, not with you.

I concur. Or they should just rename the forum after me since any thread I start is immediately closed or moved here without a redirect.

that's what happens when you deal mostly with pseudoscience(your crack pot theories)

I have decided to summit to your will. I now accept you as my personal savior. :D

Edit: You are actually the first mod ever to post these obnoxious pictures. If you think that makes you funny, it does. Because I'm laughing at you, not with you.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not bothered in the least at whether you laugh or not. Some people do post complete crap, the reason I know however isn't because I was taught different when I was younger, it's because when I was their age, I posted similar crap.

I've managed to evolve over the years and learn where I was wrong and how I was wrong. Unfortunately though I can't teach anyone where they are wrong when they themselves are too close minded and pedantic.

It's known for a fact that some young people assume they know everything, however they are very closed minded when it comes to learning they are not. Perhaps you can debate this properly in the future, however currently you come across like a number of posters we've seen before. I guess you can say we come to know what to expect and it's probably why we might seem as "know-it-all's" ourselves.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not bothered in the least at whether you laugh or not. Some people do post complete crap, the reason I know however isn't because I was taught different when I was younger, it's because when I was their age, I posted similar crap.

I've managed to evolve over the years and learn where I was wrong and how I was wrong. Unfortunately though I can't teach anyone where they are wrong when they themselves are too close minded and pedantic.

It's known for a fact that some young people assume they know everything, however they are very closed minded when it comes to learning they are not. Perhaps you can debate this properly in the future, however currently you come across like a number of posters we've seen before. I guess you can say we come to know what to expect and it's probably why we might seem as "know-it-all's" ourselves.

Ahh, your life story. Does throwing that out make you feel better now?

The thing about older people is that they have been beaten down so much by society that now they only listen to what society says. Many older adults actually like the fact that younger people are willing to think outside the box, not accept everything they hear, and DOESN'T see the world as it is, but as it could be.

People like you need to understand the fact that, for example, a doctor may want to take out your kidney, but you won't really know if your kidney needs to come out, or if he's trying to paying off his yacht.

I bet you have NEVER thought about it like that huh?

I'm also curious. What "crap" did you post and what evidence did you have behind your "crap?"

I'm also curious. What "crap" did you post and what evidence did you have behind your "crap?"

Just some stuff on the Roswell Crash and some theory into what it was, it certainly wasn't alien even in my theories back then. However I can't go into greater detail, mainly because it's too long winded to explain.

Scyents-You're 15 or younger, aren't you?

Just some stuff on the Roswell Crash and some theory into what it was, it certainly wasn't alien even in my theories back then. However I can't go into greater detail, mainly because it's too long winded to explain.

That was when you were young? In the 90's? You're pathetic. I thought you were some 60 year old retired scientist or something. Which would explain why you were talking down to us. But you're just some 30-something prick who hates life?

that's what happens when you deal mostly with pseudoscience(your crack pot theories)

And you know what real science is?

Scyents-You're 15 or younger, aren't you?

I can assure I'm not 15. Are 15 year olds as articulate as I am? Most can't even spell right.

Btw, if the best thing in the world is a 2 year old saying "I love you" you must not get a lot of I-love-you's from anyone else. :eek:

And the is a serious question.

That was when you were young? In the 90's? You're pathetic. I thought you were some 60 year old retired scientist or something. Which would explain why you were talking down to us. But you're just some 30-something prick who hates life?

Now this is pretty funny coming from someone like yourself. You see that's the problem with youth, no respect and that feralness has been increasing year by year. Too many liberties given to then, too many pipedream's they dream of to try and make everyone else succumb too.

You think I talk you down? Hah, that's a laugh in itself, You are off lightly in comparison to true scholars that wouldn't take your insolence young sprout.

A persons age does not symbolise what paths they have walk or how long they have been walking, you should perhaps take that into consideration.

Are 15 year olds as articulate as I am? Most can't even spell right.

Good point. I know at least one 14 year old... on this forum... who is far more articulate and astute than you are. Under 12, then? What, Mommy and Daddy leave you to your computer when they aren't beating you? Or are you overloved by them and now you're the tyrant of your household?

BTW- Science not Scyents Is not Iz Life not Lief. Don't discuss spelling when you spell your own SN like a rejected scriptkitty.

Perfect, except we need to drop one word to make it relevant:

Alternative, Non-mainstream, Speculations

1) Did you just come here to correct me?
2) Discussions of scientific topics or hypotheses that are not 1) currently included in mainstream science or 2) have enough research back-up to satisfy the mods, would have included ideas that later became accepted by the mainstream if forums like this existed for the last 50 years.

You think people who come up with new ideas go right into the lab, get immediate supportive evidence and then mainstream science nods their heads all at once.

Nah.

Oh, and of course a lot of fruitless ideas would have been and are included. You can live with that. You can stay in the science forums you like.

Or maybe you can't.

Now this is pretty funny coming from someone like yourself. You see that's the problem with youth, no respect and that feralness has been increasing year by year. Too many liberties given to then, too many pipedream's they dream of to try and make everyone else succumb too.

You think I talk you down? Hah, that's a laugh in itself, You are off lightly in comparison to true scholars that wouldn't take your insolence young sprout.

A persons age does not symbolise what paths they have walk or how long they have been walking, you should perhaps take that into consideration.

The funny thing is that you know nothing about me.

The difference between me and you is that my value system is flexible enough to change when new information comes in. Yours, however, is in a fixed state no matter how much times have changed.

You may lick your scholars feets day and night for all I care. What I care about is the truth. And whatever theory makes the most sense and has the most evidence has my backing.

My schooling was no different from yours. I was taught that there a big island called pangea, and for some odd reason, it simply floated apart.

I was also taught that the U.S. was the best country in the world, we could do no wrong.

Keep in mind these are all things people told me, whether it be school or TV. They never encouraged me to research it for myself. Why did the Iranians take American hostages? Were they just naturally bad people? No, we overthrew their democratically elected government and installed the opressive shah, so they took our citizens. Simple as that. "Blowback." Look that up.

Why did 9/11 happen? Do people just hate freedom? Do they just hate our wealth? No, it because we mess with them all the time. We go into kuwait when it isn't our business, we have bases all over the middle, expecially in their holy land of Saudi Arabia, etc. They don't attack us for stupid reasons like how stupid people assume.

A persons age does not symbolise what paths they have walk or how long they have been walking, you should perhaps take that into consideration.

Exactly. Thank you.

Good point. I know at least one 14 year old... on this forum... who is far more articulate and astute than you are. Under 12, then? What, Mommy and Daddy leave you to your computer when they aren't beating you? Or are you overloved by them and now you're the tyrant of your household?

You have a 2 year old right? You make me laugh. You are unfit to be a parent.

LOL You make me laugh. You aren't fit to be alive. :rolleyes:

ScyentsIzLief,
So let me see you just jump on this forum by chance from some link and decide to go all out hostile on the site, it's moderators and even some of it's posters? While of course claiming that you are here without any previous grievance?

I wouldn't be surprised if one of your own pet theorum's was sunk in Pseudoscience some time ago, it would explain the bitterness you output. Obviously you didn't agree with the Moderators, perhaps you sat out the picture for a while waiting until you could pop back on under a different IP to harass those you feel you should blame.

You see that's the main thing that suggests you are young... Blame. You are Angry, you are upset and you probably don't even know why. You like getting a rise out of people because obviously it helps to have someone to take the blame for your anger, so you have something to rationalise it's existence with.

Do you know that such Anger and Hatred can actually generate a "Reward" in regards to the Brains reward centre. Obviously you probably didn't, however that's probably what's happening with you, you feel some reward for being angry, some reward for rebelling, some reward for casting blame on people. Perhaps understanding that would help you, after all as cruel as I can be, I'm not going to tell you there are drugs for your problem or anything.

Cyanide in large doses solves all problems :D

LOL You make me laugh. You aren't fit to be alive. :rolleyes:

When someone attacks the age of a fellow member, it's obvious they have nothing left and use age try to dismiss their opponent. When in reality, he/she knows nothing about the other's age.

While you, in fact have said "The best thing in the world is when your 2 year old sleepily says,"I love you" when you tuck them in."

ROFL. Pathetic.

ScyentsIzLief,
So let me see you just jump on this forum by chance from some link and decide to go all out hostile on the site, it's moderators and even some of it's posters? While of course claiming that you are here without any previous grievance?

I wouldn't be surprised if one of your own pet theorum's was sunk in Pseudoscience some time ago, it would explain the bitterness you output. Obviously you didn't agree with the Moderators, perhaps you sat out the picture for a while waiting until you could pop back on under a different IP to harass those you feel you should blame.

You see that's the main thing that suggests you are young... Blame. You are Angry, you are upset and you probably don't even know why. You like getting a rise out of people because obviously it helps to have someone to take the blame for your anger, so you have something to rationalise it's existence with.

Do you know that such Anger and Hatred can actually generate a "Reward" in regards to the Brains reward centre. Obviously you probably didn't, however that's probably what's happening with you, you feel some reward for being angry, some reward for rebelling, some reward for casting blame on people. Perhaps understanding that would help you, after all as cruel as I can be, I'm not going to tell you there are drugs for your problem or anything.

Let's skip the assumptions because we all know that when you assume, you make an as* out of you and me.

Tell me, who destroyed your hopes about getting to the bottom of the Roswell theory?

Now this is pretty funny coming from someone like yourself. You see that's the problem with youth, no respect and that feralness has been increasing year by year. Wait, after the photo in which the implicit message was that what is moved to Pseudoscience is all shit, you were expecting respect from the younger posters. Man, you must be younger than me, if age is really the factor here.

The funny thing is that you know nothing about me.

The difference between me and you is that my value system is flexible enough to change when new information comes in. Yours, however, is in a fixed state no matter how much times have changed.

You may lick your scholars feets day and night for all I care. What I care about is the truth. And whatever theory makes the most sense and has the most evidence has my backing.

My schooling was no different from yours. I was taught that there a big island called pangea, and for some odd reason, it simply floated apart.

I was also taught that the U.S. was the best country in the world, we could do no wrong.

Keep in mind these are all things people told me, whether it be school or TV. They never encouraged me to research it for myself. Why did the Iranians take American hostages? Were they just naturally bad people? No, we overthrew their democratically elected government and installed the opressive shah, so they took our citizens. Simple as that. "Blowback." Look that up.

Why did 9/11 happen? Do people just hate freedom? Do they just hate our wealth? No, it because we mess with them all the time. We go into kuwait when it isn't our business, we have bases all over the middle, expecially in their holy land of Saudi Arabia, etc. They don't attack us for stupid reasons like how stupid people assume.



Exactly. Thank you.

Please, do not talk about 911 like some self righteous spoiled brat. As far as I'm concerned, the Middle East would make a fine parking lot for the world's largest strip mall.

Are you defending the motives responsible for the 911 attack on the United States?

Let's skip the assumptions because we all know that when you assume, you make an as* out of you and me.
Glad you are starting to see that. After all you should know that moderators here have developed a pretty hard skin over the years, admittedly cleaning up is easy enough in the long run but everybody else has to put up with the eyesore in the meantime.

You just came across initially like one of those 15 yearolds that gets hold of COD on XBOX live and proceeds to whine when their team loses, blaming the team and not the fact that there constant mouthing off over the Mic might have a little something to do with it and their Rep dropping rapidly.


Tell me, who destroyed your hopes about getting to the bottom of the Roswell theory?

No one. It's quite simple, What I came up with you and everybody else wouldn't believe, so I shelved it.

Please, do not talk about 911 like some self righteous spoiled brat. As far as I'm concerned, the Middle East would make a fine parking lot for the world's largest strip mall.


WOW, I cannot believe you said that. You must be the most idiotic redneck I've ever come across.

Ignorance is really, bliss.

Wait, after the photo in which the implicit message was that what is moved to Pseudoscience is all shit, you were expecting respect from the younger posters. Man, you must be younger than me, if age is really the factor here.

Did I state "ALL PSEUDOSCIENCE IS SHIT"? The answer to that since it's Rhetorical is NO! I merely put the image for comic relief, it wasn't aimed at any of the pseudoscience that is currently sat here in the subforum, I was thinking a little further back to some of Norval's fine work. You wouldn't of course have known that so I forgive you.

No one. It's quite simple, What I came up with you and everybody else wouldn't believe, so I shelved it.

Probably a pretty pathetic attempt.

And now that you're in power, you feel the need to do the same to everyone else? Why?

Did I state "ALL PSEUDOSCIENCE IS SHIT"? The answer to that since it's Rhetorical is NO! I merely put the image for comic relief, it wasn't aimed at any of the pseudoscience that is currently sat here in the subforum, I was thinking a little further back to some of Norval's fine work. You wouldn't of course have known that so I forgive you.
Originally Posted by Stryder
Unfortunately not all Sciforumers can be taught the right forum to post in:


This is why moderators have to move things.
Not just my lack of knowledge of Norval, the captions are generalized. This is why moderators have to move things. That's why.

I mean look, I thought it was OK in a rough and tumble forum such as this one, but then to, in a superior, more mature tone, chastize youth for their lack of respect afterwards comes off.....

odd. (I also acknowledge I would not want to be a moderator. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. etc.)

I also responded earlier to your criticism of speculation. If you want and missed it, I'd be interested to hear your response.

Did I state "ALL PSEUDOSCIENCE IS SHIT"? The answer to that since it's Rhetorical is NO!

Pseudoscience is shit. So putting a thread there means its shit also.

I merely put the image for comic relief

No one needs your assumed "comical" relief in the middle of an intellectual debate.

it wasn't aimed at any of the pseudoscience that is currently sat here in the subforum, I was thinking a little further back to some of Norval's fine work. You wouldn't of course have known that so I forgive you.

That's like me saying "ALL mods are asswipes, but it's not aimed at the mods here."

I got 10 dollars American, that says this douche will be banned in a matter of days...or hours for that matter.

Glad you are starting to see that. After all you should know that moderators here have developed a pretty hard skin over the years, admittedly cleaning up is easy enough in the long run but everybody else has to put up with the eyesore in the meantime.

You just came across initially like one of those 15 yearolds that gets hold of COD on XBOX live and proceeds to whine when their team loses, blaming the team and not the fact that there constant mouthing off over the Mic might have a little something to do with it and their Rep dropping rapidly.



No one. It's quite simple, What I came up with you and everybody else wouldn't believe, so I shelved it.


I think I for one will actually search this out. Believe it or not, I am VERY into the man made perspective. I simply, after numerous years of consideration, believe firmly that some UFOs do in fact represent a form of technology that is beyond what I can comprehend as being the scope of mankind's understanding.

I got 10 dollars American, that this douche will be banned in a matter of days...or hours for that matter.

Be like MacGyver, make some sense. :)

Probably a pretty pathetic attempt.
Okay you want the version I drempt up, It will seem crackers and that is why it was shelved.

I would suggest that Scientists will one day come together to learn more about how our universe ticks and they would create a Grandfather Paradox. A time capsule would be sent back in time and well the suggestion is Roswell is where it hit. Well I say hit, although in reality it would already be known that it would land there so preparations would have already been made.

Obviously it would be kept hush hush and secrecy would be maintained for years to come because you can hardly state that something like that occurred until the point in time that such a project is started and identified as having that as it's goal.

The Capsule itself would have been made to look "Alien", just to cover up that it came from a potential future, although it would of obviously had to have some information on board to state that the secret should be kept and that people shouldn't reverse engineer what they find because otherwise other peoples discoveries would be lost and move to someone else in place. (The Butterfly Effect caused by this would be catastrophic)

The problem is that the occurrence would create a paradox, one that might create a universal tangent where it doesn't occur. The only person or persons that would of known about it would be seen as nuts because their "memory" which would exist with them no matter the universal outcome would remain intact to a degree.

It's just a pain to explain that the Hoax Alien Autopsy was made about an Autopsy of another more elaborate hoax involving the Grand Father Paradox. (After all it's amazing what modern technology can accomplish, no need to even have a life form aboard ;)

So there you go, Either feel you know something or that it's complete bunk, either way it matters not.

And now that you're in power, you feel the need to do the same to everyone else? Why?

Well lets see how people respond to my "shelved" reality, perhaps then you'll understand what I try to save people from.

WOW, I cannot believe you said that. You must be the most idiotic redneck I've ever come across.

Ignorance is really, bliss.


Your arrogance is criminal. Your immaturity and short sightedness obvious.

You are a child with wings on fire.

Less than nothing.

Simon,
perhaps you are young yourself and feel I'm aiming at all youth. I'm not, I see the "new" poster as a punk and well admittedly that's their own fault, if they want to be treated with respect then should be respectful of others. Their opening passages have already tempted fate per say.

I just get fed up with seeing the same architype's pop up on this forum and then attempt to take the whole place to the toilet, I won't stand for it, nor will other moderators. We are trying to clean the place up which is the main reason for some things getting moved about.

Obviously the forum itself is going to perhaps see some changes in subforums, but for now unfortunately Pseudoscience is a catch all for things that don't fit into the mainstream.

Okay you want the version I drempt up, It will seem crackers and that is why it was shelved.

I would suggest that Scientists will one day come together to learn more about how our universe ticks and they would create a Grandfather Paradox. A time capsule would be sent back in time and well the suggestion is Roswell is where it hit. Well I say hit, although in reality it would already be known that it would land there so preparations would have already been made.

Obviously it would be kept hush hush and secrecy would be maintained for years to come because you can hardly state that something like that occurred until the point in time that such a project is started and identified as having that as it's goal.

The Capsule itself would have been made to look "Alien", just to cover up that it came from a potential future, although it would of obviously had to have some information on board to state that the secret should be kept and that people shouldn't reverse engineer what they find because otherwise other peoples discoveries would be lost and move to someone else in place. (The Butterfly Effect caused by this would be catastrophic)

The problem is that the occurrence would create a paradox, one that might create a universal tangent where it doesn't occur. The only person or persons that would of known about it would be seen as nuts because their "memory" which would exist with them no matter the universal outcome would remain intact to a degree.

It's just a pain to explain that the Hoax Alien Autopsy was made about an Autopsy of another more elaborate hoax involving the Grand Father Paradox. (After all it's amazing what modern technology can accomplish, no need to even have a life form aboard ;)

So there you go, Either feel you know something or that it's complete bunk, either way it matters not.



Well lets see how people respond to my "shelved" reality, perhaps then you'll understand what I try to save people from.

I actually think it makes sense. Really I do. Dr. Michio Kaku has talked about the possibility of us seeing monoliths in future space explorations that may have been created by future generations as a way to colonize other planets. Because they see it as the most efficient way.

The problem with your theory is that is has no evidence to back it up. Everything is merely a guess from your experiences, from what you saw or read. You can't compare something like this to something, say, 9/11 truth, or Earth Expansion because it has overwhelming evidence to back it up.

You gotta let people say what they want to say, as long as they have evidence to back it up. It's not right to just move a thread because it doesn't fit with what you believe. Or because you are mad people didn't buy your theory.

Your arrogance is criminal. Your immaturity and short sightedness obvious.

You are a child with wings on fire.

Less than nothing.

I am arrogant when you're the one who stated "As far as I'm concerned, the Middle East would make a fine parking lot for the world's largest strip mall."

Why you believe you make any sense is beyond me.

Simon,
perhaps you are young yourself and feel I'm aiming at all youth. I'm not, I see the "new" poster as a punk and well admittedly that's their own fault, if they want to be treated with respect then should be respectful of others. Their opening passages have already tempted fate per say.

I just get fed up with seeing the same architype's pop up on this forum and then attempt to take the whole place to the toilet, I won't stand for it, nor will other moderators. We are trying to clean the place up which is the main reason for some things getting moved about.

Obviously the forum itself is going to perhaps see some changes in subforums, but for now unfortunately Pseudoscience is a catch all for things that don't fit into the mainstream.

I frankly don't care if I get respect from you or any of the mods. I lost respect for you the moment I saw the 9/11 thread. I guess it was a matter of time.

Simon,
perhaps you are young yourself and feel I'm aiming at all youth. I'm not, I see the "new" poster as a punk and well admittedly that's their own fault, if they want to be treated with respect then should be respectful of others. Their opening passages have already tempted fate per say.

I just get fed up with seeing the same architype's pop up on this forum and then attempt to take the whole place to the toilet, I won't stand for it, nor will other moderators. We are trying to clean the place up which is the main reason for some things getting moved about.

Obviously the forum itself is going to perhaps see some changes in subforums, but for now unfortunately Pseudoscience is a catch all for things that don't fit into the mainstream.

"Pseudoscience" is not really a bad thing at all. I have come to accept it in a most grateful sense. Tremendous intelligence is honestly and openly exhibited "here". To me Pseudoscience, with respect to it's sub categorized location on SciForums, actually represents a place where one can hammer out the devil in one's own details.

I didn't understand "it" when I first came here a short time ago. This resulted in emotional flairs, that somehow, through the process of heating and cooling emotions, became a far more solid platform on which to express myself.

Your time travel hypothesis Stryder is palatable.

PLEASE, I am asking you and all advanced and learned members here on this forum, please check out the DVD Evidence: The Case For NASA UFOs.

You must think you're better than everyone else. You must think everything you have learned is right. The problem with your arrogance is that it blinds you from the actual truth.

Yes science is black and white, that's why it was so obvious to me what type of mods you people were. I am willing to bet that NONE of the mods has ever checked ANYTHING they put in "pseudoscience" to make sure if its a valid claim. They simply dismiss it if that isn't what they learned in high school or college.

"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." - Henry Ford

Maybe this quote should be on the top banner.

The Earth Expanding Theory backed by peer-reviewed science isn't adhering to the scienctific method?

Science is truth. Science isn't "what I believe....because my mommy told me back in the day."
:roflmao:

Actually I'm really a new member. It's just that I'm a member on a few forums and so I can tell when the forums are a police-state. Mods shouldn't be injecting their opinions onto the forum in the sense of moving around things they don't agree with or locking threads, or limiting threads. They should keep things civil. That's all.
Cheers.

When someone attacks the age of a fellow member, it's obvious they have nothing left and use age try to dismiss their opponent. When in reality, he/she knows nothing about the other's age.

While you, in fact have said "The best thing in the world is when your 2 year old sleepily says,"I love you" when you tuck them in."

ROFL. Pathetic.
So true. It's called ad hominem and it's allegedly against forum rules but the forum rules are selectively enforced against those whose views differ from the moderators.

I have decided to summit to your will. I now accept you as my personal savior. :D

Edit: You are actually the first mod ever to post these obnoxious pictures. If you think that makes you funny, it does. Because I'm laughing at you, not with you.
:roflmao:

I am arrogant when you're the one who stated "As far as I'm concerned, the Middle East would make a fine parking lot for the world's largest strip mall."

Why you believe you make any sense is beyond me.

You are arrogant because you have the nerve to attempt to justify something that deserves an ultimate in retaliation. The radical Muslim Middle Eastern mind set is sheer insanity. ALL theocratic based societies are.

When is the last time YOU knew the mind of God?

You laughably state something about the US provoking the sacred place of Saudi Arabia. What a JOKE. Those camel riding cavemen would be penniless if it weren't for the United States and our sickening, greed driven, oil consumption.

Other than a few delicious select native Agrarian contributions and some killer hash, what has the Middle East done for ANYONE, ANYWHERE other than Oil?

All problems from the beginning of time stem from the Middle East. Say what you will, but it's the truth. A bunch of confused, religiously insane, zealots, with nothing better to do than to kill one another over a patch of desert.

How do you reconcile the above statement with your earlier quote?

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' "

Max Planck

How do you reconcile the above statement with your earlier quote?

Because Max was talking about the pursuit of scientific ideals, not the elimination of those that don't subscribe to your faith. It didn't need reconciling did it?

Because Max was talking about the pursuit of scientific ideals, not the elimination of those that don't subscribe to your faith. It didn't need reconciling did it?
You're the one who suggested elimination of those who don't subscribe to your faith when you suggested "glassing" the Middle East...:rolleyes:

I'm done replying to religious nuts. I don't how you found this forum, electra.

And please don't say any of these things you say in public. You will surely regret it.

I'm done replying to religious nuts. I don't how you found this forum.

And please don't say any of these things you say in public. You will surely regret it.
It's ok man, stick with me. You're my favorite poster now.

"Pseudoscience" is not really a bad thing at all. I have come to accept it in a most grateful sense. Tremendous intelligence is honestly and openly exhibited "here". To me Pseudoscience, with respect to it's sub categorized location on SciForums, actually represents a place where one can hammer out the devil in one's own details.

I didn't understand "it" when I first came here a short time ago. This resulted in emotional flairs, that somehow, through the process of heating and cooling emotions, became a far more solid platform on which to express myself.

Your time travel hypothesis Stryder is palatable.

PLEASE, I am asking you and all advanced and learned members here on this forum, please check out the DVD Evidence: The Case For NASA UFOs.

I'm glad you see that, as you can guess Pseudoscience was one of the forums I moderated before becomes a Supermod. I haven't been as tight in regulation of this forum as some of the other forums and I had a very good reason for this, I wanted people to have the chance to discuss and hash out their thoughts without just being locked or deleted.

This is probably why threads land in here so often.

Btw, The 9/11 thread being put into one superthread was for two reasons, mainly because there was a lot of 9/11 threads and because should they all be left to their own avail the content itself would degrade. While it might seem hickledypickledy it's easier to make sure that people aren't flaming each other in one thread. (Hopefully in the future, I can go through it with Scott and perhaps dissect it back into it's main components. Obviously I don't believe the thermite story, however I know how the main story mightstream be missing some things too.)

You're the one who suggested elimination of those who don't subscribe to your faith when you suggested "glassing" the Middle East...:rolleyes:


That's a sheer lie and don't even try it. I never suggested anything of the sort Sir. I said for all I care the place could be made a parking lot because of what they did to us on 911. That was a direct response to the moronic justification for their attack on the USA.

That has fuck all to do with my faith or theirs.

Incidentally Max Planck's use of the term faith has ZERO to do with religion which is the context you are attempting to place it in.

That's just more ignorance on your part I guess.

Don't EVER put words or additional meanings in my posts son. I'll prove you a trouble maker and a mockery of truth every time.

I wanted people to have the chance to discuss and hash out their thoughts without just being locked or deleted.

Thanks? :roflmao:

I'm done replying to religious nuts. I don't how you found this forum, electra.

And please don't say any of these things you say in public. You will surely regret it.


More of your Terror tactics?

What a maroon.

Thanks? :roflmao:

You of course would understand if you were here back in 2002/2003, however you weren't so I'll let it slide for now.

Btw, The 9/11 thread being put into one superthread was for two reasons, mainly because there was a lot of 9/11 threads and because should they all be left to their own avail the content itself would degrade.

Why do you believe that? Many places, such as JREF (for official story believers) or forums like loose change forums, abovetopsecret.com and letsrollforums.com have -forums- dedicated to 9/11 (in the case of letsrollforums.com and loose change forums, -multiple- forums). As mentioned elsewhere, the reason I don't spend more time there is because I don't feel that I'm challenged enough over there, but I sorely miss the division of the multiple theories of 9/11, such as the twin tower collapses, the collapse of WTC 7, the pentagon attack, why the aircraft weren't intercepted and various others.


While it might seem hickledypickledy it's easier to make sure that people aren't flaming each other in one thread. (Hopefully in the future, I can go through it with Scott and perhaps dissect it back into it's main components.

What's this? Dissect it? You mean we could break it into a few threads? I'm all for the idea of having, say, an official 3 or 4 threads. Even 2 would be better (WTC collapses and an everything else thread).


Obviously I don't believe the thermite story, however I know how the main story mightstream be missing some things too.)

Perhaps we should start there. As in, what the main story is missing. There was a recent peer reviewed paper published by Steven Jones and others on certain points that the official story and alternative story believers agree on, which also highlights certain points of disagreement as well.

As you may have seen, I actually made a web site concerning the demolition theory of the WTC buildings. I know it needs work, but I think it's a good start:
http://scott3x.tripod.com/911/cd/

1) Did you just come here to correct me?

No, I improved on your suggestion.

2) Discussions of scientific topics or hypotheses that are not 1) currently included in mainstream science or 2) have enough research back-up to satisfy the mods, would have included ideas that later became accepted by the mainstream if forums like this existed for the last 50 years.

You think people who come up with new ideas go right into the lab, get immediate supportive evidence and then mainstream science nods their heads all at once.

Nah.

Oh, and of course a lot of fruitless ideas would have been and are included. You can live with that. You can stay in the science forums you like.

Or maybe you can't.

That's the rub, whether it's science or not. What gets moved into such forums is that which isn't based on science, but instead alternative, non-mainstream, speculation. If there were some actual science to those new ideas, they would not be moved there, but would remain in the appropriate science forum for all to discuss.

Often though, even these types of threads get derailed by the same kooks who do little else but seek attention for their speculations.

No, I improved on your suggestion.Well that sounds more positive, though it doesn't answer the question as stressed.

That's the rub, whether it's science or not. What gets moved into such forums is that which isn't based on science, but instead alternative, non-mainstream, speculation. If there were some actual science to those new ideas, they would not be moved there, but would remain in the appropriate science forum for all to discuss.Sounds like you have done a thorough study of the contents of pseudoscience. I bow to your greater experience.

Simon,
perhaps you are young yourself and feel I'm aiming at all youth. I'm not, I see the "new" poster as a punk and well admittedly that's their own fault, if they want to be treated with respect then should be respectful of others. Their opening passages have already tempted fate per say.

I just get fed up with seeing the same architype's pop up on this forum and then attempt to take the whole place to the toilet, I won't stand for it, nor will other moderators. We are trying to clean the place up which is the main reason for some things getting moved about.

Obviously the forum itself is going to perhaps see some changes in subforums, but for now unfortunately Pseudoscience is a catch all for things that don't fit into the mainstream.
Nah, I'm older than you.
What would be the loss of choosing a more neutral name for the forum?

Nah, I'm older than you.
What would be the loss of choosing a more neutral name for the forum?

It's not so much a loss, there was a discussion held some time back about a forum reshuffle. It was identified that there are basically two types of science Soft and Hard. Soft was pretty much things like Psychology & Humanities while the Hard was more like Physics and Mathematics.

What this forum deals with isn't actual defined sciences, it deals with some theories which might be a protoscience, or conspiracies (which aren't actually science). That's why it's a current catch all. In fact it's still odd that Parapsychology exists as a seperate forum in all honesty, as it too isn't an actual science, over the years Parapsychology degree's have slowly become more and more illusive because mainstream science has been ruling a lot of it out.

"The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, a continual flight from wonder."

Albert Einstein

I love it when people quote mine.

"The true wonder of sciences is not in its ability to explain the universe, but in its capacity to form new questions." -Isaac Asimov (I think)

The 9/11 truth's evaluation of how the towers fell doesn't adhere to the scientific method?

No, because it starts with a conclusion, then only looks at evidence that appears to support that conclusion, whilst ignoring all evidence against it.

That's not how the scientific method works.

The Earth Expanding Theory backed by peer-reviewed science isn't adhering to the scienctific method?

Some of it is. The expanding-earthers are wrong, of course, but some of them have done some science, admittedly. There are others who just lie and ignore data, though, and those are akin to the 9/11 "truthers".

OIM is a good example of the latter.

Trying to think with a cavity tooth ache is hard (I've moved on fixing that soon; good old mom :-)). Nevertheless, I will do my best.


Originally Posted by ScyentsIzLief
The 9/11 truth's evaluation of how the towers fell doesn't adhere to the scientific method?

No, because it starts with a conclusion

In many cases, the initial conclusion we bought into was the one fed to use by the mainstream media. I include myself in this group. It was only after reading a book from noted conspiracy theorist Jim Marrs on the subject that this changed. In the case of physicist Steven Jones, it changed when he began to review the evidence as well. The same can be said for the creator of the film "9/11 mysteries"; after seeing a film called "painful truths" (I believe), he initially set out to prove that the WTC buildings were indeed taken out by the planes and the fires they induced and came out realizing that it had to be demolitions.


...then only looks at evidence that appears to support that conclusion, whilst ignoring all evidence against it.

This isn't true either. If that were true, I and other alternative theory believers would simply go to a forum that supports our view and be done with it. Nor is it true for scientists who have dedicated a fair amount of their time towards uncovering the truth behind 9/11, such as physicist Steven Jones, or the architects and engineers who have done the same over at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, or the Pilots for 9/11 truth, or the fine investigative work done by Citizens Investigation Team at thepentacon.com, or the work done by meticulous authors such as Jim Marrs, David Ray Griffin, and excellent articles from Kevin Ryan, who was fired for speaking out against NIST's draft report on the cause of the WTC collapses.

No, because it starts with a conclusion, then only looks at evidence that appears to support that conclusion, whilst ignoring all evidence against it.

This book
Griffin, David Ray; Richard Falk. The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11. ISBN 1566565529. Retrieved on 2007-07-26.
presents a very rational approach to questioning the official explanation. They analyze a range of potential explanations and certainly use science (and well) in their explanation of where they come down. I don't know if you are including everyone who disbelieves the official version as 'truthers', but I think you are incorrect in saying that they have all decided first and have strayed from the scientific method.

Further the official version was produced with a conclusion already formed.

No, because it starts with a conclusion, then only looks at evidence that appears to support that conclusion, whilst ignoring all evidence against it.

That's not how the scientific method works.


Some of it is. The expanding-earthers are wrong, of course, but some of them have done some science, admittedly. There are others who just lie and ignore data, though, and those are akin to the 9/11 "truthers".

OIM is a good example of the latter.

I totally disagree with this premise James. In fact, if I am understanding you correctly, it's ludicrous. That is to say, if I am understanding what you wrote, that every person that starts with an ends (result) cannot possibly find the scientific means based on an observation of the ends.

This type of linear thought is minus the most important aspect of scientific discovery. Namely, the imagination.

The "9/11 Truth" movement, as far as I can tell, is a closed community. They accept only certain evidence and explanations, while ignoring everything "mainstream" as being part of the "conspiracy".

The "9/11 Truth" movement, as far as I can tell, is a closed community. They accept only certain evidence and explanations, while ignoring everything "mainstream" as being part of the "conspiracy".
Sounds exactly like the plate tectonics "movement."

The "9/11 Truth" movement, as far as I can tell, is a closed community. They accept only certain evidence and explanations, while ignoring everything "mainstream" as being part of the "conspiracy".The book I cited does not fit this description. Nor does another one I read. I will try to find that title also.

Again, if you mean that everyone who is critical of the official version fits this description than you are drawing conclusions without doing the research. If that label is for some specific, self-identified group, that is another story.

The "9/11 Truth" movement, as far as I can tell, is a closed community. They accept only certain evidence and explanations, while ignoring everything "mainstream" as being part of the "conspiracy".

Then what are we doing here James? I mean, if we were so closed off, why don't we just stick to our own conspiratorial kind instead of venturing into a forum dedicated to science?

Some of it is. The expanding-earthers are wrong, of course, but some of them have done some science, admittedly. There are others who just lie and ignore data, though, and those are akin to the 9/11 "truthers".

OIM is a good example of the latter.
What have I ignored? You're the ignorant one. You hardly provide scientific support for anything. I provide scientific support for everything I say. For example, in our debate you only cited 2 scientific papers...LOL. You relied upon Wikipedia, the mark of a lazy "thinker" imo. Fundamentalists treat Wikipedia Scripture as infallible even though the alleged "neutral point of view" policy is never enforced and they exhibit the exact sort of behavior I observe here -- namely acting like 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

What have I ignored? You're the ignorant one. You hardly provide scientific support for anything. I provide scientific support for everything I say. For example, in our debate you only cited 2 scientific papers...LOL. You relied upon Wikipedia, the mark of a lazy "thinker" imo. Fundamentalists treat Wikipedia Scripture as infallible even though the alleged "neutral point of view" piolicy is never enforced and they exhibit the exact sort of behavior I observe here -- namely acting like 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

1- James doesn't believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy theory.

2- I and many others here have argued that there is a lot of evidence that the official story has many flaws. Some people (such as myself) also believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy but I too provide evidence to back it up. I have never researched your 'expanding earth' theory so I can't comment on it, but I find that your dismissal of conspiracy theories to not be a good sign...

9/11 conspiracy theorists.Every explanation of 9/11 I have ever heard is a conspiracy theory, yet people who support the official conspiracy theory, oddly enough, think that 'conspiracy theorist' is a pejorative term.

The "9/11 Truth" movement, as far as I can tell, is a closed community. They accept only certain evidence and explanations, while ignoring everything "mainstream" as being part of the "conspiracy".

I know this "feeling" or recognition James. I run into this quite often with extremely intelligent people. This being with my hope that they will truthfully and objectively consider the case for UFOs.

Such skeptics dismiss a tremendous body of evidence because said evidence does not constitute absolute proof. To me that's a form of predisposition and indeed is a form of denial.

1- James doesn't believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy theory.

2- I and many others here have argued that there is a lot of evidence that the official story has many flaws. Some people (such as myself) also believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy but I too provide evidence to back it up. I have never researched your 'expanding earth' theory so I can't comment on it, but I find that your dismissal of conspiracy theories to not be a good sign...
Well you don't see me going around trying to censor conspiracy theorists because I disagree with them. If I have a problem with what they say I would use logic, science, and persuasion as opposed to censorship and ridicule which is what I observe here from plate tectonics fundamentalists (aka so-called "moderators").

I would point out the Popular Mechanics article which utterly debunks 9/11 conspiracy: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Well you don't see me going around trying to censor conspiracy theorists because I disagree with them. If I have a problem with what they say I would use logic, science, and persuasion as opposed to censorship and ridicule which is what I observe here from plate tectonics fundamentalists (aka so-called "moderators").

I see. Well, I haven't really gotten into that debate to even see the reasoning for censorship, never mind who's right, so I can't really comment on that...


I would point out the Popular Mechanics article which utterly debunks 9/11 conspiracy: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

I would point out its refutation:
'Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man':
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

'Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politic':
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

I see. Well, I haven't really gotten into that debate to even see the reasoning for censorship, never mind who's right, so I can't really comment on that...




I would point out its refutation:
"Popular Mechanics Attacks Its "9/11 LIES" Straw Man":
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/

"Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politic":
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm
You are of course entitled to your opinion. I would never ever try to use censorship or ridicule to debate you as so-called "moderators" here do with anyone who disagrees with their extreme fundamentalist religious views.

I know this "feeling" or recognition James. I run into this quite often with extremely intelligent people. This being with my hope that they will truthfully and objectively consider the case for UFOs.

Such skeptics dismiss a tremendous body of evidence because said evidence does not constitute absolute proof. To me that's a form of predisposition and indeed is a form of denial.

Have you read "Alien Agenda" from Jim Marrs? He's also written a few books on the 9/11 conspiracies as well, including "The War on Freedom", "Inside Job", "The Terror Conspiracy" and his latest, "The Rise of the 4th Reich". His first book, called 'crossfire', concerned JFK's assassination and was a strong resource for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" (I saw the movie, but didn't read that particular book of his).

The "9/11 Truth" movement, as far as I can tell, is a closed community. They accept only certain evidence and explanations, while ignoring everything "mainstream" as being part of the "conspiracy".

That's your ill-informed opinion.

I don't like the concept of mods getting into it with members because there's an obvious disadvantage to the member. When the mods loses he/she can just threaten a ban, move the thread, close the thread, and there's nothing the member can do about it. It's very prevalent on this forum and it certainly makes it dysfunctional. We got mods acting like kids, being extremely bias, and simply dismissing things because it questions their value system.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. I would never ever try to use censorship or ridicule to debate you as so-called "moderators" here do with anyone who disagrees with their extreme fundamentalist religious views.

Well, all I know is that after a lot of effort, I've -finally- managed to persuade the mods to allow the 9/11 thread to break up into 2 pieces, one of which is definitely quite focused (the other one being for everything else, laugh :-)).

I think that in general, when 2 people don't agree on something, the best thing to do is to try to put yourself in the shoes of the other person. So when all the 9/11 threads were merged (as they had been before I arrived), I went back to the start of the thread and discovered Stryder's reasoning. So I brought it up a bunch of times and yes I was upset about it, but I was always polite. I was most upset when it first occured and at the time I thought I'd leave the forum altogether because of it. But I realized that there was still a lot of points I wanted to address and so I stayed. But I kept on badgering about breaking up the thread a bit and low and behold it finally happened.

I really don't know the merits of your case. All I can say is that if you've got a good case and you're polite about it and you perhaps badger people who ridicule you while at the same time making sure not to do it yourself, things might work out :-).

Originally Posted by James R
The "9/11 Truth" movement, as far as I can tell, is a closed community. They accept only certain evidence and explanations, while ignoring everything "mainstream" as being part of the "conspiracy".

That's your ill-informed opinion.

I don't like the concept of mods getting into it with members because there's an obvious disadvantage to the member. When the mods loses he/she can just threaten a ban, move the thread, close the thread, and there's nothing the member can do about it. It's very prevalent on this forum and it certainly makes it dysfunctional. We got mods acting like kids, being extremely bias, and simply dismissing things because it questions their value system.

From what I see, it works like this:
member disses member, nothing happens.
mod disses member, nothing happens
member disses mod, mod threatens to ban ;-)

However, I believe I've been dissed a lot harder by fellow members then by the mods. I believe my not returning fire across the board (members and mods alike) helps too ;-).

Then what are we doing here James? I mean, if we were so closed off, why don't we just stick to our own conspiratorial kind instead of venturing into a forum dedicated to science?

Because you're proselytisers, just like young-earth Creationists. You want to disseminate your views as widely as possible and hopefully "convert" people who don't have all the facts at their disposal or the apparatus with which to refute you point by point.

If you were serious, you'd publish in professional, peer-reviewed journals, rather than trawling internet forums looking for converts. You'd be willing to have your ideas reviewed by experts.

For example, in our debate you only cited 2 scientific papers...LOL.

Two was enough to debunk your entire blog.

Your standard of argument doesn't begin to match the general standard of wikipedia, which you so disparage.

I know this "feeling" or recognition James. I run into this quite often with extremely intelligent people. This being with my hope that they will truthfully and objectively consider the case for UFOs.

What you apparently don't realise is that extremely intelligent people have truthfully and objectively considered the case for UFOs/alien visitation, just as they have considered expanding earth theories and 9/11 conspiracy claims.

The fact that the average joe on the internet isn't aware of all the expert analyses doesn't change the fact that they exist.

The thing is, the experts generally give something a good look-over once. They analyse it carefully, look at all arguments and draw conclusions. When they are done, they write up their conclusions and that's that.

The problem is that the conspiracists, like scott3x and other with narrowly-focussed one-track minds, like OIM, will never accept that expert analysis has been done and is complete and valid. Instead, they use tactics such as picking on minor points and apparent inconsistencies in the expert analyses. If that fails to make an impact, they resort to simply ignoring contrary evidence, as I said before. They waste everybody's time by trying to draw the experts into having the same arguments over again, as if there is something new to be discussed.

These kinds of tactics are unfortunate, in that they can convince those who are new to a particular discussion that there is some kind of legitimate ongoing debate, when in fact the matter was completely settled when the experts looked at it.

A good example is OIM's expanding earth nonsense. He challenged me to debate the fact that the Earth is expanding. I agreed. He put his best arguments for expansion in the debate, and I refuted them all, point by point. And what has happened since then? Has OIM admitted that he was wrong, or even that he lost the debate? No, he has gone right on making the same claims, as if they were never proved false.

electrafixtion:

By the way, you may want to review the Formal Debate in the Formal Debates forum about alien visitation, if you're interested in that.

Well you don't see me going around trying to censor conspiracy theorists because I disagree with them. If I have a problem with what they say I would use logic, science, and persuasion as opposed to censorship and ridicule which is what I observe here from plate tectonics fundamentalists (aka so-called "moderators").

I would point out the Popular Mechanics article which utterly debunks 9/11 conspiracy: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Don't be naive, man.

The scientific community rejects the Earth Expansion Theory, but you still believe it. Popular Mechanics and the "mainstream" rejects the 9/11 truth but you go along with it? I don't see any consistency, man. You got to research everything for yourself. Popular Mechanic has an agenda like everyone else. Do you know why the EET isn't accepted? Because if it is, everything in science would HAVE to be wrong. That's a hundred years of work down the drain. You have to look at all sides of it.

Check the "clash" between Popular Mechanics and Loose Change:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M

Because you're proselytisers, just like young-earth Creationists. You want to disseminate your views as widely as possible and hopefully "convert" people who don't have all the facts at their disposal or the apparatus with which to refute you point by point.That seems presumptuous to me, even a claim to psychic abilities.
You know he is not 'serious'.

If you were serious, you'd publish in professional, peer-reviewed journals, rather than trawling internet forums looking for converts. You'd be willing to have your ideas reviewed by experts.1) experts can and do respond to posts in internet forums. 2) you are drawing conclusions without evidence. And this argument, based on deduction, is very weak. Speaking of pseudo-science.
This is just psychic ad hom.

Since he is not trying to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal instead of raising the issue in an online forum he is trolling for converts.

I will have to remember this argument when I read any assertions in other threads here I do not agree with.

Two was enough to debunk your entire blog.
Those are just shoot from the hip efforts to dismiss quickly a rather well tested and rich theory that has been the subject of 100+ peer reviewed papers and many books. It's obviously not that simple.
(McCarthy 2003)

I provided refutations for your only 2 citations: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2085235&postcount=47

Your standard of argument doesn't begin to match the general standard of wikipedia, which you so disparage.
Hilarious.

A good example is OIM's expanding earth nonsense. He challenged me to debate the fact that the Earth is expanding. I agreed. He put his best arguments for expansion in the debate, and I refuted them all, point by point. And what has happened since then? Has OIM admitted that he was wrong, or even that he lost the debate? No, he has gone right on making the same claims, as if they were never proved false.
:roflmao:

Your version of events is blatantly absurd.

Originally Posted by scott3x
Then what are we doing here James? I mean, if we were so closed off, why don't we just stick to our own conspiratorial kind instead of venturing into a forum dedicated to science?

Because you're proselytisers, just like young-earth Creationists. You want to disseminate your views as widely as possible and hopefully "convert" people who don't have all the facts at their disposal or the apparatus with which to refute you point by point.

Don't you think there would be better places to do that then in a science forum :-p?


If you were serious, you'd publish in professional, peer-reviewed journals, rather than trawling internet forums looking for converts. You'd be willing to have your ideas reviewed by experts.

You may want to take a look at this:
**************************************
Journal of 9/11 Studies

Thank you for visiting The Journal of 9/11 Studies, a peer-reviewed, open-access, electronic-only journal, covering the whole of research related to the events of 11 September, 2001. Many fields of study are represented in the journal, including Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and Psychology. All content is freely available online. Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic. The intention was to provide a rapid acceptance process with full peer review. That has been achieved. It is now our belief that the case for falsity of the official explanation is so well established and demonstrated by papers in this Journal that there is little to be gained from accepting more papers here. Instead we encourage all potential contributors to prepare papers suitable for the more established journals in which scientists might more readily place their trust. Two refereed papers have already been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals: Fourteen Points...[Bentham] (http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM) and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink] (http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/).
**************************************
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Simon Anders:

You don't have to agree with me. I have posited only one possible motivation. I admit there could well be others.

Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic.

Yes. Well.

People can draw their own conclusions about this.

James I was reading the Earth Expanding debate and it seems like everything you said was either opinion, you using your theory to disprove his, or just dismissing him altogether.

Nothing scientific about that.

Our mission in the past has been to provide an outlet for evidence-based research into the events of 9/11 that might not otherwise have been published, due to the resistance that many established journals and other institutions have displayed toward this topic.

Yes. Well.

People can draw their own conclusions about this.

Such as? And what are yours?

Well, scott3x, there's also a dedicated journal on Cold Fusion.

There's probably a dedicated journal for Flat Earthers.

Simon Anders:

You don't have to agree with me.
I think I made it clear I didn't so I find this an odd thing to say. This freedom you are either pointing out for me or granting has little to do with what your post was. Any post, ad hom centered or otherwise, does not have to be agreed with.

I have posited only one possible motivation. It was that act of positing I criticized. I admit there could well be others. This last point is pleasant to read.

Well, scott3x, there's also a dedicated journal on Cold Fusion.
Interesting to note you think Nature, New Scientist, Naturwissenschaften, The Japanese Academy of Sciences, and the United States Space and Naval Warfare (SPAWAR) Systems Center in San Diego are also so-called "pseudoscience."

Jones, S.E., et al., Observation of cold nuclear fusion in condensed matter (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v338/n6218/abs/338737a0.html), Nature, 339, Pages 737-740, Apr 1989

Hall, N., and Beard, J., Test-Tube Fusion Experiment Repeated (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12216590.200-testtube-fusion-experiment-repeated-.html), New Scientist, 1659, Apr 1989

Arata, Y., and Zhang, C.J., A New Energy Caused By "Spillover Deuterium" (http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYanewenergya.pdf), Proceedings of the Japanese Academy, Series B, 1994

Arata, Y., and Zhang, C.J., Development of Compact Nuclear Fusion Reactor Using Solid Pycnodeuterium as Nuclear Fuel (http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ArataYdevelopmena.pdf), 10th International Congress on Cold Fusion, 2003

Jones, S.E., and Ellsworth, J.E., Geo-Fusion and Cold Nucleosynthesis (http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/JonesSEgeofusiona.pdf), 10th International Congress on Cold Fusion, 2003

Department of Energy Review of Cold Fusion (http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm) (2004)

Szpak, S., et al., Further Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd/D Lattice: Emission of Charged Particles (http://www.springerlink.com/content/75p4572645025112/), Naturwissenschaften, Volume 94, Number 6, 2007

There's probably a dedicated journal for Flat Earthers.
That is an absolutely absurd straw-man argument. Don't be ridiculous.

I got 10 dollars American, that says this douche will be banned in a matter of days...or hours for that matter.

ScyentsIzLief Plazma Inferno! 11-12-08 Never Sock puppet, Troll,...


Somebody owes me 10 bucks ! :) LOL!

Have you read "Alien Agenda" from Jim Marrs? He's also written a few books on the 9/11 conspiracies as well, including "The War on Freedom", "Inside Job", "The Terror Conspiracy" and his latest, "The Rise of the 4th Reich". His first book, called 'crossfire', concerned JFK's assassination and was a strong resource for Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" (I saw the movie, but didn't read that particular book of his).


I read this book when it came out in Hard Cover and still have it. EXCELLENT book. Jim Marrs is a great researcher that presents more facts than opinion.

I will look into his other books.

Have you heard of a little book called "The Gods of Eden" by William Bramley? You may have already read it. It is an incredibly fast read if you haven't. I think you would find it fascinating.

electrafixtion:

By the way, you may want to review the Formal Debate in the Formal Debates forum about alien visitation, if you're interested in that.



What!? I never even knew such a thing existed. I will, starting today.

Thanks!

Well, scott3x, there's also a dedicated journal on Cold Fusion.

There's probably a dedicated journal for Flat Earthers.

Steven Jones has been published in Nature and Scientific American, arguably the 2 most noteworthy scientific publications known. His publications in those magazines concerned a type of Cold Fusion which actually does work: Muon Catalyzed Fusion. It doesn't yet yield enough to be commercially viable and perhaps it never will. But the fact that he determinedly stuck to his guns regarding his findings for 7 years before being published in Nature might make you consider that perhaps this is a man who has -courage- to stick to his guns even if most disagree with his findings because he follows the evidence not the political climate of the day.

By the way, as the Journal for 9/11 studies mentioned, 2 more mainstream publications not solely concerned with 9/11 have finally published some of his work. From the Open Civil Engineering Journal:
"Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction"
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

And in The Environmentalist:
"Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials"
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

I read this book when it came out in Hard Cover and still have it. EXCELLENT book. Jim Marrs is a great researcher that presents more facts than opinion.

Yeah, he's pretty good :-). Admittedly, a bit of his material might be off; I remember that he was criticized for certain claims in his Alien Agenda book on the internet. But there's simply so much evidence I believe that it's only natural that he mistakes a bit of patchy evidence now and again. I think, however, that when it comes to 9/11, there is a lot more focus, because while Aliens may come and go, they don't seem to leave such a visible mark as was left on 9/11. In a lot of ways, it may also have to do with what I believe to be sloppiness; the people who did 9/11 may have thought they planned for everything but 7 years later their work is really starting to unravel. Perhaps aliens have had a lot more time to be fairly invisible to most people.


I will look into his other books.

K :-).


Have you heard of a little book called "The Gods of Eden" by William Bramley? You may have already read it. It is an incredibly fast read if you haven't. I think you would find it fascinating.

No, I haven't. I believe I know what it might be about, however, based on certain claims Jim Marrs made. However, I must warn that those very claims are the ones that are questioned on the internet. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind checking it out, just to take a look. Ofcourse, it'll have to wait a bit as I currently have 4 library books out (I'm reading C.S. Friedman's "Feast of Souls" and also have out Tad Williams "Shadowplay" and 2 books from Rick Riordan, which my niece assures me is the cat's meow ;-)). I also plan on picking up Jim Marrs "The Terror Conspiracy" from the library once again right now ;-).

What about The Toilet?

James I was reading the Earth Expanding debate .........You can read?

No, I haven't. I believe I know what it might be about, however, based on certain claims Jim Marrs made. However, I must warn that those very claims are the ones that are questioned on the internet. Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind checking it out, just to take a look. Ofcourse, it'll have to wait a bit as I currently have 4 library books out (I'm reading C.S. Friedman's "Feast of Souls" and also have out Tad Williams "Shadowplay" and 2 books from Rick Riordan, which my niece assures me is the cat's meow ;-)). I also plan on picking up Jim Marrs "The Terror Conspiracy" from the library once again right now ;-).

Bramley set out to do an in depth study of the history of human warfare and it's motives. It becomes a clearly capitulated expose of third party intervention. This ranges from well documented Machiavellian interventions to much more incredible uncovering. Bramley was never intent to write anything about UFOs whatsoever. He was intent solely on the study of warfare through the ages. It's a decent read for certain.

I am not entirely certain what you are referring to with Jim Marrs being brought under fire so to speak, but that doesn't surprise me in the least.

The problem with this type of research undertaking is that there ARE most assuredly charlatans and fakers solely looking to make a buck at every corner. These people make for BAD professional company. This being with respect (or a complete lack there of) for the ravenous debunker crowd that are reactionaries much like a pack of piranhas on a pork chop when an opportunity avails itself.

The whole Zachariah Sitchin school of thought has come under extreme fire lately because Sitchin has been proved to be somewhat a fake or questionable at very least. He also won't respond to public challenges that question his self proclaimed authority.

Looking at this social phenomenon in a cross sectioned view, we find the very man challenging Sitchin sharing the same stage with Richard Hoagland who has his own set of worthy discreditors.

So the question becomes one that begs an answer in resolve for the vindication or illegitimacy of "a crime of association" or "the blaming of sons for the sins of the fathers".