BigAl
5th January 2008, 02:26 PM
I fight the Battle For Truth on Usenet. This morning I was faced with the zillionth idiot making a claim that he has made many times, before, that the fact that a WTC tower collapse hadn't been recreated proves something . This poster proven his ignorance of all things related to science long ago.
I typed the first two paragraphs as a response and then, somehow, the rest of it just poured it. Maybe others will enjoy this bit of doggerel.
And yet none of those 'experts' ever ever did a proper reconstruction, floor by floor, of the collapse.
When you find a plate of food, spaghetti, on the floor that was knocked off the table, you consider which pet was capable of doing it. You may suspect the cat but you see no reason to suspect the hamster.
You don't try to do the impossible and pointless task of calculating exactly how the spaghetti arranged itself on the floor. Buying lots of identical plates, filling them with spaghetti and pushing them off the table can't do it. Explaining the exactly how the mess landed on the floor is a task that is is literally impossible in theory and in practice and it doesn't tell you anything new about the cat or how to prevent it from happening again, but I digress.
The first expert to look at the mess quickly came up with a hypothesis for how the cat did it and how the cat got on the table based. It was based on the position of the chair and called it the Feline Eating Theory (FET.)
What has become known as the Spaghetti Incident continues to be followed with fascination by cooks and animal behavior experts, worldwide, but TV news ceased to cover it after a few months except on the anniversary, which focuses on the cleanup, not the cause or the culprit.
Obscure professional publications read by a scant few million specialists in relevant topics continues to report and discuss the details of the investigation and cause. Some of them see if their own cats like the same spaghetti and show how a cat can push a plate. They publish their findings and all details for other to recreate. None of these experts can find any cause to investigate anything but cats for this particular crime even though stories are widely told of other pets pushing food to the floor, true or not.
Engineers are able to use the height of the table and the mass of the spaghetti to prove mathematically and by computer simulation that the diameter and height of the mess and the splash of sauce on the wall is well within the range of possibility and they are, in fact, probable. Physicists remind people that nobody can predict the exact shape and position of any of the spaghetti from initial conditions due to the randomness and complexity of the event once the plate leaves the table. They refer to this as the spaghetti uncertainty principle and talk about butterflies and weather but do a bad job of explaining what they mean to the general public. The discussion of the Spaghetti Incident in popular media reveals a shocking lack of general education in animal behavior, cooking and weather.
Critics claim that alternative theories been been published and peer reviewed but when specifics of names and credentials are asked for, the critic quickly changes the topic.
.
When all the evidence was considered, the first version of the FET is determined to be wrong in one detail, the location of the chair in relationship to the footprints but other evidence and analysis shows that the cat could, and did jump from other furniture. The name, FET somehow sticks to the entire investigation in the minds of the public.
After a couple years of study, the NIST published a report that supported the hypothesis that the cat did it. It was supported by thousands of pages of detail and was complete with videos of cats pushing plates and eating spaghetti. The evidence and research results is based on is available for others to examine, including samples of the sauce which they keep in a special freezer and far away from animals. In the investigation, they discovered that the table had a wobbly leg that contributed to the fall, that DNA that matched the cat was found in the mess and tomato DNA was found in hairballs coughed up, later. The NIST buried this kind of information in appendix ZZ and it got little public notice. They succeeded in proving to the satisfaction everyone with relevant expertise that the cat, unaided, did it. Some cat experts disagree about exactly how the cat pushed the plate but they don't say that it wasn't the cat or claim that the cat had help.
The use of the label, "FET" is avoided by investigators because it is vague and one version was flawed. People that believe the cat didn't do it repeat the claim that the "failure" of the FET theory means that the cat is innocent. They ignore the fact that alternative evidence explains the outcome no matter what the theory is called.
Worldwide, cooks and pet behavior experts read the NIST report and follow the discussion. Some of them have some difference in the details but all agree that a cat did it and that the hamster didn't. The handful of animal experts that say the cat couldn't do it turn out to be elephant behavior experts and that they tested cat behavior with marinara sauce. Surveys show that in the general public, people that don't own cats are more likely to believe that the cat couldn't have done it but people familiar with cats believe it is possible.
A group calling themselves "Cats for Truth" has started picketing veterinarians and pet shops, much to the irritation of the vets, while wearing t-shirts that say that a group called the Chihuahua World Order exists and that members of CWO got into the house, unobserved and did it. CFT hasn't tried to show in theory or practice how that is possible but they are selling books and DVDs blaming the Chihuahuas. CFT and it's members refuses to acknowledge existence of the pictures of cat footprints stained with spaghetti sauce on the table, and the floor, and sauce on the cat's feet. The CFT claims these photographs couldn't exist because "cats clean themselves too quickly" and that any photographs shown to them are fake. None of the people involved with the cleanup have joined the CFT.
Those pictures and the fact that the table had a wobbly leg don't exist in CFT literature and most CFT members are unaware that they exist. In CFT literature, where quotes of the NIST report are pasted in, the text about the wobbly table is replaced by ellipses. Most members of CFT don't have cats as pets and few have read the NIST report. A huge amount of CFT literature is produced by members and claims are made for every animal, real or imaginary, other than cats. No CFT member will tell another CFT member that some of these animals don't exist. No CFT member has ever been known to read any footnote or discuss any fact they find in literature that predates SI that shows that the CFT claims are foolish. They call anyone that does so a chihuahua lover.
Many chihuahua owners point out all the evidence that exists for the cat theory, that when the dogs eat spaghetti they get sick all over the rug, there were no chihuahuas in the area, and that no chihuahua DNA has been found. CFT continues to ignore any facts made by the dog owners and accuse then of all being part of the CWO.
No alternate theory has evolved that is constant with the footprint evidence and that doesn't add lots of complications such as where did the dog come from, that the CFT refuses to address.
The pet owner also had a parrot and the parrot says "the hamster did it". CFT members use this very literally to claim the cat is innocent, ignoring the fact that if it's true, then the CWO didn't do it. None of the CFT members have though to ask the owner if the parrot said that before the SI incident. NIST did. The owner trained the parrot to say that as a joke, many years earlier.
One prominent member of CFT claims that sheep did it. He makes this assertion in long presentations in front of any group that doesn't know anything about cats or sheep and will buy him lunch. His evidence is that he has sauce said to be from SI, given to him by someone who happens to love cats and dogs. He claims that it shows wool fibers. He has yet to publish his work for others to see and won't take notice of the fact that the room the sample was found in had wool carpets. Members of CFT reveal their ignorance of the fact that some carpets are made of wool and reject all assertions of that fact as CWO propaganda. Nobody will ask the person t hat provided the sauce if there were wool carpets in the room.
---------
It didn't occur to anyone to see if the hamster would eat spaghetti sauce since even if it did, it wouldn't explain the plate on the floor, how it got on the table, the footprints or the DNA, or many other facts that implicate the cat. CFT claims that someone should do such a test and that the results could discredit all the other evidence but CFT hasn't bothered to do it, themselves. There is a segment of CFT that claims, with no evidence, that a hamster could push a plate of spaghetti. Questions as to why a hamster would want to go unanswered.
I typed the first two paragraphs as a response and then, somehow, the rest of it just poured it. Maybe others will enjoy this bit of doggerel.
And yet none of those 'experts' ever ever did a proper reconstruction, floor by floor, of the collapse.
When you find a plate of food, spaghetti, on the floor that was knocked off the table, you consider which pet was capable of doing it. You may suspect the cat but you see no reason to suspect the hamster.
You don't try to do the impossible and pointless task of calculating exactly how the spaghetti arranged itself on the floor. Buying lots of identical plates, filling them with spaghetti and pushing them off the table can't do it. Explaining the exactly how the mess landed on the floor is a task that is is literally impossible in theory and in practice and it doesn't tell you anything new about the cat or how to prevent it from happening again, but I digress.
The first expert to look at the mess quickly came up with a hypothesis for how the cat did it and how the cat got on the table based. It was based on the position of the chair and called it the Feline Eating Theory (FET.)
What has become known as the Spaghetti Incident continues to be followed with fascination by cooks and animal behavior experts, worldwide, but TV news ceased to cover it after a few months except on the anniversary, which focuses on the cleanup, not the cause or the culprit.
Obscure professional publications read by a scant few million specialists in relevant topics continues to report and discuss the details of the investigation and cause. Some of them see if their own cats like the same spaghetti and show how a cat can push a plate. They publish their findings and all details for other to recreate. None of these experts can find any cause to investigate anything but cats for this particular crime even though stories are widely told of other pets pushing food to the floor, true or not.
Engineers are able to use the height of the table and the mass of the spaghetti to prove mathematically and by computer simulation that the diameter and height of the mess and the splash of sauce on the wall is well within the range of possibility and they are, in fact, probable. Physicists remind people that nobody can predict the exact shape and position of any of the spaghetti from initial conditions due to the randomness and complexity of the event once the plate leaves the table. They refer to this as the spaghetti uncertainty principle and talk about butterflies and weather but do a bad job of explaining what they mean to the general public. The discussion of the Spaghetti Incident in popular media reveals a shocking lack of general education in animal behavior, cooking and weather.
Critics claim that alternative theories been been published and peer reviewed but when specifics of names and credentials are asked for, the critic quickly changes the topic.
.
When all the evidence was considered, the first version of the FET is determined to be wrong in one detail, the location of the chair in relationship to the footprints but other evidence and analysis shows that the cat could, and did jump from other furniture. The name, FET somehow sticks to the entire investigation in the minds of the public.
After a couple years of study, the NIST published a report that supported the hypothesis that the cat did it. It was supported by thousands of pages of detail and was complete with videos of cats pushing plates and eating spaghetti. The evidence and research results is based on is available for others to examine, including samples of the sauce which they keep in a special freezer and far away from animals. In the investigation, they discovered that the table had a wobbly leg that contributed to the fall, that DNA that matched the cat was found in the mess and tomato DNA was found in hairballs coughed up, later. The NIST buried this kind of information in appendix ZZ and it got little public notice. They succeeded in proving to the satisfaction everyone with relevant expertise that the cat, unaided, did it. Some cat experts disagree about exactly how the cat pushed the plate but they don't say that it wasn't the cat or claim that the cat had help.
The use of the label, "FET" is avoided by investigators because it is vague and one version was flawed. People that believe the cat didn't do it repeat the claim that the "failure" of the FET theory means that the cat is innocent. They ignore the fact that alternative evidence explains the outcome no matter what the theory is called.
Worldwide, cooks and pet behavior experts read the NIST report and follow the discussion. Some of them have some difference in the details but all agree that a cat did it and that the hamster didn't. The handful of animal experts that say the cat couldn't do it turn out to be elephant behavior experts and that they tested cat behavior with marinara sauce. Surveys show that in the general public, people that don't own cats are more likely to believe that the cat couldn't have done it but people familiar with cats believe it is possible.
A group calling themselves "Cats for Truth" has started picketing veterinarians and pet shops, much to the irritation of the vets, while wearing t-shirts that say that a group called the Chihuahua World Order exists and that members of CWO got into the house, unobserved and did it. CFT hasn't tried to show in theory or practice how that is possible but they are selling books and DVDs blaming the Chihuahuas. CFT and it's members refuses to acknowledge existence of the pictures of cat footprints stained with spaghetti sauce on the table, and the floor, and sauce on the cat's feet. The CFT claims these photographs couldn't exist because "cats clean themselves too quickly" and that any photographs shown to them are fake. None of the people involved with the cleanup have joined the CFT.
Those pictures and the fact that the table had a wobbly leg don't exist in CFT literature and most CFT members are unaware that they exist. In CFT literature, where quotes of the NIST report are pasted in, the text about the wobbly table is replaced by ellipses. Most members of CFT don't have cats as pets and few have read the NIST report. A huge amount of CFT literature is produced by members and claims are made for every animal, real or imaginary, other than cats. No CFT member will tell another CFT member that some of these animals don't exist. No CFT member has ever been known to read any footnote or discuss any fact they find in literature that predates SI that shows that the CFT claims are foolish. They call anyone that does so a chihuahua lover.
Many chihuahua owners point out all the evidence that exists for the cat theory, that when the dogs eat spaghetti they get sick all over the rug, there were no chihuahuas in the area, and that no chihuahua DNA has been found. CFT continues to ignore any facts made by the dog owners and accuse then of all being part of the CWO.
No alternate theory has evolved that is constant with the footprint evidence and that doesn't add lots of complications such as where did the dog come from, that the CFT refuses to address.
The pet owner also had a parrot and the parrot says "the hamster did it". CFT members use this very literally to claim the cat is innocent, ignoring the fact that if it's true, then the CWO didn't do it. None of the CFT members have though to ask the owner if the parrot said that before the SI incident. NIST did. The owner trained the parrot to say that as a joke, many years earlier.
One prominent member of CFT claims that sheep did it. He makes this assertion in long presentations in front of any group that doesn't know anything about cats or sheep and will buy him lunch. His evidence is that he has sauce said to be from SI, given to him by someone who happens to love cats and dogs. He claims that it shows wool fibers. He has yet to publish his work for others to see and won't take notice of the fact that the room the sample was found in had wool carpets. Members of CFT reveal their ignorance of the fact that some carpets are made of wool and reject all assertions of that fact as CWO propaganda. Nobody will ask the person t hat provided the sauce if there were wool carpets in the room.
---------
It didn't occur to anyone to see if the hamster would eat spaghetti sauce since even if it did, it wouldn't explain the plate on the floor, how it got on the table, the footprints or the DNA, or many other facts that implicate the cat. CFT claims that someone should do such a test and that the results could discredit all the other evidence but CFT hasn't bothered to do it, themselves. There is a segment of CFT that claims, with no evidence, that a hamster could push a plate of spaghetti. Questions as to why a hamster would want to go unanswered.