An ad by KFC was pulled because it was "racist". To Americans. The thing was that the ad was designed for the Australian market, which is a different society and we have different stereotypes and the like for groups of people.
However the ad was leaked online and has caused a stir among Americans because it's considered racist to them.
The Young Turks Video
The Young Turks produced a video talking about Australian responses to their earlier mention of the ad. Although some good points are raised it does miss the mark in some cases. I suggest that you watch the video to follow what I'm saying.
I'm sure that the Australians who responded to begin with actually understood the stereotype of fried chicken exists in the US. But it's removed from us. We look on that stereotype from afar and find it silly. I'm sure that there are Americans who look on certain stereotypes that we hold from afar and find them silly as well. We can see how it's offensive to Americans, but to Australians there isn't anything wrong with black people eating chicken. Australians see it from the US perspective and think that the Yanks are being silly.
However, even though he says it in a mocking voice Cenk Uygur is right. Americans don't understand because it is cricket. However Australians are racist in some ways, it's just different to the US.
Yet it doesn't matter if KFC is an American corporation, they were making an ad for the Australian market. What needs to be understood is that right now it's cricket season, and KFC are one of the sponsors for the game. And the image that they were trying to present was nothing to do with colonialism or racism but to present the image that KFC is cricket food.
The fact that they are an American company doesn't enter into it. If they were to make an ad showing say, American Football, it wouldn't have a good effect because Australians don't really understand anything about it beyond "it's rugby for pansy's".
This ties in to what Ana Kasparian says later that the reason they didn't want Americans to see it was "because you know it's offensive". Yes and no. I would say a bigger reason that Americans weren't supposed to see it was that as a marketing campaign it would be useless. Cricket means nothing to the US so much of the ad doesn't make sense. That's how it's being construed as racist.
They admit that the Aussie bloke is in the "wrong" stand (by which team they're supporting), but in my opinion when they keep going on about "perspective" they still haven't understood our perspective, which appears to be quite a bit of the issue.
Spreading a stereotype and perspective
Were we seeing people spread a stereotype and what stereotype were we seeing? The Young Turks video talks about that as well. Of course they are saying that the ad spreads the "black people eat fried chicken".
Why is it that and not "you can find a common ground with chicken"? Or "everyone likes chicken"? Are we to essentially assume the worst when we have ads which feature people with different skin colours?
But this isn't the problem with what is being said. The fear that was brought up on the video is misplaced, because it ignores a rather important point. The stereotype of "black people eat fried chicken" does not mean all black people. In the US context they usually mean "African-Americans eat fried chicken".
From my perspective the Americans are actually trying to spread the stereotype. They're pushing a stereotype on other people based on their skin colour and nothing else. And in this case it seems to be because it's an ad from an American company.
Ultimately Ignorant?
Part of what we are seeing is Americans pushing their cultural values and stereotypes on others. It's not just Australia in this case but also the West Indies. They are implying that when it comes to stereotypes involving fried chicken Afro-Caribbeans = African Americans and that they should be treated as such.
But in doing so we are ignoring that the West Indians are different to the African Americans and more likely to not see the ad as racist either. But the complaints from the Americans seem to ignore this and it comes across as ignorant and closed-minded and also as a bit hypersensitive.
There is the saying "when in Rome do as the Romans do". But in this case what we are seeing is the visitor to Rome telling the Romans how to act. It comes across as rude, and is also intolerant.
It also creates a storm in a fried chicken bucket.
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Friday, 8 January 2010
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
Ray Comfort makes a fool of himself
Ray Comfort, the banana guy, was invited to debate Eugenie Scott by a bloke called Dan Gilgoff. this was his first post. Eugenie makes some very good points and I'm not going to bother writing too much about Comfort's first post.
For a summary Comfort basically says "book burning atheists are angry racism racism racism Hitler non-standard definition for "atheist" plug for book angry atheists abuse Amazon I like science theory theory theory no evidence qualifiers are bad I only mean well really people should read the book evolution is like Mormonism it's a miracle and Darwin is a fantasy writer."
I must admit that I did like this paragraph:
That's what an Atheist is? It's not someone who "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"?
Why that sure looks like someone moving the goalposts there doesn't it?
Then again there are members in his camp that don't seem to have a very solid definition of a Kind or Baramin.
Then it's that scientists use speculative words when talking about something we don't know for certain. Based on that paragraph then we can say that God must have built the pyramids because we don't know for certain how they were built. Look at all these possible ways that we think the Ancient Egyptians built their pyramids.
Then we see Comfort contradict himself with his "forever moving and changing line. It does make me wonder what he thinks science is. I guess it must be some sort of unchanging pseudo-Bible where you'll be damned for all eternity if you dare change it. It's also a really good hyperbole.
But enough about Ray and his first post. I'm going to talk about his second post.
We start with some back pedalling, Comfort immediately addresses the criticism of his book put forward by Scott, that Comfort removed some of the chapters. Personally I think that the reason Comfort decided initially to remove chapters was so he could make Darwin's work seem weaker then it actually is.
But since he's put those removed chapter back in there isn't really any problem now, even with his introduction you would still be getting yourself a copy of On the Origin of Species.
So let us move on:
Really Ray? Really?
Nothing at all makes sense? I guess we are seeing another example of a creationist redefining a word, in this case "evolution". It's clear that Comfort takes a middle ground regarding "microevolution". So clearly he must be talking about "macroevolution" which in creationist circles is some fanciful magical form of evolution that has no grounding at all anywhere.
When you make a strawman it's easy to make one that conforms to your beliefs.
I'm pretty sure when he says "half evolved" it's that a creature has "half a wing" or "half a gill" or something stupid like that.
So I'm going to propose a new theory that explains this:
Evolution is "quantised" (for lack of a better word) so you can't have a "half evolved" species.
My evidence is the fossil record, I now call on the Nobel Prize Committee to give me lots and lots of money.
Well from what I've read of it, the reason she says not to bother reading it is because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. What does Jesus have to do exactly with evolution? Or Hitler?
The introduction is just a veiled attempt to poison the well and nothing more.
I'm going to skip the stuff about ardipithicus ramidus because it appears to be Comfort misunderstanding information that he has been told.
So I'm just going to skip towards the end.
(my bold)
Ray, it's a museum about evolution, the whole museum is one giant exhibit about evolution. It's right there in the name of the museum.
I'm going to bring this post to a close. I took a while to write it, because I had a few distractions and in that time Eugenie Scott wrote her reply, and there is a thoughts post.
I'm going to say though, that Comfort comes across as someone who is misinformed about what exactly science is, but I get the feeling that he knows better. I think he's like many of the more vocal creationists (big names and anonymous people online), someone who actually knows that they are wrong, but is so willingly blinded by dogmatic faith that they will torture scientific findings so they can prop up their faith in what can really only be described as a weak and quite possibly incompetent creator God.
Looking over the your thoughts post I think that there are many people who see can see through the lies and misrepresentation of Comfort and his ilk.
However there are many people who don't and are blinded by misinformation. There is still a lot of work to be done in the US, and it will be achieved through the hard work of people like Eugenie Scott and the NCSE.
For a summary Comfort basically says "book burning atheists are angry racism racism racism Hitler non-standard definition for "atheist" plug for book angry atheists abuse Amazon I like science theory theory theory no evidence qualifiers are bad I only mean well really people should read the book evolution is like Mormonism it's a miracle and Darwin is a fantasy writer."
I must admit that I did like this paragraph:
The problem when arguing with those who believe in atheistic evolution is that they move goal posts by redefining atheism or evolution or the word species. From Darwin to Dawkins, they speak the language of speculation, continually using words like probably, maybe, perhaps, and could've. And Darwinism is as nebulous as a puffy cloud on a hot windy day, forever moving, changing, and expanding—because its bounds are limited only by the fertile human imagination.Good ol' Comfort. First we see him claim that "evolutionists move the goalposts regarding definitions" considering that he said earlier:
The Introduction also defines an atheist as someone who believes that nothing created everything—which is a scientific impossibility.Really?
That's what an Atheist is? It's not someone who "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"?
Why that sure looks like someone moving the goalposts there doesn't it?
Then again there are members in his camp that don't seem to have a very solid definition of a Kind or Baramin.
Then it's that scientists use speculative words when talking about something we don't know for certain. Based on that paragraph then we can say that God must have built the pyramids because we don't know for certain how they were built. Look at all these possible ways that we think the Ancient Egyptians built their pyramids.
Then we see Comfort contradict himself with his "forever moving and changing line. It does make me wonder what he thinks science is. I guess it must be some sort of unchanging pseudo-Bible where you'll be damned for all eternity if you dare change it. It's also a really good hyperbole.
But enough about Ray and his first post. I'm going to talk about his second post.
We start with some back pedalling, Comfort immediately addresses the criticism of his book put forward by Scott, that Comfort removed some of the chapters. Personally I think that the reason Comfort decided initially to remove chapters was so he could make Darwin's work seem weaker then it actually is.
But since he's put those removed chapter back in there isn't really any problem now, even with his introduction you would still be getting yourself a copy of On the Origin of Species.
So let us move on:
Scott quoted a famous geneticist, who said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I would like to drop one word, so that the quote is true. It should read, "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution."
Really Ray? Really?
Nothing at all makes sense? I guess we are seeing another example of a creationist redefining a word, in this case "evolution". It's clear that Comfort takes a middle ground regarding "microevolution". So clearly he must be talking about "macroevolution" which in creationist circles is some fanciful magical form of evolution that has no grounding at all anywhere.
When you make a strawman it's easy to make one that conforms to your beliefs.
Nothing we have in creation is half evolved.
I'm pretty sure when he says "half evolved" it's that a creature has "half a wing" or "half a gill" or something stupid like that.
So I'm going to propose a new theory that explains this:
Evolution is "quantised" (for lack of a better word) so you can't have a "half evolved" species.
My evidence is the fossil record, I now call on the Nobel Prize Committee to give me lots and lots of money.
My second point is that Scott is happy for students to read the first eight and the last 10 pages of the Introduction, but she doesn't want them to waste their time on the meat in the sandwich. She says that this portion is my weakest, most tasteless of arguments. If that is true, shouldn't she then encourage students to read that portion to prove the weakness of my case? Instead, she says not to read it. I wonder why?
Well from what I've read of it, the reason she says not to bother reading it is because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. What does Jesus have to do exactly with evolution? Or Hitler?
The introduction is just a veiled attempt to poison the well and nothing more.
I'm going to skip the stuff about ardipithicus ramidus because it appears to be Comfort misunderstanding information that he has been told.
So I'm just going to skip towards the end.
She then encourages doubters to consider museums where "you will find transitional fossils galore." I went to the Smithsonian to see the fossils galore, and they were there—millions of fossils that were evidence of special creation. The Smithsonian didn't have any transitional fossils that proved evolution (staunch believers claim that they have them, but not on display). I also visited the evolution museum in Paris (Grande Galerie de L'Evolution). I took a camera crew, and we spent an hour looking for the evolution exhibit. It didn't have one. All it had were millions of fossils of fully formed animals that God created.
(my bold)
Ray, it's a museum about evolution, the whole museum is one giant exhibit about evolution. It's right there in the name of the museum.
I'm going to bring this post to a close. I took a while to write it, because I had a few distractions and in that time Eugenie Scott wrote her reply, and there is a thoughts post.
I'm going to say though, that Comfort comes across as someone who is misinformed about what exactly science is, but I get the feeling that he knows better. I think he's like many of the more vocal creationists (big names and anonymous people online), someone who actually knows that they are wrong, but is so willingly blinded by dogmatic faith that they will torture scientific findings so they can prop up their faith in what can really only be described as a weak and quite possibly incompetent creator God.
Looking over the your thoughts post I think that there are many people who see can see through the lies and misrepresentation of Comfort and his ilk.
However there are many people who don't and are blinded by misinformation. There is still a lot of work to be done in the US, and it will be achieved through the hard work of people like Eugenie Scott and the NCSE.
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Texas State Board of Education and Science Standards
Panda's Thumb reports that fifty scientific organisations have sent a message to the Texas State Board of Education telling them that their "Strengths and Weaknesses" passage is a load of rubbish.
But this isn't about the number of people/organisations who support an idea or set of standards (I'm looking at you, you list making IDiots), but instead what the overall message is.
In this case it's "don't teach your children crap because it's bad for Texas."
Anyway, at present the SBoE is voting on whether their "strengths and weaknesses" and other anti-science phrases is made part of their science standards, or as they will be known in the future "science" "standards".
The Houston Chronicle had liveblogged the discussion. Unfortunately for me I can only read about it becuase I don't know if I can find a copy of what was a live feed.
There was an opinion comment by McLeroy in the Austin American-Statesman (by the way McLeroy is the head of the SBoE) which has some very odd comments like this one:
But this isn't about the number of people/organisations who support an idea or set of standards (I'm looking at you, you list making IDiots), but instead what the overall message is.
In this case it's "don't teach your children crap because it's bad for Texas."
Anyway, at present the SBoE is voting on whether their "strengths and weaknesses" and other anti-science phrases is made part of their science standards, or as they will be known in the future "science" "standards".
The Houston Chronicle had liveblogged the discussion. Unfortunately for me I can only read about it becuase I don't know if I can find a copy of what was a live feed.
There was an opinion comment by McLeroy in the Austin American-Statesman (by the way McLeroy is the head of the SBoE) which has some very odd comments like this one:
The first step is to define science in a way that is satisfactory to both sides. Using new wording from the National Academy of Sciences, Texas' standards define science as "the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomenon as well as the knowledge generated through this process."This definition replaces the academy's 1999 language that was very controversial; it stated that science was "to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena." The change from "natural explanations" to "testable explanations" is very significant. The old definition was inferior in that it undermined both the philosophy of the naturalist and the supernaturalist. By circular reasoning, the naturalist was prevented from using science to prove that "nature is all there is," and the supernaturalist was prevented from offering supernatural hypotheses. With the new definition, both the naturalist and the supernaturalist are free to make "testable" explanations. The debate can now shift from "Is it science?" to "Is it testable?"
I don't really see the point here. How exactly does the old phrase, with "natural explanations" mean that naturalists couldn't use science? I don't even see the supposed "circular reasoning" in the statement. It doesn't make any sense to me at all. His point on naturalists appears to be there just so he can try to give his point validity. The real point, as far as I can see, is his comment on supernaturalists offering supernatural hypotheses.
The thing is that in the end they haven't actually done anything, by his own admission the only reason why the changed it was to allow "supernaturalists", who are most likely the religious in this sense, to try and get their crap into science classes.
What I think makes it worse in this case is that he's gone and taken something from the National Academy of Sciences, which I believe is a very important body in the US regarding science, and has managed to utterly misunderstand the point they were making.
Those that believe in the supernatural won't be able to offer supernatural hypotheses using either definition of science. The latter because the supernatural is not testable, and therefore you can't actually construct testable hypotheses and in the case of the former because it is, by definition, not natural, so you could never use such hypotheses to "to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena." See the use of the word "natural" there? No? Ok, nevermind...
The second statement was:
Once we have our observations, we can make a hypothesis. The controversial evolution hypothesis is that all life is descended from a common ancestor by unguided natural processes. How well does this hypothesis explain the data? A new curriculum standard asks Texas students to look into this question. It states: "The student is expected to analyze and evaluate the sufficiency or insufficiency of common ancestry to explain the sudden appearance, stasis, and sequential nature of groups in the fossil record." It should not raise any objections from those who say evolution has no weaknesses; they claim it is unquestionably true.
So. Much. Wrongness.
For those playing at home you should know that evolution is only semi-random. Yes, all the stuff involving genes is essentially random. However evolution is not just genotypes and phenotypes. Using his hypothesis you see the flaw about "unguided natural processes". Usually when creationists say "unguided" they really mean "random". It's just that "unguided" sounds more scientific, it's the same choice of words that quack doctors use to convince the scientifically illiterate that their stuff is genuine.
If someone can care to show me that "unguided" is not used by creationists as a synonym for "random" please do so.
What he is ignoring are things like sexual selection, predation and environmental factors. All of which are non-random, and affect evolution.
Lastly, he isn't actually referring to evolution at all, but common descent.
And the way that they suggest that students learn about common descent? Something completely stupid.
"Here is a bunch of fossils. See how they don't show conclusively that everything is descended from one thing? Good. Now you see how evolution is wrong. No Bobby, don't look at that evidence over there that proves that it's right. No, we're only allowed to use the fossil record."
Frankly I couldn't care less about "weaknesses". As far as I can tell the real possible "weaknesses" are actually at a level that is far beyond the level that the students should be at. The reason people complain is because what is being suggested is so blatantly wrong. It's making children learn that something is wrong by only looking at a small subset of the evidence.
I don't really have too much to say about the meeting at present. The liveblog, which I linked to above, covers it really nicely.
Thursday, 16 October 2008
America: Land of Scientific Humour
That's what Texas seems to have made the US recently. I thank Panda's Thumb for this snippet of humour.
This newspaper blog thingy said that the Texas State Board of Education decided to put a few creationists on the board.
PZ Meyers has, on his blog, a list of the people on the board.
And that's not including the head of the board who is a dentist and an IDiot.
I don't know if he will be on that panel but if he is then the voting will go 3-4 pro ID all the time.
Well barring conflicts of interest (like two of the ID guys having a book that they might use this opportunity to get into the curriculum), it is something of a joke.
When it comes to science standards I would like people who currently accept all mainstream scientific theories to determine them.
This is like having a committee on medical practices where a majority of the committee are "alternative medicine" people.
ID fails in science. And it fails hard.
It might be a fallacy but I'm saying that my analogy would be apt.
At least (according to the newspaper blog thingy) there are groups that are pissed off about it. They called them idealogues, and that is what they are. I guess the dentist IDiot can't find enough IDiots in his home state because he had to get some non-Texans for this board.
I wonder what exactly that says about Texas?
This newspaper blog thingy said that the Texas State Board of Education decided to put a few creationists on the board.
PZ Meyers has, on his blog, a list of the people on the board.
And that's not including the head of the board who is a dentist and an IDiot.
I don't know if he will be on that panel but if he is then the voting will go 3-4 pro ID all the time.
Well barring conflicts of interest (like two of the ID guys having a book that they might use this opportunity to get into the curriculum), it is something of a joke.
When it comes to science standards I would like people who currently accept all mainstream scientific theories to determine them.
This is like having a committee on medical practices where a majority of the committee are "alternative medicine" people.
ID fails in science. And it fails hard.
It might be a fallacy but I'm saying that my analogy would be apt.
At least (according to the newspaper blog thingy) there are groups that are pissed off about it. They called them idealogues, and that is what they are. I guess the dentist IDiot can't find enough IDiots in his home state because he had to get some non-Texans for this board.
I wonder what exactly that says about Texas?
Sunday, 5 October 2008
MPAA Classification System
I've just finished watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated and I've got to say, what the fuck?
I mean, as a foreigner what they do in the US is extremely confusing.
Here in Australia we have the Office of Film and Literature Classification. It's a government body that does pretty much what it's title suggest (and video games and other media too).
As a side note, I'd just like to shout out to Michael Atkinson (Attorney-General of SA) and say the following:
You are a bloody idiot for not allowing an R18+ rating for video games. Honestly, why the hell can't we have such a rating for video games? We seem to do just fine with one for movies.
Anyway, back to what I am supposed to be talking about.
It seems that, on top of nobody having any bloody clue about the rules for classification in the US, and that the "appeals" process sounds just like a way for the Motion Picture Association of America to say "we're keeping our rating". As far as I can tell the closest thing that there is to rules is reading the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Now compare that to the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFCA for ease now), where you can actually download a copy of their guidelines.
Funnily enough the same thing appears to exist with the MPAA review board and their appeals board. At most the public only gets the list from 2005 which the film found through the use of a private investigator. The MPAA go on about some crap about "protecting integrity".
My god that must mean that the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board are a bunch of corrupt bastards because we can easily find out who they are, what they can do, and where they are from. What utter bastards. Well that clearly means that I can't trust them because I know who they are and what qualifications they hold.
Right?
Oh wait, I know the answer to this question. No.
In fact it actually helps understand why they make the decisions that they do. You know, it gives the boards a bit more respectability then "faceless reviewers" and "faceless appeals board with a Catholic and an Episcopalian priest to give the board credibility but you can't know who exactly they are".
Meh.
I guess the US people care about their right to free speech only if it's the government that is restricting that right.
Well, good on them I guess. I'll stick with a classification body that has accountability.
I mean, as a foreigner what they do in the US is extremely confusing.
Here in Australia we have the Office of Film and Literature Classification. It's a government body that does pretty much what it's title suggest (and video games and other media too).
As a side note, I'd just like to shout out to Michael Atkinson (Attorney-General of SA) and say the following:
You are a bloody idiot for not allowing an R18+ rating for video games. Honestly, why the hell can't we have such a rating for video games? We seem to do just fine with one for movies.
Anyway, back to what I am supposed to be talking about.
It seems that, on top of nobody having any bloody clue about the rules for classification in the US, and that the "appeals" process sounds just like a way for the Motion Picture Association of America to say "we're keeping our rating". As far as I can tell the closest thing that there is to rules is reading the Wikipedia article on the subject.
Now compare that to the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFCA for ease now), where you can actually download a copy of their guidelines.
Funnily enough the same thing appears to exist with the MPAA review board and their appeals board. At most the public only gets the list from 2005 which the film found through the use of a private investigator. The MPAA go on about some crap about "protecting integrity".
My god that must mean that the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board are a bunch of corrupt bastards because we can easily find out who they are, what they can do, and where they are from. What utter bastards. Well that clearly means that I can't trust them because I know who they are and what qualifications they hold.
Right?
Oh wait, I know the answer to this question. No.
In fact it actually helps understand why they make the decisions that they do. You know, it gives the boards a bit more respectability then "faceless reviewers" and "faceless appeals board with a Catholic and an Episcopalian priest to give the board credibility but you can't know who exactly they are".
Meh.
I guess the US people care about their right to free speech only if it's the government that is restricting that right.
Well, good on them I guess. I'll stick with a classification body that has accountability.
Thursday, 11 September 2008
An Open Message To 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists
Dear "Truthers",
As you know today is September 11, or as you guys would know it 9/11. Today is the day when we remember 2998 people who died as a direct result of the attacks, 6000+ people who were injured, and the first responders who are currently ill, or dying, from lung diseases due to the poor air quality after the towers fell.
Nationals from over 90 countries totalling 327 people died on that day as well.
Project 2996 has made a list of all the people who died including where they are from.
All this because a fundamentalist Islamic organisation called Al Qaeda decided that the best way for people to follow what they believe is the "right" religion, and that their variant of that religion is the "correct" one.
Unfortunately for the last seven years there have been a bunch of people who call themselves the "9/11 Truth Movement" who have spent their time going about claiming that "9/11 was an inside job".
You go about claiming "thermite" or "thermate" or "silent explosives".
You go about claiming "space beams", "C4 coated rebar" or "holographic planes"
You go about claiming "missiles hit everything", "north of CITGO" and other ridiculous things.
There are even members of your group who claim that the people on the planes are still alive.
You willingly spout lies about the US Government, and you don't seem to care.
When you spout these "theories" you aren't a "patriot". You aren't a "hero". You are pathetic. All the evidence is there that shows who did it. There is even the admission by the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, that it was his organisation that pulled off the attacks.
But instead of that you just sit in your towers built of ignorance and lies, going "there's no way that Arabs in caves with boxcutters could have done it".
You go on and on about "the laws of physics being violated" while showing an utter ignorance of what the laws of physics are.
Do you honestly think that going about shouting "9/11 was an inside job" is going to make masses of people rally to your "cause"?
Do you honestly think that buying 10 copies of "Loose Change" or any of that crap they sell on "Prisonplanet" is going to help?
The obvious answer is no. You have had seven years to prove your case, and each time you have failed utterly.
You now go around spending your time pissing on the graves of the passengers of the planes, the members of the NYPD, and the Port Authority Police, the members of the FDNY, and children. And for what, because you don't seem to like your government.
You have had seven years to make your case and yet you have no evidence of it at all.
So I leave you with this:
Just shut the fuck up. Seriously. Just shut the fuck up.
Sincerely,
Wildy
As you know today is September 11, or as you guys would know it 9/11. Today is the day when we remember 2998 people who died as a direct result of the attacks, 6000+ people who were injured, and the first responders who are currently ill, or dying, from lung diseases due to the poor air quality after the towers fell.
Nationals from over 90 countries totalling 327 people died on that day as well.
Project 2996 has made a list of all the people who died including where they are from.
All this because a fundamentalist Islamic organisation called Al Qaeda decided that the best way for people to follow what they believe is the "right" religion, and that their variant of that religion is the "correct" one.
Unfortunately for the last seven years there have been a bunch of people who call themselves the "9/11 Truth Movement" who have spent their time going about claiming that "9/11 was an inside job".
You go about claiming "thermite" or "thermate" or "silent explosives".
You go about claiming "space beams", "C4 coated rebar" or "holographic planes"
You go about claiming "missiles hit everything", "north of CITGO" and other ridiculous things.
There are even members of your group who claim that the people on the planes are still alive.
You willingly spout lies about the US Government, and you don't seem to care.
When you spout these "theories" you aren't a "patriot". You aren't a "hero". You are pathetic. All the evidence is there that shows who did it. There is even the admission by the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, that it was his organisation that pulled off the attacks.
But instead of that you just sit in your towers built of ignorance and lies, going "there's no way that Arabs in caves with boxcutters could have done it".
You go on and on about "the laws of physics being violated" while showing an utter ignorance of what the laws of physics are.
Do you honestly think that going about shouting "9/11 was an inside job" is going to make masses of people rally to your "cause"?
Do you honestly think that buying 10 copies of "Loose Change" or any of that crap they sell on "Prisonplanet" is going to help?
The obvious answer is no. You have had seven years to prove your case, and each time you have failed utterly.
You now go around spending your time pissing on the graves of the passengers of the planes, the members of the NYPD, and the Port Authority Police, the members of the FDNY, and children. And for what, because you don't seem to like your government.
You have had seven years to make your case and yet you have no evidence of it at all.
So I leave you with this:
Just shut the fuck up. Seriously. Just shut the fuck up.
Sincerely,
Wildy
Thursday, 10 July 2008
This is What Our Allies Are Up To?
I was going to include this with this post but I can't really (it also explains the odd introduction to that post).
The US Military seems to have a problem. (The site for Anderson Cooper 360 has some extra information but it is more opinionated.)
There isn't very much I can say apart from good on Hall for doing what he is doing. From what I have noticed the view in the US is that the word "Atheist" is some sort of insult or slur, instead of what it actually is, a term for people who don't believe in any deities whatsoever.
But that view is quite common in all fundamentalist groups though too.
As a small digression I might as well point out that I am one of the non-religious, and I may actually be an apostate. I'm also from Adelaide, known as the "City of Churches" and also the least religious capital city in the country.
Here we don't experience as much of a problem with our religious views since most people don't actually care what you are.
What worries me is that the US military seems to. It also is one of our allies over in Afghanistan.
You know that joke that goes along the lines of "The single statement that the US can say that can have even the most powerful nation trembling is 'We're behind you all the way'"?
It's because the US is secular, it also makes fun of their friendly fire record.
Imagine that joke again, only with a US military that is very, very religious.
Not so funny now huh?
For those who don't understand why, there are, in essence, two simple reasons, firstly the God in the Bible does come across as something of a genocidal maniac (take a look here.) and secondly there is only one true church and every church is it, while every church is also not it.
(While you're at it, take a look at the lists of Cruelty and Violence, Injustice, and Intolerance on from the Skeptics Annotated Bible.)
You probably would be a bit scared if the guy in charge of your air support loves Chick tracts now wouldn't you?
As history has shown religion is an organisation that is more then willing to sacrifice the lives of its followers, and show no mercy to the lives of people who don't follow your religion, or specific brand of religion.
This makes me worry far more for the people that would be fighting with the Americans. The other thing that I have learned about Americans is that there are quite a few who, if they could, would list "Patriot" or "American" as their religion.
As a government institution in this day and age, the military should not be under the influence of religion. Especially one where the guy you are supposed to be worshipping says (Deuteronomy 2:31): "See, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to take possission of his land." Or how about 1 Samael 15:3; "Now do and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey".
That is the God that Christianity follows. If it wasn't then you wouldn't find these same fundementalists using Deuteronomy as a reason to oppose gay marriage.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has a press release, where I finally figured out where I heard the name Jeremy Hall. Back in April he tried to found an atheist group and after getting all the proper paperwork organised basically had it forcefully closed by a Major Welborn because, I guess that the Major being a Major and outranking Hall, could do just because he didn't agree with Hall, or apparently the US Supreme Court which says that no religion is still constitutionally protected.
Maybe what we are seeing here is just another part of the battlefield that the world sees involving the small secular US taking on the larger religious US.
Personally I hope the secular side wins.
The US Military seems to have a problem. (The site for Anderson Cooper 360 has some extra information but it is more opinionated.)
There isn't very much I can say apart from good on Hall for doing what he is doing. From what I have noticed the view in the US is that the word "Atheist" is some sort of insult or slur, instead of what it actually is, a term for people who don't believe in any deities whatsoever.
But that view is quite common in all fundamentalist groups though too.
As a small digression I might as well point out that I am one of the non-religious, and I may actually be an apostate. I'm also from Adelaide, known as the "City of Churches" and also the least religious capital city in the country.
Here we don't experience as much of a problem with our religious views since most people don't actually care what you are.
What worries me is that the US military seems to. It also is one of our allies over in Afghanistan.
You know that joke that goes along the lines of "The single statement that the US can say that can have even the most powerful nation trembling is 'We're behind you all the way'"?
It's because the US is secular, it also makes fun of their friendly fire record.
Imagine that joke again, only with a US military that is very, very religious.
Not so funny now huh?
For those who don't understand why, there are, in essence, two simple reasons, firstly the God in the Bible does come across as something of a genocidal maniac (take a look here.) and secondly there is only one true church and every church is it, while every church is also not it.
(While you're at it, take a look at the lists of Cruelty and Violence, Injustice, and Intolerance on from the Skeptics Annotated Bible.)
You probably would be a bit scared if the guy in charge of your air support loves Chick tracts now wouldn't you?
As history has shown religion is an organisation that is more then willing to sacrifice the lives of its followers, and show no mercy to the lives of people who don't follow your religion, or specific brand of religion.
This makes me worry far more for the people that would be fighting with the Americans. The other thing that I have learned about Americans is that there are quite a few who, if they could, would list "Patriot" or "American" as their religion.
As a government institution in this day and age, the military should not be under the influence of religion. Especially one where the guy you are supposed to be worshipping says (Deuteronomy 2:31): "See, I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to take possission of his land." Or how about 1 Samael 15:3; "Now do and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey".
That is the God that Christianity follows. If it wasn't then you wouldn't find these same fundementalists using Deuteronomy as a reason to oppose gay marriage.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation has a press release, where I finally figured out where I heard the name Jeremy Hall. Back in April he tried to found an atheist group and after getting all the proper paperwork organised basically had it forcefully closed by a Major Welborn because, I guess that the Major being a Major and outranking Hall, could do just because he didn't agree with Hall, or apparently the US Supreme Court which says that no religion is still constitutionally protected.
Maybe what we are seeing here is just another part of the battlefield that the world sees involving the small secular US taking on the larger religious US.
Personally I hope the secular side wins.
Sunday, 6 January 2008
Explain This to Me
Stuff about your elections are coming over here at times, and I have a few questions about you, probably very screwy, electoral system.
Firstly, why is it that the US Presidential Election is portrayed as something important in my country?
I know that you might not really be able to answer that one, but you can speculate as much as I will for this one.
If I watch the news, I would preferably like to see (in this order):
Since we only get 10 minutes of news over here and 20 minutes of sport in half an hour I don't really want to spend my time learning about the Iowa Primaries when I could be finding out about how the Australian Task Force is doing in the Solomons, or our troops in Afghanistan.
Why claim that you are supposedly "electing the leader of the free world"?
If it truly is an election of the "leader of the free world" (which as far as I know has never been a job) why can't I vote? Why should I have to live under the supposed "leader of the free world" when I have been disenfranchised in favour of some stupid redneck who only votes Republican because his family has done so since the Republican Party even existed?
Surely if you are claiming to be electing the bloke who apparently has more power in my country then my own elected representatives then why can't I vote for the guy I want?
How much news time was spent on coverage for the Australian elections?
From what I could gather probably none. How many of you know who our PM is? If you don't have to sit through news of my country's elections then why should I have to sit through yours?
Finally what the hell is a Ron Paul? I go onto various fora and basically everyone has in their sig line "I love you Ron Paul" or "Vote for Ron Paul" or "Ron Paul means freedom". Why should I even care about him? What will he bring me, the foreigner? Will I be able to vote in the election of the "Leader of the Free World"? Will he give me money? I think the only positive thing that I can gather from him is that he probably has the largest base of people who are too young to vote which is completely pointless if you want to be elected this year.
Firstly, why is it that the US Presidential Election is portrayed as something important in my country?
I know that you might not really be able to answer that one, but you can speculate as much as I will for this one.
If I watch the news, I would preferably like to see (in this order):
- Important local news
- Australian news
- News from neighbouring countries
- News from the rest of the world (unless I'm watching the SBS World News obviously)
Since we only get 10 minutes of news over here and 20 minutes of sport in half an hour I don't really want to spend my time learning about the Iowa Primaries when I could be finding out about how the Australian Task Force is doing in the Solomons, or our troops in Afghanistan.
Why claim that you are supposedly "electing the leader of the free world"?
If it truly is an election of the "leader of the free world" (which as far as I know has never been a job) why can't I vote? Why should I have to live under the supposed "leader of the free world" when I have been disenfranchised in favour of some stupid redneck who only votes Republican because his family has done so since the Republican Party even existed?
Surely if you are claiming to be electing the bloke who apparently has more power in my country then my own elected representatives then why can't I vote for the guy I want?
How much news time was spent on coverage for the Australian elections?
From what I could gather probably none. How many of you know who our PM is? If you don't have to sit through news of my country's elections then why should I have to sit through yours?
Finally what the hell is a Ron Paul? I go onto various fora and basically everyone has in their sig line "I love you Ron Paul" or "Vote for Ron Paul" or "Ron Paul means freedom". Why should I even care about him? What will he bring me, the foreigner? Will I be able to vote in the election of the "Leader of the Free World"? Will he give me money? I think the only positive thing that I can gather from him is that he probably has the largest base of people who are too young to vote which is completely pointless if you want to be elected this year.
Friday, 23 November 2007
The Cost Of War
The BABlog wrote two days ago that Americans seem to think that NASA gets 25% of the US Budget, when in fact it is only 0.58%.
More importantly (for this post) he mentioned that the US spends US$11 million per hour (And here is a source) on the Iraq war.
Hastily I calculated that ever 13.64 hours the US spends the same amount of money on Iraq that could be spent on a $150 million probe to explore space.
In 2005 it was said that about $22 billion would be needed to fight AIDS. This is the same as spending 2.7 months in Iraq.
In one hour the US spends enough money to buy and ship 18003.27 tonnes of food aid for developing nations (based on statistics here).
As I write this the US has spent over US$471 billion on Iraq. This could buy 3140 probes, help to fight AIDS for 21.4 years assuming that the price remains constant, or 770867430.44 tonnes of food aid.
Or if you know anything about the US state of health, some of the money that could be saved could have been placed in the SCHIP program and help those that cannot get health insurance.
I wonder what the Australians spend?
More importantly (for this post) he mentioned that the US spends US$11 million per hour (And here is a source) on the Iraq war.
Hastily I calculated that ever 13.64 hours the US spends the same amount of money on Iraq that could be spent on a $150 million probe to explore space.
In 2005 it was said that about $22 billion would be needed to fight AIDS. This is the same as spending 2.7 months in Iraq.
In one hour the US spends enough money to buy and ship 18003.27 tonnes of food aid for developing nations (based on statistics here).
As I write this the US has spent over US$471 billion on Iraq. This could buy 3140 probes, help to fight AIDS for 21.4 years assuming that the price remains constant, or 770867430.44 tonnes of food aid.
Or if you know anything about the US state of health, some of the money that could be saved could have been placed in the SCHIP program and help those that cannot get health insurance.
I wonder what the Australians spend?
Tuesday, 11 September 2007
September 11
Well today is September 11, the 6th anniversary of the attacks on the towers.
I hope that this day does not affect the families of those affected. Especially those who happen to be at the site of the towers.
The so-called "Truthers" will be there spewing their filth.
And that is all it is filth no matter what they say.
For example I go onto the Myspace political forum and it is full of 9/11 related crap, like it was faked, while I write this I look and see 9 threads with the numbers 9 and 1 and 1 in that order.
It is just sick. I personally am getting sick of it.
However some of those threads titled '9/11' were made by debunkers poking fun at the idiots.
I did find one important little gem.
A proper scientist has decided to tackle the 'demolition' idea. Dr Keith Seffen is a Cambridge University scientist and has published this paper in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. We all know it is complete shit but it is rather important because, unlike the conspiracy theorists, proper scientists put there ideas up to the all important peer review.
The conspiracy theorists seem to think that they don't have to stand up to the same scrutiny as real scientists and no conspiracy theorist has tried to publish a paper that would even disprove the Bazant-Zhou paper (see the link above entitled "peer review"), they can try on the internet, and a few sites seem to try but they are not doing it on the field of science.
They are pretend pretend scientists who should be ashamed of themselves for trying to pass off this shit as real science. That link can take you to many papers that disprove the conspiracy theorists however you will never see a conspiracy theorist publish their work in a scientific journal or try to disprove those peer-reviewed hypotheses in a scientific journal.
They may make up some stupid argument as a reason why they shouldn't but all it shows is that they have no argument that can stand up to science.
I will leave you with a 9/11 related psychology thing. Look at the following two pictures that I nicked from here:
(I don't know if the pictures are working though. Stupid Australian internet).
I hope that this day does not affect the families of those affected. Especially those who happen to be at the site of the towers.
The so-called "Truthers" will be there spewing their filth.
And that is all it is filth no matter what they say.
For example I go onto the Myspace political forum and it is full of 9/11 related crap, like it was faked, while I write this I look and see 9 threads with the numbers 9 and 1 and 1 in that order.
It is just sick. I personally am getting sick of it.
However some of those threads titled '9/11' were made by debunkers poking fun at the idiots.
I did find one important little gem.
A proper scientist has decided to tackle the 'demolition' idea. Dr Keith Seffen is a Cambridge University scientist and has published this paper in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. We all know it is complete shit but it is rather important because, unlike the conspiracy theorists, proper scientists put there ideas up to the all important peer review.
The conspiracy theorists seem to think that they don't have to stand up to the same scrutiny as real scientists and no conspiracy theorist has tried to publish a paper that would even disprove the Bazant-Zhou paper (see the link above entitled "peer review"), they can try on the internet, and a few sites seem to try but they are not doing it on the field of science.
They are pretend pretend scientists who should be ashamed of themselves for trying to pass off this shit as real science. That link can take you to many papers that disprove the conspiracy theorists however you will never see a conspiracy theorist publish their work in a scientific journal or try to disprove those peer-reviewed hypotheses in a scientific journal.
They may make up some stupid argument as a reason why they shouldn't but all it shows is that they have no argument that can stand up to science.
I will leave you with a 9/11 related psychology thing. Look at the following two pictures that I nicked from here:
(I don't know if the pictures are working though. Stupid Australian internet).
Wednesday, 22 August 2007
Arguing with 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists - Various Arguments used
Now some people can be really stupid. And then we get the people that South Park said were retarded.
Yep, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Before I start I might as well point out that I am using the American convention for dates because it is simpler for the event which is known as that specific date. In the dd/mm/yy system that would be (in Australia) two days before Remembrance Day.
Anyway.
I will plug a few sites that have nothing to do with me, the first being Debunking 9/11 .com, a good debunking site/archive thingy and What I learned from 9/11 Conspiracy theories a site that is quite funny because it points out some really really stupid things that have been said.
Now really I should post this later but discussion on the topic has started again in August.
Many of these people are just stupid people. They don't understand science or how things actually work.
I have heard the following arguments before:
1. If a plane hit a tower why didn't it fall down like [an ice cream stick]
(They use the American name for them which I don't know how to spell)
This is probably the stupidest one that I have ever heard, I have only heard it once, and I never got an answer when I made a counterpoint.
The person who wrote it seems to think that buildings act like ice cream sticks, that they are one big continuous thing that has no separated parts or is somehow strong enough to withstand a Boeing 767 travelling at around 900 km.h-1.
2. Linking to Youtube/Google Video/some site with a video that "proves" their point"
This I have found to be a very common thing to do. They somehow seem to think that people will watch or even care. Many people who argue with these people have already seen the videos or read enough about the issue at hand to know that horribly grainy footage of the attacks is not proof.
In many cases the videos are horribly biased anyway and use mental gymnastics to try and prove their point.
3. Use of ad hominems or other logical fallacies
This is a very common argument. It isn't just ad hominems but they do extend to other fallacies.
One of the more common ones that I have seen recently involves them calling you a shill for some mysterious power that be to stop the 'truthers' as they call themselves from putting forth their argument.
This is pretty easy to withstand, what they are doing is calling someone a name that they won't like, usually a shill, which people get offended by and crumble under the idea. All you do is stay strong. Some people I have seen make a joke about it, especially from various people that say that they are in the pay of the Government/Myspace (where I have read this variation) and can't be trusted.
The silliest attacks that I have seen involve people pointing out grammatical or spelling errors and claiming that the error somehow means an argument is false.
4. Appeal to Authority
This isn't so widespread now. But at one point someone would start citing government officials who have no expertise in demolitions etc. and say "They said it so it must be true".
If they start doing this then all you do is go to a site, (I like the Fallacy Files) and just link to the appeal to emotion page. They have no argument, they are just wasting bandwidth and space on the infinite Internet.
5. Ignoring Evidence
If you ever argue with one of these people you will see this. They will say something, you provide plenty of evidence that proves them wrong and they just ignore it. I know one person who would claim that the buildings fell at 'free fall speed' would not post any evidence proving his point and ignoring any evidence to the contrary including a factsheet from NIST claiming the opposite. When he finally posted something he just ignored further rebuttal and continued arguing the same point.
Funnily enough the websites use the exact same logic when they say that "people heard explosions coming from the basement" even though most witnesses say that there were no explosions from the basement.
6. Circular Logic
Possibly the most common tactic, they argue in circles to annoy the hell out of people so they can claim a victory by boring the other people into quitting.
Very, very common. So far I haven't seen a way to stop this from happening because they ignore any attempt to continue the conversation.
7. Use of doctored evidence
Commonly selective quoting, or mis-interpretation of what was said. For example somehow they took the idea of people saying "pull" in reference to WTC 7 as meaning to blow up the building.
They pay no attention to the obvious context of the word. To pull the firefighters out of the building.
Other instances involve using pictures that have already proven to be false to try and further their point.
8. Controlled Demolition
A very silly point. They misinterpret evidence or ignore evidence to say that there was a controlled demolition.
When questioned as to how the people could not have seen people placing the explosives I have heard:
Or in the case of WTC 7 completely ignore the giant hole in the building.
9. Other buildings as precedent/counterpoints
This one can get rather stupid somehow these people seem to think that all the buildings were made the same and because some catch on fire and never fall, or some get hit by planes (Empire State Building) and didn't fall but completely ignoring the contrary facts.
For example the Empire State Building was hit in the 20's/30's by a very slow plane and was built of similar materials to the Pentagon, which also didn't collapse by the way.
Buildings that catch on fire were not hit by a plane travelling at high speed, so the extra structural damage is not created.
10. Pentagon and security cameras
This is another stupid one. They assume that footage that is not released means that there is some conspiracy to it. Even though none of the cameras that the footage was taken from was a stop motion camera the footage would still have the blur.
There are plenty more things that I could mention but I think this post is getting too long so I will stop here. I will very likely go and make a part two to this.
In the mean time may I suggest that you look at Wikipedia's page on the matter. It has the arguments and links to various pro-conspiracy theory sites so you can get both sides of the argument that shouldn't exist. There is no evidence that goes against what the US government has told the world.
Yep, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Before I start I might as well point out that I am using the American convention for dates because it is simpler for the event which is known as that specific date. In the dd/mm/yy system that would be (in Australia) two days before Remembrance Day.
Anyway.
I will plug a few sites that have nothing to do with me, the first being Debunking 9/11 .com, a good debunking site/archive thingy and What I learned from 9/11 Conspiracy theories a site that is quite funny because it points out some really really stupid things that have been said.
Now really I should post this later but discussion on the topic has started again in August.
Many of these people are just stupid people. They don't understand science or how things actually work.
I have heard the following arguments before:
1. If a plane hit a tower why didn't it fall down like [an ice cream stick]
(They use the American name for them which I don't know how to spell)
This is probably the stupidest one that I have ever heard, I have only heard it once, and I never got an answer when I made a counterpoint.
The person who wrote it seems to think that buildings act like ice cream sticks, that they are one big continuous thing that has no separated parts or is somehow strong enough to withstand a Boeing 767 travelling at around 900 km.h-1.
2. Linking to Youtube/Google Video/some site with a video that "proves" their point"
This I have found to be a very common thing to do. They somehow seem to think that people will watch or even care. Many people who argue with these people have already seen the videos or read enough about the issue at hand to know that horribly grainy footage of the attacks is not proof.
In many cases the videos are horribly biased anyway and use mental gymnastics to try and prove their point.
3. Use of ad hominems or other logical fallacies
This is a very common argument. It isn't just ad hominems but they do extend to other fallacies.
One of the more common ones that I have seen recently involves them calling you a shill for some mysterious power that be to stop the 'truthers' as they call themselves from putting forth their argument.
This is pretty easy to withstand, what they are doing is calling someone a name that they won't like, usually a shill, which people get offended by and crumble under the idea. All you do is stay strong. Some people I have seen make a joke about it, especially from various people that say that they are in the pay of the Government/Myspace (where I have read this variation) and can't be trusted.
The silliest attacks that I have seen involve people pointing out grammatical or spelling errors and claiming that the error somehow means an argument is false.
4. Appeal to Authority
This isn't so widespread now. But at one point someone would start citing government officials who have no expertise in demolitions etc. and say "They said it so it must be true".
If they start doing this then all you do is go to a site, (I like the Fallacy Files) and just link to the appeal to emotion page. They have no argument, they are just wasting bandwidth and space on the infinite Internet.
5. Ignoring Evidence
If you ever argue with one of these people you will see this. They will say something, you provide plenty of evidence that proves them wrong and they just ignore it. I know one person who would claim that the buildings fell at 'free fall speed' would not post any evidence proving his point and ignoring any evidence to the contrary including a factsheet from NIST claiming the opposite. When he finally posted something he just ignored further rebuttal and continued arguing the same point.
Funnily enough the websites use the exact same logic when they say that "people heard explosions coming from the basement" even though most witnesses say that there were no explosions from the basement.
6. Circular Logic
Possibly the most common tactic, they argue in circles to annoy the hell out of people so they can claim a victory by boring the other people into quitting.
Very, very common. So far I haven't seen a way to stop this from happening because they ignore any attempt to continue the conversation.
7. Use of doctored evidence
Commonly selective quoting, or mis-interpretation of what was said. For example somehow they took the idea of people saying "pull" in reference to WTC 7 as meaning to blow up the building.
They pay no attention to the obvious context of the word. To pull the firefighters out of the building.
Other instances involve using pictures that have already proven to be false to try and further their point.
8. Controlled Demolition
A very silly point. They misinterpret evidence or ignore evidence to say that there was a controlled demolition.
When questioned as to how the people could not have seen people placing the explosives I have heard:
- They had secret access to the places in the building that they placed the explosives.
- People weren't paying attention
- Some really outrageous theory that someone must have made up
Or in the case of WTC 7 completely ignore the giant hole in the building.
9. Other buildings as precedent/counterpoints
This one can get rather stupid somehow these people seem to think that all the buildings were made the same and because some catch on fire and never fall, or some get hit by planes (Empire State Building) and didn't fall but completely ignoring the contrary facts.
For example the Empire State Building was hit in the 20's/30's by a very slow plane and was built of similar materials to the Pentagon, which also didn't collapse by the way.
Buildings that catch on fire were not hit by a plane travelling at high speed, so the extra structural damage is not created.
10. Pentagon and security cameras
This is another stupid one. They assume that footage that is not released means that there is some conspiracy to it. Even though none of the cameras that the footage was taken from was a stop motion camera the footage would still have the blur.
There are plenty more things that I could mention but I think this post is getting too long so I will stop here. I will very likely go and make a part two to this.
In the mean time may I suggest that you look at Wikipedia's page on the matter. It has the arguments and links to various pro-conspiracy theory sites so you can get both sides of the argument that shouldn't exist. There is no evidence that goes against what the US government has told the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)