| Viewing Single Post From: Lincoln Leibner: NoC flighpath? | |
|---|---|
| Stinkey Puh | Aug 29 2008, 10:24 PM |
|
*Crunch* *Crunch* *Crunch*
Actually, Craig, BC and I have real names too. As to publicly known faces, why does that matter? You say you acknowledge the implications of evidence, and I think we pretty much do too -- as long as they truly are implications. Can you show where either of us has denied something when the evidence backs it?
That is quite false, actually. Unless someone at the CIT forum has deleted my or Biscuit Cough's posts, anyone should be able to see that our posts have not been "dedicated" against CIT. CIT has been hostile to BC from the beginning, labeling him a "pseudoskeptic" and accusing him of being deceptive. As to contributing constructively, I believe it was Biscuit Cough that put together a fairly accurate table (to my knowledge at least) of Pentagon witnesses CIT has focused on. I'd say it provides a pretty good overview of important witnesses and some key information about them. I believe Biscuit Cough was one of the first to go through the trouble of transcribing (quite accurately, I'd say) CIT's interview with Roosevelt Roberts, making it much easier to find and review important specifics. It is rather useful. And unless I'm mistaken, Biscuit Cough has been one of the researchers attempting to obtain a better understanding of where Roosevelt Roberts saw the "second" jet, as opposed to misinterpreting what he said and trying to make his testimony seem vague and uncertain with statements like, "we are unclear as to what lane 1 is to him [Roosevelt Roberts]" (quote from Aldo Marquis). So I think Biscuit Cough has actually made some contributions. I agree with your wording above -- "the claims of CIT." As you might notice, we've never disagreed with NoC -- I don't believe it's a theory because the evidence clearly supports it. You seem to attempt to dismiss our arguments by saying we're "splitting hairs" against CIT when we scrutinize claims for which CIT has not presented supporting evidence. It's starting to look like you do not have the evidence to back some of the claims.
"New claim"? No, I'm not claiming that.
Uh. . . (let's see,  ) You are aware that multiple people can have multiple computers on 1 IP address because all those computers are connected to the same network, right? 
Craig and Aldo also gather information from people and use it behind their backs (afaik) in an apparent attempt to portray those people as dishonest liars (I'm refering to what has been done with Joel Sucherman, Steven McGraw, Keith Wheelhouse, etc.). Why would Biscuit Cough or I give them our information to use in any such manner? 
So instead of addressing the topic presented, you appear to have decided to focus on us personally. . . interesting tactic for someone in the Citizen Investigation Team, I'd venture.  As long as we're off topic. . . Who are you saying is being deceptive, Dom? Consider. . . CIT is the one that suspended both Biscuit Cough and Stinkey Puh from their forum, giving the excuse that we both have the same IP (even though Craig was already informed of that and the reason why). Oddly enough, this action came shortly after BC presented his preliminary transcript of the Roosevelt Roberts interview. In his message (on the forum), Aldo gave us the email address by which to contact them to let them know "what is going on", but I got no response to repeated emails on the subject. The suspension was apparently followed by an IP ban. What's the point here? Well, the effect is that we cannot use the forum (except from another IP), but the forum viewers do not know this. To the casual CIT forum viewer, it merely looks as though Stinkey Puh and Biscuit Cough (and Craig and Aldo probably know how many others) just decided to stop posting for whatever reason. The username is not listed as unregistered or banned, but the effect is similar. I'm guessing most viewers do not know that CIT has essentially banned us -- so the image that CIT is open to reasonable discussion is still preserved. Wild conspiracy theory? Maybe not.  Finally, Craig responded to my email, saying he had been gone and just got back (which we already knew); but he apparently stood behind Aldo's decisions. So here's a question or two to "chew on": 1. Why did Aldo give us an email address which he either did not check or he decided not to respond to when I emailed? What's the point in giving the address if you have no intention of responding? 2. Why did CIT put a "transparent" ban on Biscuit Cough and Stinkey Puh (thereby making it look as if we are not banned when in fact we practically are) when we disagreed with them, persisting in examining and discussing what they say and what they present and pointing out that some of their claims are not supported by the evidence (Craig calls it "splitting hairs")? So yeah, maybe someone is being deceptive. Edited by Stinkey Puh, Aug 29 2008, 10:41 PM.
|
 |
|
| Lincoln Leibner: NoC flighpath? · Pentagon | |
4:53 PM Nov 29
