The Third Roberts-Fetzer Debate

[pomeroo]

Oddly, Google processed the third program before the
second. It can be found at http://tinyurl.com/yurzs4 (http://tinyurl.com/yurzs4)

[Undesired Walrus]

That suit start to smell a bit after 3 weeks then?;)

[T.A.M.]

ok, so overall, Mark clearly dominated....the first part excluded.

Well done Mark....left him in the dust. In the end I almost thought he might switch sides.

TAM:)

[~enigma~]

ok, so overall, Mark clearly dominated....the first part excluded.

Well done Mark....left him in the dust. In the end I almost thought he might switch sides.

TAM:)
Would we be under any obligation to accept him?

[HyJinX]

Would we be under any obligation to accept him?

We are a bit understaffed in the NWO Custodial Arts Department.

[Unfit4Command]

Just finished watching the last two debates. Ron and Mark both did a great job, Fetzer jumped around so many times I had trouble following the debate a few times.

Good job both of you :)

[Unsecured Coins]

Fetzer - You're a conspiracy theorist!!

Gravy - That's great.

I lol'd

[Pardalis]

Yes, great shows indeed, but I agree with gumboot in the first Debate thread, the next show should be about one topic, and one topic only. Force the twoofer to face the answers to his/her questions.

[WildCat]

Holy crap, Fetzer even repeats the "Mike the EMT" claim that there was a countdown for the destruction of WTC 7.

[T.A.M.]

well what do you expect, he is still clinging on to the "No hijackers on the passenger manifests" line...

Him and Griffin....they are like the Dinosaurs of the twoof movement.

TAM

[CHF]

Ron, I loved it when you nailed Fetzer on the FDNY/WTC7.

[Daald]

Damn, Fetzer is annoying. I think he talks because he likes the sound of his voice.

[CHF]

And Mark caps off the rout by showing what a piss poor researcher Fetzer is.

"Google Ladder 3!"

Indeed.

[Undesired Walrus]

Is Fetzer going to turn into a new Bart Sibrel now? Getting fireman under oath?

[CHF]

Get on the phone and give them a ring and ask them what happened to their firetruck.

That's a good idea, huh?

Awsome!

:bigclap

[Par]

Am I mistaken or at around 26:50 did Fetzer say "In fact, virtually nothing the government has told us is false"? If so, heh.

[R.Mackey]

Wow again!

Fetzie: That's not in my special area of expertise!
"The Scourge:" Jim, you've referred to yourself as a generalist...

(paraphrase)

I'd have to agree that Fetzer offers no actual intellectual content, but this was a heck of a lively debate, and offers a beautiful glimpse into the maelstrom that is a conspiracist's mind. Well done, Ron and Mark!

[pgwenthold]

Yes, great shows indeed, but I agree with gumboot in the first Debate thread, the next show should be about one topic, and one topic only. Force the twoofer to face the answers to his/her questions.



I've said this many times before. THe only way that anyone should ever agree to a debate is to narrow the topic significantly. "Was 9/11 an inside job?" is waaaaayyyyy too broad.

A good moderator will know the arguments that will come up (as should the debaters). If not, let each side submit a position paper summarizing their arguments. Then, pick out the most important points that each side will make and focus on them.

TOPIC 1: Did planes hit WTC1 and WTC2?

Anyone who brings up WTC7, the Pentagon, Shanksville, or even how the towers fell is immediately moderated back to the topic.

Discuss it until there is a resolution, or at least all that can be said has been said. Then move on to topic 2, which might be something like "How much steel was left after the buildings fell?"

Again, anyone who brings up WTC7, the Pentagon, Shanksville, how the towers fell, or whether or not planes hit the towers is immediately moderated back to the topic.

The key is to make the debaters focus on a specific topic and not allow room to jump all over the place.

[~enigma~]

I've said this many times before. THe only way that anyone should ever agree to a debate is to narrow the topic significantly. "Was 9/11 an inside job?" is waaaaayyyyy too broad.

A good moderator will know the arguments that will come up (as should the debaters). If not, let each side submit a position paper summarizing their arguments. Then, pick out the most important points that each side will make and focus on them.

TOPIC 1: Did planes hit WTC1 and WTC2?

Anyone who brings up WTC7, the Pentagon, Shanksville, or even how the towers fell is immediately moderated back to the topic.

Discuss it until there is a resolution, or at least all that can be said has been said. Then move on to topic 2, which might be something like "How much steel was left after the buildings fell?"

Again, anyone who brings up WTC7, the Pentagon, Shanksville, how the towers fell, or whether or not planes hit the towers is immediately moderated back to the topic.

The key is to make the debaters focus on a specific topic and not allow room to jump all over the place.
That would be a very short debate and one in which there were no truthers taking part. They (the woo like uncle Fester) can't allow themselves to be cornered and forced to look at their arguments.

[HyJinX]

I am, as will always be, forever amazed at the amount of information that Mark and Ron are able to retain and recite on a moments notice to negate the lies told by people like ol' uncle fetzer (doesn't deserve caps). I could watch 10 more episodes between the 3 of you...the entertainment value (and the critical thinking value of some of you) is priceless.

Thank you Mark. Thank you Ron. Your abilities to rise above the ridiculous in order to convey the obvious is truly inspiring.

My hat is off to you both.

[~enigma~]

I am, as will always be, forever amazed at the amount of information that Mark and Ron are able to retain and recite on a moments notice to negate the lies told by people like ol' uncle fetzer (doesn't deserve caps). I could watch 10 more episodes between the 3 of you...the entertainment value (and the critical thinking value of some of you) is priceless.

Thank you Mark. Thank you Ron. Your abilities to rise above the ridiculous in order to convey the obvious is truly inspiring.

My hat is off to you both.I think Mark and Ron were what would be called an extreme amount of overkill. No disrespect to Mark or Ron but I think a trained monkey would have been able to talk more science than uncle Fester.

[The Doc]

Ah excellent :) I'll watch ASAP.

By the sounds of it, I'm in for some fun.

[CHF]

I think Mark and Ron were what would be called an extreme amount of overkill. No disrespect to Mark or Ron but I think a trained monkey would have been able to talk more science than uncle Fester.

The monkey probably also wouldn't have touched Mark as much.

Fetzer's arm on my shoulder would have creeped me right out! And yet only once did Mark say "you can let go now."

I admire his patience.

[ryanebelhar]

Wow. I tend to stay out of verbal debates because there is no way I couldn't just start screaming and cursing. Kudos for not doing that.

[pgwenthold]

That would be a very short debate and one in which there were no truthers taking part. They (the woo like uncle Fester) can't allow themselves to be cornered and forced to look at their arguments.


Exactly.

That's why you do it.

Run a debate by rational rules, NOT by allowing CTists to scatter data randomly and move goalposts.

Randi always says, don't let the mice run the experiment. That's what you are doing if you let the debate format get out of hand. Better to not show up then to let it go haphazardly. When they complain, you just tell the truth. You are willing to dabate specific topics, anytime, anywhere.

[T.A.M.]

Trying to get Fetzer to stick to one topic is like trying to get someone with ADHD to "focus"...

Actually, i wonder if Fetzer might not have ADHD. He definitely exhibits the hyperactivity, and without a doubt has trouble focusing on a single topic or issue. If I didnt suspect it was part of his debating "tactics" I'd say there is a good case to be made.

TAM;)

[Totovader]

THE FIREPROOFING WAS ASBESTOS?

Holy crap. I mean, there's a ton of nonsense claims- but Fetzer really made a stupid claim, here.

[~enigma~]

The monkey probably also wouldn't have touched Mark as much.

Fetzer's arm on my shoulder would have creeped me right out! And yet only once did Mark say "you can let go now."

I admire his patience.
That line cracked me up...I wonder if it was an intimidation ploy or just a quirk of a whacky old guy. All I can say is uncle Fester was an extremely disrespectful buffon when he attempted to poo-poo Mark out of the conversation as if he was saying "let the men talk." That is one of the main reasons why I will continue to refer to uncle Fester as a piece of woo.

[Totovader]

By the way- there are pictures of ladder 3 under the rubble, clearly visible.

There's also another quote about ladder 3 being under the north walkbridge- and the photos show that it collaped.

[Totovader]

By the way- there are pictures of ladder 3 under the rubble, clearly visible.

There's also another quote about ladder 3 being under the north walkbridge- and the photos show that it collaped.

Found it:


Q:When you saw the apparatus, any apparatus numbers you can remember and where they were parked?

A. Yeah, I remember Rescue 1, obviously, right under the north walkway, the high-rise unit 3 from Engine 3, the high-rise unit. I remember rifling through that truck looking for tools and cylinders; a number of different engine
companies, thinking the chauffeur's mask would be available.
But I cannot say exactly which engine companies. I believe Ladder 3 was right there.

Source (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110366.PDF)

[parky76]

Fetzer clearly changes topics when he feels cornered. Poor guy.

[Hyperviolet]

Ok i think Fetzer definetely controlled the first debate, using his rapid fire scatter gun approach. The 2nd debate was in Marks favour and this 3rd one... jeez, Mark really killed him.

[Gravy]

Holy crap, Fetzer even repeats the "Mike the EMT" claim that there was a countdown for the destruction of WTC 7.

There was an actual volunteer EMT who thought they brought the building down (perhaps confused by people saying "that building's coming down), but Fetzer wouldn't know that.

Indira Singh, a volunteer EMT: "What happened with that particular triage site is that pretty soon after noon, after midday on 9/11, we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. ... I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable, because of the collateral damage. ... By noon or one o'clock they told us we had to move from that triage site up to Pace University, a little further away, because Building 7 was gonna come down or being brought down. ... There was another panic around four o'clock because they were bringing the building down and people seemed to know this ahead of time, so people were panicking again and running." (KPFA, 4/27/2005)

[Brainster]

Just hit the part about "bombs and explosions" and I am totally blown away. That was out of the park, Mr Roberts!

[JAStewart]

Fetzer - You're a conspiracy theorist!!

Gravy - That's great.

I lol'd

I lol'd too. :D

[TOHMS]

The fact that Judy Wood was even mentioned in a debate already showed me that this was just stupid. Fetzer is an emberassment to an already emberassing "movement".

[The Doc]

Well I just finished watching all three debates!

:bigclap

Very nice work both Ron and Mark. What a thoroughly enjoyable debate. I think you guys started off rather slow, but you really gave it to Fetzer in those last two debates. The great thing about this was the fact that Fetzer was making claims that a majority of members in the truth movement are currently making regarding the Pentagon and WTC7, as well as his crazy beam theories. A lot of conspiracists are going to have to deal with this.

It was good to see both Mark and Ron nail Fetzer for his "white elephant" and asbestos claims. I thought it might have gone unanswered due to time restrictions, but you guys managed to nail him for it.

I do have to say though, watching Fetzer notice he was proven wrong and watching him trying to change the subject was frustrating to me, but watching Mark throw him right back in line and listening to the vague silence from Fetzer in response was amazing.

I hope some fence sitters get to see this. In a debate, it is clear that these conspiracists have far less of the ability to get around admitting they are wrong. Fetzer was cornered, and the Hard Fire setup didn't allow him out of it without everyone seeing what a fool he is.

Two thumbs up guys! Very nice work.

Doc.

[FactCheck]

Fertilizer looked visibly shaken by the end of the second round. He looked like he needed Prozac by the end of the third.

Am I the only one who noted fertilizer was trying to intimidate Gravy? Heh!

Gravy, can you sleep at night now? Heh!

He acted like a child at one point, threatening to make it a long night. Gravy took the high road.

I would just like to see pomeroo force one topic only at a time. Also, you might want to highlight when he changed the topic. It was almost always when Mark had him on the ropes. As soon as he dodges the the issue, point it out.

I would like to give Gravy some photos of GZ which prove the steel was not pulverized but he wont respond to my PM's anyway. ;)

[Mancman]

Fetzer clearly changes topics when he feels cornered. Poor guy.

Classic example:

Fetzer: "Larry Silverstein had two enormous white elephants on his hands he wanted to get rid of"

Gravy: "The WTC were not white elephants, they were making money, they were 98% occupied which is considered full occupancy, the mall in the concourse was one of the most profitable in the world"

Fezter: "There were 47 core columns"

[ref]

That was a clean three-peat. The constant interruptions by Fetzer bothered a little.

Nice work guys :clap: I want more of these.


ETA: I enjoyed the last part most. Mark showing Jim the WTC stuff. The fire truck googled in two minutes, and the burnt cars :D

[JamesB]

Classic example:

Fetzer: "Larry Silverstein had two enormous white elephants on his hands he wanted to get rid of"

Gravy: "The WTC were not white elephants, they were making money, they were 98% occupied which is considered full occupancy, the mall in the concourse was one of the most profitable in the world"

Fezter: "There were 47 core columns"

Has anyone counted how many times he did that? You could get wiplash from trying to follow his train of thought.

[Pardalis]

Has anyone counted how many times he did that? You could get wiplash from trying to follow his train of thought.

That's exactly why the next debate should focus on on single very specific topic. Do not let these morons get away with it. Let them face the answers they keep denying, and avoiding.

Fetzer is arguing from personal incredulity, that's it, that's the whole thrust of his argumentation: incredulity. This clearly has to be confronted, otherwise they are just going to move the goalposts on us and make us waste our time and energy.

[Totovader]

My head still hurts from the number of times he just seemed to be plain unaware of the eyewitness accounts. It was quite obvious that in his mind he simply had to resolve them as made up or planted.

But, seriously, he's never even heard them before? He didn't have a prepared response to these observations? As Mark said: you're a scholar...

[grmcdorman]

Gravy, pomeroo, just wanted to add my appreciation as well. Fetzer is ... interesting.

My sons were in and out of the room as I was watching the three debates; Brendan, later, said that Fetzer didn't know how to debate. I think, however, that he may - but since he doesn't have any (defensible) facts, he resorts to other the other tactics we are all familiar with.

As is said over on Groklaw, for a lawyer: when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when the law is on your side, pound the law; and when neither are on your side, pound the table.

Good job guys. :clap:

[uk_dave]

My favourite line from gravy..... "That's great....." @17:36

BTW Ron, is that a Goth thing you've got going on there? :D

[FactCheck]

Has anyone counted how many times he did that? You could get wiplash from trying to follow his train of thought.HAHAHA!

The next time he repeats that, he is a LIAR! He now has NO excuse to call the buildings "white elephants". He should have checked Mark's source and retracted the statement. How much does anyone want to bet he continues to lie.

This will be the end of people saying "They're honestly confused." No they aren't. They're LYING!

[FactCheck]

I suggest a show where you compare the evidence with his statements. He said the steel was pulverized/dustafied, I can show they weren't.

[Pardalis]

I'm sorry to always go back to this, it was a really cool show, but one point that I disliked in the third show was when Fetzer said at around 13:10 (I'm paraphrasing):

"I've clearly demonstrated that there were no 757 hitting the Pentagon."

Which is clearly false, but that's how twoofers get away with it, all the time. You give them the answers to their questions, they deny it and move on to another misinformation. It's really frustrating. We absolutely got to make them acknowledge the data we provide them, and we mustn't change the subject until they do. That's how we break disinformation.

[JamesB]

HAHAHA!

The next time he repeats that, he is a LIAR! He now has NO excuse to call the buildings "white elephants". He should have checked Mark's source and retracted the statement. How much does anyone want to bet he continues to lie.

This will be the end of people saying "They're honestly confused." No they aren't. They're LYING!

He will stop saying that as soon as he stops saying a 767 tanker hit the WTC.

I was actually thinking of writing an "open letter" to Fetzer on that account, like I did with Jones, just so I could post his humorous and rabid reaction.

[westprog]

Has anyone counted how many times he did that? You could get wiplash from trying to follow his train of thought.

I'd like to see a transcript of the debate where every change of subject is given a new heading.

Something like:

The Silverstein Insurance Issue

Larry Silverstein had two enormous white elephants on his hands he wanted to get rid of

The WTC were not white elephants, they were making money, they were 98% occupied which is considered full occupancy, the mall in the concourse was one of the most profitable in the world

The Core Columns


There were 47 core columns


That would put things in perspective. When watching, the timing is such that it almost looks like Fetzer is responding to the issues. Give headings to each topic, and he hands over the last word every time.

[FactCheck]

Unfortunately they could do the same thing. Fetzer pointed to the lawn and said the engines should have plowed into the grass. Then Gravy was about to point out the angle when fetzer pointed out the lightpoles (As I recall) The subject was changed and the issue wasn't debated. The fact is there was damage to a truck and to a concrete lip just above the ground proving the engines hit objects close to the ground before impacting the building. They should have shown this video...

YVDdjLQkUV8

Also, how does a bomb explode on the outside of the building, put itself back together and make the loony tune hole in C ring?

[JamesB]

Unfortunately they could do the same thing. Fetzer pointed to the lawn and said the engines should have plowed into the grass. Then Gravy was about to point out the angle when fetzer pointed out the lightpoles (As I recall) The subject was changed and the issue wasn't debated. The fact is there was damage to a truck and to a concrete lip just above the ground proving the engines hit objects close to the ground before impacting the building. They should have shown this video...

YVDdjLQkUV8

Also, how does a bomb explode on the outside of the building, put itself back together and make the loony tune hole in C ring?


Oh, well that is the AGM-68P Triple Warhead Sideways Pentrator A-3 Skywarrior Cruise Missile. They used it in Baghdad to take out a particularly well defended shopping mall. They had to use an IFF decoder to get it through the air defenses.

[JamesB]

Actually, it just occured to me. Doesn't Fetzer claim that a plane could not have crashed into the Pentagon, because it would be aeronautically impossible for even a Cessna to fly that low to the ground.

But then just a few minues later he states something along the line of "Well I know AA77 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but I believe it was a smaller plane. It fired a missile first and then crashed in."

So which is it, is it impossible, or is that what he is claiming happened?

[FactCheck]

It was more like the ground based ACME missile.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/images/coyote_acme.png

[Phil]

I'm not as avid a follower of the discussions that take place in this section of the forum as many of you, but I watched all three debates, and was highly entertained and indeed I learned a thing or two. I think both pom and Gravy are valuable members here, and excellent critical thinkers.

I will echo, however, what many have said in this thread already. If the show is going to be referred to as a debate, set it up like a debate, perhaps with timed segments and rebuttals. If the shows are meant to be more of a roundtable discussion, the viewer misses out on a great deal when the panelists talk over each other. The host/moderator must take full control.

Now, it seemed to me that Fetzer was indeed the one most guilty of blathering over other speakers and jumping from one topic to another, and Ron you did a better job at reining him in than I ever could. But I think it would improve the quality of the program and shine an even brighter light on the ridiculous arguments and assessments of the conspiracy theorists to tackle smaller chunks of the issues in full and not allowing the scatter gun tactics.

In all though, good job. Keep up the good work.

[The Demon's Head]

After watching all three debates, I wonder if much was really accomplished. Both pomeroo and Gravy did very well, but Fetzer just kept going on and on or try and avoid a question and didn't want to discuss specifics.

Could it have been better to discuss each topic one at a time so that each could present their evidence in the debate or pose a question about a topic then require it to be directly answered.

[pomeroo]

My favourite line from gravy..... "That's great....." @17:36


BTW Ron, is that a Goth thing you've got going on there? :D



Moi?

[Civilized Worm]

Fetzer is not a well man. Gravy and Pomeroo have my respect for standing firm against such a raging torrent of woo, it must have been really frustrating.


The highlight for me was Fetzer trying to establish Griffin's credibility on the amount of books he has written.

[Ginarley]

I'm very much a lurker in this part of the forum, with a passing interest in the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. I very much fall into the "official story is probably true although they may be trying to cover up mistakes" camp.

One thing that dissapointed me about these debates was that it will have changed absolutely no-ones minds about anything. To claim Fetzer was "destroyed" is a complete misrepresentation. For those who know all the details intimately, they hear an argument that has been well debunked previously and assume it is debunked by default in the debate. But to someone who doesn't know this detail, Fetzer got across a LOT of material very little of which was actually "destroyed". While it is mostly complete junk what he is saying, Fetzer's inability to focus on a single thought for more than 2 seconds and annoying tendency to claim contrary evidence was "faked" never let Mark make any solid points that would have stuck for the lay watcher. This isn't his fault, I have no idea how someone is supposed to actually have a meaningful conversation with Fetzer!

[~enigma~]

I'm very much a lurker in this part of the forum, with a passing interest in the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. I very much fall into the "official story is probably true although they may be trying to cover up mistakes" camp.

One thing that dissapointed me about these debates was that it will have changed absolutely no-ones minds about anything. To claim Fetzer was "destroyed" is a complete misrepresentation. For those who know all the details intimately, they hear an argument that has been well debunked previously and assume it is debunked by default in the debate. But to someone who doesn't know this detail, Fetzer got across a LOT of material very little of which was actually "destroyed". While it is mostly complete junk what he is saying, Fetzer's inability to focus on a single thought for more than 2 seconds and annoying tendency to claim contrary evidence was "faked" never let Mark make any solid points that would have stuck for the lay watcher. This isn't his fault, I have no idea how someone is supposed to actually have a meaningful conversation with Fetzer!
i agree in a sense but what did happen (IMO) is that people clearly saw that uncle Fester let his mind wander all over creation without choosing a concrete position except...the evidence was planted and fabricated. I can also see how some people will use uncle Fester as an example of the entire truth movement. Personally, I believe more along the lines of Michal Shermer and I will say sometimes normal, smart people can believe weird things but uncle Fester should be ostracized from the truth movement (as well as Judy Wood) otherwise people see them as the movement and that is hopefully not truly the case.

[The Demon's Head]

Another thing that I'm baffled at is when twoofers continute to cite claims that have been refuted. Why do they continue to believe in their claim when the claim has been thoroughly examined and refuted? Why?

[Mercutio]

Another thing that I'm baffled at is when twoofers continute to cite claims that have been refuted. Why do they continue to believe in their claim when the claim has been thoroughly examined and refuted? Why?

Leon Festinger made a career out of that question. "When Prophecy Fails" (his book) gives his explanation of how our refutation of his claims can actually increase his belief in them. Next time I teach Social Psych, I have a new "perfect example" to use...

[PhantomWolf]

I'm going to read the comments on this part after I finish watching it, but I really needed to comment on the bit I just saw. Gravy giving Fetzer the photos of the piles of rubble. The poor guy looked totally lost like his whole world had just fallen out from under his feet and managed a "well we'll have to add that to our data," lol. Priceless. The debate was worth it for that single moment, lol.

[The Great Hairy One]

Just watched the third one, between browsing work doco.

Again, I don't think Fetzer was completely blown away. As Ginarley and others have previously said, Fetzer gets out so many arguments that some of them slip past Gravy and Pomeroo unopposed, and it looks like he achieves successful hits with these. Now, those who know the actual background of some of these arguments understand that they are incorrect or factually wrong, however due to the fact that Gravy and Pom don't pounce on them, it looks like Fetzer scores.

There were some brilliant pieces from Gravy however, that really convinced me he was on top of his game - much better than Parts 1 & 2:

1) where Gravy pulled out the photo of debris from WTC 1 inside WTC 6,
2) where Gravy pointedly told Fetzer to do a google search for "burnt cars" or "ladder 7"
3) where Gravy pulled out the photos from Judy's site showing how much rubble there actually was and Fetzer just completely paused and said "well, we'll add that to our data".
4) the number of times Gravy clearly pointed out that Fetzer had not done any actual research (i.e./ spoken with eye witnesses) and all Fetzer could answer was that they looked at photos and videos - second hand sources.

Point 3 was definitely a major kicker, it was very obvious it stopped Fetzer dead in his tracks.

I'd say that this third part was a definite improvement over Part 1, and a bit of a step up over Part 2. Pomeroo, I still think you needed to take a step back a little, especially since Gravy was so prepared and so ready to quash Fetzer like a bug. If Gravy had not been as prepared, then yes, I can see that you stepping in would have been advantageous, but Gravy pretty much had the upper hand here, and could have gotten more across in the time permitted if you had not engaged Fetzer directly.

I'd score it:
Gravy 90 Fetzer 10
for this installment.

Oh, and it makes me want to wander through the Hardfire archives. :) Obviously, the show is not available here in Australia.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Totovader]

Just FYI- I've started typing out the transcripts for each of the three debates. I think it will be necessary just to pick apart everything that Fetzer really avoided, and to hold him accountable for some of the things he said.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through the 1st one- when I'm done with that I'll post it.

[The Great Hairy One]

Just FYI- I've started typing out the transcripts for each of the three debates. I think it will be necessary just to pick apart everything that Fetzer really avoided, and to hold him accountable for some of the things he said.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through the 1st one- when I'm done with that I'll post it.


You getting whiplash of the fingers for the sheer amount of topic changes he goes through every minute?

Cheers,
TGHO

[Totovader]

You getting whiplash of the fingers for the sheer amount of topic changes he goes through every minute?

Cheers,
TGHO

Mercy, yes- unfortunately, I have to keep rewinding when Fetzer speaks. I've had to walk away a few times just because his pompous arrogance and just flat out ignorance repeated over and over is enough to drive me insane. On the other hand, I'm catching things I didn't the first couple times.

But- I really think it's needed, so I'm trucking away at it.

[Minadin]

How do you transcribe Fetzer trying to talk over Gravy?

[The Great Hairy One]

But- I really think it's needed, so I'm trucking away at it.


That's most excellent, let us know when it's done please. :)

Cheers,
TGHO

[Gravy]

Just FYI- I've started typing out the transcripts for each of the three debates. I think it will be necessary just to pick apart everything that Fetzer really avoided, and to hold him accountable for some of the things he said.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through the 1st one- when I'm done with that I'll post it.Who knew we had such a madman in our midst? :D

Wow. Thanks for doing this. I was going to make a list of Fetzer's false claims and unanswered questions, but I never intended to make a whole transcript. Honestly, though, I don't know if I'd get to doing that work. Spending 90 minutes with the goalpost tornado was plenty. I still haven't watched parts 2 and 3. So thanks.

To the folks who wish that Fetzer had been pinned down to discuss specifics: it's a nice idea, but it's not going to happen with him, no matter what debate guidelines are agreed upon. He's eager for attention, but he simply cannot defend his claims, nor will he try to. What's left? Just keep talking. Ron and I knew that's what we were getting. I had no illusions about keeping him on topic, which is why I stated in the first show that the important thing was to see what happens when people abandon critical thinking. They say really stupid things.

[ref]

I had no illusions about keeping him on topic, which is why I stated in the first show that the important thing was to see what happens when people abandon critical thinking. They say really stupid things.

Maybe the lowest low of critical thinking was displayed on his part when The Pentagon was discussed. He sounded exactly like Lyte Trip! He ignored all the witnesses, all the DNA, the debris, lightpoles. But he had ONE witness who didn't even see the crash, and he had Rob Balsamo's Pandoras Box to prove his point :D and some strange missile theory with two planes.

He looked very disturbed. When you said the FDR they base these analysis on was found at the Pentagon, and if the data was faked, why would they fake it to show the plane NOT hit the Pentagon, he was just annoyed.

:busted

[The Great Hairy One]

To the folks who wish that Fetzer had been pinned down to discuss specifics: it's a nice idea, but it's not going to happen with him, no matter what debate guidelines are agreed upon. He's eager for attention, but he simply cannot defend his claims, nor will he try to. What's left? Just keep talking. Ron and I knew that's what we were getting. I had no illusions about keeping him on topic, which is why I stated in the first show that the important thing was to see what happens when people abandon critical thinking. They say really stupid things.


Oh aye, I know. I've personally debated many creationists, I recognise the tactics Fetzer was employing. FWIW, you can never out-right win a debate with these guys, they always get points past you simply due to their debating methodology.

Cheers,
TGHO

[westprog]

Actually, it just occured to me. Doesn't Fetzer claim that a plane could not have crashed into the Pentagon, because it would be aeronautically impossible for even a Cessna to fly that low to the ground.


How do they land those things?

I think that he's claiming that it couldn't have flown in at the reported speed. The simplest explanation, if this were true (which it of course isn't) is that it flew in slower.

[~enigma~]

Just FYI- I've started typing out the transcripts for each of the three debates. I think it will be necessary just to pick apart everything that Fetzer really avoided, and to hold him accountable for some of the things he said.

I'm about 3/4 of the way through the 1st one- when I'm done with that I'll post it.
Whoa - good luck with that but isn't it sort of like transcribing the ramblings of a madman...I would sure be interested to see this in print but would Gravy have more than 5% of the first show?

[pgwenthold]

Oh aye, I know. I've personally debated many creationists, I recognise the tactics Fetzer was employing. FWIW, you can never out-right win a debate with these guys, they always get points past you simply due to their debating methodology.

Cheers,
TGHO


That's why I said, DON'T PLAY THE GAME BY THEIR RULES

Better to not debate at all then to get roped into a situation where they are allowed to banter in any direction they want.

Agree to debate specific topics. If they don't agree, and or complain, just let it be known that you will come anytime, anywhere to debate specific topics.

If none of these loons is able to debate the question "Did planes hit the towers?" as Gravy suggests, then it says more than what needs to be known.

[JamesB]

How do they land those things?

I think that he's claiming that it couldn't have flown in at the reported speed. The simplest explanation, if this were true (which it of course isn't) is that it flew in slower.

Yeah, because nobody would notice a slow moving fighter jet crashing into the Pentagon in broad daylight. :D

[tsig]

How do they land those things?

I think that he's claiming that it couldn't have flown in at the reported speed. The simplest explanation, if this were true (which it of course isn't) is that it flew in slower.

He has never heard of a power-on landing.

[The Great Hairy One]

That's why I said, DON'T PLAY THE GAME BY THEIR RULES

Better to not debate at all then to get roped into a situation where they are allowed to banter in any direction they want.

Agree to debate specific topics. If they don't agree, and or complain, just let it be known that you will come anytime, anywhere to debate specific topics.

If none of these loons is able to debate the question "Did planes hit the towers?" as Gravy suggests, then it says more than what needs to be known.


It doesn't work.

No matter how many promises you extract from these people, they will always wander off on a tangent. The problem is that to their minds, everything is inter-related. You can't talk about WTC7 without talking about the Pentagon, without talking about space lasers, etc., etc.

Cheers,
TGHO

[pomeroo]

I can't speak for Mark, and I'm not making excuses for my difficulties in damming Fetzer's torrents of rhetoric. Still, when the guy started raving about the hanging of Saddam's "double," I was stopped in my tracks. I mean, what is there to say? If you're dealing with someone who imagines that another human--an absolutely IDENTICAL double for Saddam Hussein-- is willing to go to the gallows without EVER mentioning that he is not the person the whole world thinks he is, well, what is the appropriate procedure? I confess that I felt great pity for Fetzer, who was personally quite affable. That sort of thing tends to dull my killer instinct.

[jackchit]

I saw the first one and half of the second one today before a MORI poll guy interupted me.
I had a problem with the guy presenting as he clearly was fox like in his fair and balanced approach, rather anal at the begining of the 2nd episode describing Mark as "debunker extraordinaire" at one point I thought they were about to make out.
In the first episode he proceeded to make the comments that its possible to make a claim through scientific analysis that bumble bees can't fly so therefore you can make any old rubbish seem legit despite what you already know because obviously bees can fly, then he pushes this aside when the reports confirm the version of events that support the theory he is partisan to.
I will give Mark his due in the part of the second installment that I saw he did win on points but this was more due to the o'reilly like shouting....nay speaking over his opponent rather than letting his opponent make his points.
I shall watch the second and third episodes when i can fit them in.
Most of the points scored against fetzer were mostly pedantic language issues rather than actual proveable evidence (I have noticed this a lot with so called debunkers).
Don't get me wrong I'm no fetzer fan but the deck was clearly loaded, the captions at the bottom of the screen should have read "Jim Fetzer former professer" " Mark Roberts Tour Guide" so that the actual qualifications of said parties were not misleading to an audience without pre-conceived ideas.
Before you all gang up on me please go easy as its just turned 12 so now its my birthday.

[pomeroo]

I saw the first one and half of the second one today before a MORI poll guy interupted me.
I had a problem with the guy presenting as he clearly was fox like in his fair and balanced approach, rather anal at the begining of the 2nd episode describing Mark as "debunker extraordinaire" at one point I thought they were about to make out.



Wow, you are as far "out there" as you've been described. I guess the part where I state that I am definitely not neutral suggested "fair and balanced." My purpose in announcing my slant is to remain fair while acknowledging the imbalance. And, no, you don't get it.

At what point did you imagine that Mark and I were going to "make out." Did I appear jealous when Fetzer was groping Mark?



In the first episode he proceeded to make the comments that its possible to make a claim through scientific analysis that bumble bees can't fly so therefore you can make any old rubbish seem legit despite what you already know because obviously bees can fly, then he pushes this aside when the reports confirm the version of events that support the theory he is partisan to.

It would be taking advantage of your disabilities to note that you missed the point.



I will give Mark his due in the part of the second installment that I saw he did win on points but this was more due to the o'reilly like shouting....nay speaking over his opponent rather than letting his opponent make his points.

Yeah, you caught him there. Mark has been reproached for monopolzing the discussion and speaking over Fetzer. You are not nearly as delusional as you are reputed to be.



I shall watch the second and third episodes when i can fit them in.
Most of the points scored against fetzer were mostly pedantic language issues rather than actual proveable evidence (I have noticed this a lot with so called debunkers).

Well, if we had any evidence at all, we would have mentioned it.



Don't get me wrong I'm no fetzer fan but the deck was clearly loaded, the captions at the bottom of the screen should have read "Jim Fetzer former professer" " Mark Roberts Tour Guide" so that the actual qualifications of said parties were not misleading to an audience without pre-conceived ideas.
Before you all gang up on me please go easy as its just turned 12 so now its my birthday.
Happy Birthday.


I have edited and removed an uncivil remark based on the stricter interpretation of the membership agreement currently active in this sub-forum. Do not personalize the discussion with insults or personal attacks, or by being uncivil.

[The Great Hairy One]

I can't speak for Mark, and I'm not making excuses for my difficulties in damming Fetzer's torrents of rhetoric. Still, when the guy started raving about the hanging of Saddam's "double," I was stopped in my tracks. I mean, what is there to say? If you're dealing with someone who imagines that another human--an absolutely IDENTICAL double for Saddam Hussein-- is willing to go to the gallows without EVER mentioning that he is not the person the whole world thinks he is, well, what is the appropriate procedure? I confess that I felt great pity for Fetzer, who was personally quite affable. That sort of thing tends to dull my killer instinct.


I loved Fetzer's claim that the bomber pilot told his mum about the sooper sekrit meeting... Classic woo. I see your point, Pomeroo, and understand where you are coming from.

It was a good series, very educational. I'm going to check out Hardfire's archives.

Cheers,
TGHO

[jackchit]

Happy Birthday.

Thank you for your reply. I must congratulate you on your spin skills

[Disbelief]

So, why did you have to pay Fetzer to come? He seemed to me that he was more intent on pushing his and his fellow "scholars" books than engaging in real debate. Every few minutes, he would take a break and start talking about a book or a website.

Jack, maybe you should have debated Mark when you were just recently in NY.

[jackchit]

As the shows host you can tell the audience your opinions but must however remain impartial otherwise the show is clearly not balanced.
I notice you do not address the point of the credentials of the protaganists being clearly a lie.
Why did you not point out that Mark has no qualifications in any area other than showing people where the nearest toilet is?

[jackchit]

So, why did you have to pay Fetzer to come? He seemed to me that he was more intent on pushing his and his fellow "scholars" books than engaging in real debate. Every few minutes, he would take a break and start talking about a book or a website.

Jack, maybe you should have debated Mark when you were just recently in NY.

On topic please, this is a thread about the hardfire "show" not what someone pretending to be me said.
They say immitation is a compliment, well i thank the person who feels he needs to discredit me using underhand tactics rather than facts.

[Disbelief]

On topic please, this is a thread about the hardfire "show" not what someone pretending to be me said.
They say immitation is a compliment, well i thank the person who feels he needs to discredit me using underhand tactics rather than facts.

Actually, the majority of my post was on topic. As for the other, I have not seen Oliver's information to know if you are telling the truth about that or not.

[~enigma~]

On topic please, this is a thread about the hardfire "show" not what someone pretending to be me said.
They say immitation is a compliment, well i thank the person who feels he needs to discredit me using underhand tactics rather than facts.
Jason...you were never IP banned so just be a man and admit you said those things. No reason to lie about it.

[A W Smith]

As the shows host you can tell the audience your opinions but must however remain impartial otherwise the show is clearly not balanced.
I notice you do not address the point of the credentials of the protaganists being clearly a lie.
Why did you not point out that Mark has no qualifications in any area other than showing people where the nearest toilet is?


Debate the facts not the person. Do you have a disagreement with any evidence Mark Roberts presented? if you do why not state them? thats what rational adults do. fair enough?

[jackchit]

So could you tell me why when there was a caption on the screen refering to Mark roberts it didn't say "tour guide".
this is clearly dis-information

[jackchit]

Debate the facts not the person. Do you have a disagreement with any evidence Mark Roberts presented? if you do why not state them? thats what rational adults do. fair enough?

OK fact: mark roberts is not an expert in any field.
Fact: mark roberts is a tour guide

[A W Smith]

So could you tell me why when there was a caption on the screen refering to Mark roberts it didn't say "tour guide".
this is clearly dis-information


what i want to know is. why was there no disclaimer on the video credits of loose change stating that Dylan Avery was employed at a Friendlys Restaurant busing tables.

[jackchit]

Jason...you were never IP banned so just be a man and admit you said those things. No reason to lie about it.
exactly no reason to lie, i was ip banned.
Do you want to debate or try to discredit those with dissenting voices, my money is on the latter.

[~enigma~]

what i want to know is. why was there no disclaimer on the video credits of loose change stating that Dylan Avery was employed at a Friendlys Restaurant busing tables.
Maybe Jason would be happier if the caption for uncle Fester read 9/11 woo?

[A W Smith]

OK fact: mark roberts is not an expert in any field.
Fact: mark roberts is a tour guide

So therefore. You use this profound fact as evidence that 911 was an inside job?

[jackchit]

what i want to know is. why was there no disclaimer on the video credits of loose change stating that Dylan Avery was employed at a Friendlys Restaurant busing tables.

No idea. do you think i'm an avery fan?

[~enigma~]

exactly no reason to lie, i was ip banned.
Do you want to debate or try to discredit those with dissenting voices, my money is on the latter.
So IVXX is a filty liar in your opinion since this info came from him.

ETA - just asking and I am asking politely - see I will say please answer :)

[jackchit]

So therefore. You use this profound fact as evidence that 911 was an inside job?


Never said that... stop spinning

[jackchit]

So IVXX is a filty liar in your opinion since this info came from him.
I have no idea what a "filty" liar is.....
oh poo now i'm making pedantic language references.
I see i will fit in here.

[A W Smith]

No idea. do you think i'm an avery fan?
so you agree that it was disinfo for Dylan to not reveal he was only a restaurant employee making just a bit over minimum wage? and not qualified to present his version of 911?

[~enigma~]

I have no idea what a "filty" liar is.....
oh poo now i'm making pedantic language references.
I see i will fit in here.
A mispelling of filthy. Just answer the question Jason...you can even wear a hockey mask if you want :)

[Slayhamlet]

OK fact: mark roberts is not an expert in any field.
Fact: mark roberts is a tour guide

I don't get what you're harping on about. Neither Mark nor Mr. Fetzer have professional qualifications in any of the fields that were touched upon concerning 9/11, so why does it matter?

ETA: clarified grammar

[jackchit]

so you agree that it was disinfo for Dylan to not reveal he was only a restaurant employee making just a bit over minimum wage? and not qualified to present his version of 911?

certainly will.

[jackchit]

so you agree that it was disinfo for Dylan to not reveal he was only a restaurant employee making just a bit over minimum wage? and not qualified to present his version of 911?

Now your turn.....

[jackchit]

A mispelling of filthy. Just answer the question Jason...you can even wear a hockey mask if you want :)

I don't know about filthy but if he has all the knowledge and can see all the actions of the mods at LCF and says that I was not IP banned then yes he is a liar.
look at that i answered a question and in doing so taught you a lesson.
MAN i'm on fire tonight.

[~enigma~]

I don't know about filthy but if he has all the knowledge and can see all the actions of the mods at LCF and says that I was not IP banned then yes he is a liar.
look at that i answered a question and in doing so taught you a lesson.
MAN i'm on fire tonight.Well that's good enough for me...you did answer but you are lying and I think most people here see that.

ETA - oh, keep it polite :)

[A W Smith]

OK fact: Mark Roberts is not an expert in any field.
Fact: Mark Roberts is a tour guide

Ok i watched all three debates. For the life of me. I cant recall Mark disputing the fact that he is a tour guide. Or any statement mentioning he was an expert in any related field represented in the debate. Engineering, Science, Math. etc.

[Slayhamlet]

I don't know about filthy but if he has all the knowledge and can see all the actions of the mods at LCF and says that I was not IP banned then yes he is a liar.
look at that i answered a question and in doing so taught you a lesson.
MAN i'm on fire tonight.

Nobody believes your lame alibi. You are not "on fire", but we will certainly hold your feet to the fire as long as you keep denying it.

[Slayhamlet]

certainly will.

What an odd definition of "disinfo". Do you have any professional qualifications related to anything that touches on the events of 9/11?

[Hyperviolet]

So could you tell me why when there was a caption on the screen refering to Mark roberts it didn't say "tour guide".
this is clearly dis-information

How does his profession have any bearing on debating facts behind 9/11? He isn't claiming to be the one who studied the collapse (if he was then we'd have a problem as he is not a structural engineer), he is pointing people in the direction of highly-qualified experts (NIST).

If his facts are wrong then please point them out.

In actuality your suggestion would only go against the truth movement as their head scholar, Prof. Fetzer, got shown up by a so called "layman."

[~enigma~]

Ok i watched all three debates. For the life of me. I cant recall Mark disputing the fact that he is a tour guide. Or any statement mentioning he was an expert in any related field represented in the debate. Engineering, Science, Math. etc.What about the intro...debunker extrodinaire doesn't count :D

[jackchit]

Ok i watched all three debates. For the life of me. I cant recall Mark disputing the fact that he is a tour guide. Or any statement mentioning he was an expert in any related field represented in the debate. Engineering, Science, Math. etc.

then the caption below his name should have said tour guide,

[twinstead]

In actuality your suggestion would only go against the truth movement as their head scholar, Prof. Fetzer, got shown up by a so called "layman."

Fetzer should be ashamed of that fact. That debate showed that even highly educated people can have bias and cling to irrational beliefs.

And, gravy should give hope to potential truthers; he shows that laymen can indeed conduct relatively through investigations, separate the wheat from the chaff, and come to learned conclusions based on evidence instead of ideology.

If only the laymen in the truth movement could figure out how to do that.

[jackchit]

What an odd definition of "disinfo". Do you have any professional qualifications related to anything that touches on the events of 9/11?

No but then I don't claim to have.
that is the difference. see that now?

[~enigma~]

then the caption below his name should have said tour guide,
Should uncle Fester's have said "9/11 woo"?

[Slayhamlet]

then the caption below his name should have said tour guide,

No it shouldn't have. You have not supplied a convincing reason as to why his profession should be listed. Fetzer's profession is not listed in his caption either.

[~enigma~]

No but then I don't claim to have.
that is the difference. see that now?
Would you please link to the timestampped video where Mark claimed to have any 9/11 related professional qualifications or are you lying like you say IVXX did?

[Slayhamlet]

No but then I don't claim to have.
that is the difference. see that now?

Mark has also not claimed to have any professional qualifications. There is no difference.

[twinstead]

As truthers are fond of saying, why are we wasting time discussing qualifications instead of facts?

Slayhamlet, perhaps you could state a point that Mark is wrong about and we can discuss?




edited to bold slayhamlet's name, as is polite.

[~enigma~]

no fact just name calling, you are trying to be the bully but losing even against an insane guy like me.I am referring to the fat stupid man as uncle Fester...deal with it and answer the question.

look at the facts you seem to keep harping on about and the fact is mark roberts is one step down from a bus driver... yet you suckers hang on his every word ... lol @ the dumbo'sWow...do you read any of the other threads? Mark seemed ready to jump an attack me and I wasn't about to back down. Turned out I mistook his actions and he mistook my reading ability. How is that hanging on his every word? Can't you come up with something original or are you just going to sling old recycled woo crap our way?

[jackchit]

Mark has also not claimed to have any professional qualifications. There is no difference.

Yes there is a difference, I have never claimed to be a 911 expert but roberts has by offering himself for shows like the joke we have seen.
yet he shows people the way to the toilet and yet this is evidence.
the shows should have a disclaimer saying "mark roberts has no qualifications pertaining to the things he claims to be an expert on" no qualifications = no credibility.
I think we can all agree on that

[Hyperviolet]

no fact just name calling, you are trying to be the bully but losing even against an insane guy like me.

look at the facts you seem to keep harping on about and the fact is mark roberts is one step down from a bus driver... yet you suckers hang on his every word ... lol @ the dumbo's

Excellent point.

Marvellous.

[twinstead]

Yes there is a difference, I have never claimed to be a 911 expert but roberts has by offering himself for shows like the joke we have seen.
yet he shows people the way to the toilet and yet this is evidence.
the shows should have a disclaimer saying "mark roberts has no qualifications pertaining to the things he claims to be an expert on" no qualifications = no credibility.
I think we can all agree on that

Don't be so quick on the draw; if no qualifications = no credibility then the entire truth movement is toast.

[Slayhamlet]

As truthers are fond of saying, why are we wasting time discussing qualifications instead of facts?

Slayhamlet, perhaps you could state a point that Mark is wrong about and we can discuss?




edited to bold slayhamlet's name, as is polite.

I have no dispute with any of Mark's research. I am not a "truther", and I'm not sure how I gave the impression that I am. I am merely countering jack's bizarre logic.

[~enigma~]

Yes there is a difference, I have never claimed to be a 911 expert but roberts has by offering himself for shows like the joke we have seen.
yet he shows people the way to the toilet and yet this is evidence.
the shows should have a disclaimer saying "mark roberts has no qualifications pertaining to the things he claims to be an expert on" no qualifications = no credibility.
I think we can all agree on that
Shpw us where he made the claim to be an expert. IOW, put up or shut up with your inane rabble.

[VespaGuy]

Yes there is a difference, I have never claimed to be a 911 expert but roberts has by offering himself for shows like the joke we have seen.
yet he shows people the way to the toilet and yet this is evidence.
the shows should have a disclaimer saying "mark roberts has no qualifications pertaining to the things he claims to be an expert on" no qualifications = no credibility.
I think we can all agree on that

You keep saying this. It would certainly help your arguement if you could provide evidence of something that Mark Roberts got wrong in his debate with Fetzer.

Oh, and welcome to the forums.

[Brainache]

Yes there is a difference, I have never claimed to be a 911 expert but roberts has by offering himself for shows like the joke we have seen.
yet he shows people the way to the toilet and yet this is evidence.
the shows should have a disclaimer saying "mark roberts has no qualifications pertaining to the things he claims to be an expert on" no qualifications = no credibility.
I think we can all agree on that

The only caption that I saw under Mark said "9/11 Researcher". Are you saying Mark hasn't done a lot of research on 9/11?

Are you saying the captions should only list things people get paid for?

Should Fetzer's caption have been "Fiction Author" or "Pensioner"?

[twinstead]

I have no dispute with any of Mark's research. I am not a "truther", and I'm not sure how I gave the impression that I am. I am merely countering jack's bizarre logic.

Yea, I figured that out. I misread your posts. My apology.

[jackchit]

I am referring to the fat stupid man as uncle Fester...deal with it and answer the question.

Wow...do you read any of the other threads? Mark seemed ready to jump an attack me and I wasn't about to back down. Turned out I mistook his actions and he mistook my reading ability. How is that hanging on his every word? Can't you come up with something original or are you just going to sling old recycled woo crap our way?

So can we be assured in that next time roberts appears on one of these debates the caption will read Mark Roberts tour guide? of course not as that will not score you any points, unless i'm mistaken and he has a degree in debunking from an acredited university. I think not, so tour guide 0... guy with real qualifications 1.
unless you are suggesting fetzer's qualifications are fake i'm afraid you lose, sorry.

[Slayhamlet]

Yes there is a difference, I have never claimed to be a 911 expert but roberts has by offering himself for shows like the joke we have seen.
yet he shows people the way to the toilet and yet this is evidence.
the shows should have a disclaimer saying "mark roberts has no qualifications pertaining to the things he claims to be an expert on" no qualifications = no credibility.
I think we can all agree on that

Wrong. He has no professional qualifications, and neither does Fetzer. But his copious research is clearly evident to anyone who bothers to look. Likewise Fetzer's research (I use that term loosely) can be found on his "Scholars for Truth" website, and in the book he's hawking. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Fetzer has some sort of professional qualification that Mark does not. He doesn't. Being a "scholar for truth" does not make him a professional in any of the fields relevant to the events of 9/11.

[~enigma~]

So can we be assured in that next time roberts appears on one of these debates the caption will read Mark Roberts tour guide? of course not as that will not score you any points, unless i'm mistaken and he has a degree in debunking from an acredited university. I think not, so tour guide 0... guy with real qualifications 1.
unless you are suggesting fetzer's qualifications are fake i'm afraid you lose, sorry.You know you really are being sensless. Did the Jref forum put any caption up on Hardfire? Take your complaint to Ron but just understand that it is stupid (and your a liar - you can still log in at LCF where you are "IP banned").

[~enigma~]

Being a "scholar for truth" does not make him a professional in any of the fields relevant to the events of 9/11.Just thought this needs to be repeated and possibly made into a signature for jackchit :)

[Slayhamlet]

So can we be assured in that next time roberts appears on one of these debates the caption will read Mark Roberts tour guide? of course not as that will not score you any points, unless i'm mistaken and he has a degree in debunking from an acredited university. I think not, so tour guide 0... guy with real qualifications 1.
unless you are suggesting fetzer's qualifications are fake i'm afraid you lose, sorry.

Please elaborate on Fetzer's qualifications concerning the events of 9/11 and how those qualifications relate to his profession.

[Slayhamlet]

Yea, I figured that out. I misread your posts. My apology.

No problem. :)

[jackchit]

So you all agree that the next time roberts appears on these "shows" his real credentials IE tour guide should be displayed for everyone to see?

[Slayhamlet]

So you all agree that the next time roberts appears on these "shows" his real credentials IE tour guide should be displayed for everyone to see?

No. If whatever particular show wants to mention that he's a NYC tour guide, then that's fine. It is not required or necessary, however.

Plan on making any real arguments, jack?

[Disbelief]

So you all agree that the next time roberts appears on these "shows" his real credentials IE tour guide should be displayed for everyone to see?

So, are you going to say anything useful or just ramble on about dumb stuff. Obviously you bring nothing new to the table, so you fall back on criticizing someone's profession.

[twinstead]

So you all agree that the next time roberts appears on these "shows" his real credentials IE tour guide should be displayed for everyone to see?

Again. Perhaps you could actually address any problems you have with Robert's points rather than harping on qualifications? Because you must be aware now that Fetzer has no more qualifications in relevant fields concerning 911 than the tour guide.

The sooner you can provide true expert's rebuttals of Robert's points the sooner you can keep what little credibility you have.

[jackchit]

No. If whatever particular show wants to mention that he's a NYC tour guide, then that's fine. It is not required or necessary, however.

Plan on making any real arguments, jack?
So what you are saying is that you will not post roberts qualifications right?
I am happy with you calling fetzer a kook or whatever you want but the only person you have to rebutt this guy is a tour guide?
I gotta say you have me backed into a corner, no wait you can lie about roberts qualifications? he is a tour guide plain and simple hold on one second.....
"James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California in 1940, and attended South Pasadena High School where he received The Carver Award for leadership. After completing high school, he went on to study philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962. After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.

Fetzer taught at various schools including the University of Kentucky, the University of Virginia (twice) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before he received tenure at the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he taught from 1987 until his retirement in June 2006.[3]

"
yeah right that is much less a body of work than a tour guide, and this is your best man.... lol

[jackchit]

Again. Perhaps you could actually address any problems you have with Robert's points rather than harping on qualifications? Because you must be aware now that Fetzer has no more qualifications in relevant fields concerning 911 than the tour guide.

The sooner you can provide true expert's rebuttals of Robert's points the sooner you can keep what little credibility you have.
Thank you, so when the next debate happens the caption will say "mark roberts tour guide" right? thats all i'm asking a little bit of transparency.
You need to be honest or your argument falls flat on its face.

[twinstead]

Thank you, so when the next debate happens the caption will say "mark roberts tour guide" right? thats all i'm asking a little bit of transparency.
You need to be honest or your argument falls flat on its face.

So, I'll take that as a "NO, I can't really address his points, but I'll keep harping on minutiae"?

[jackchit]

I don't think we should be worried about rebutting the woo woo theories of someone who rose to the heights of tour guide.
Give us some proffesionals in this field, remember the burden of proof is with you and if you offer this guy as your star witness then you are f****d

[A W Smith]

Jackchit is that the best you can do to debunk mark Roberts? You bring no facts. You debate no 911 points. you cannot debunk any of Marks facts he brings to the table. You are an empty chasm of thought process. I think it is plain for everyone to see you lost this one.

[T.A.M.]

jack:

tour guide, bus driver, janitor, what ever. Mark is an expert on the information of 9/11. Call him an informationist, "encylcopedia 9/11", what ever, but regardless of his official "schooling" or lack there of (he is actually an English Major I believe) he is MORE qualified, based on his knowledge in the area, to comment on 9/11 than you, I, or Uncle Fetzer, so just stop harping on the "labelling" issue please.

Thanks

TAM:)

[twinstead]

I don't think we should be worried about rebutting the woo woo theories of someone who rose to the heights of tour guide.
Give us some proffesionals in this field, remember the burden of proof is with you and if you offer this guy as your star witness then you are f****d

You do realize that as far as 'professionals in the field' go, they overwhelmingly support the official story, right? Perhaps you would be best served by presenting some REAL experts (because this is important to you, and I respect that) who disagree with the official story.

So. Forget Roberts. Let's see what those whom you describe as experts have to say...

[A W Smith]

, remember the burden of proof is with you

Um.. no it isnt. The burden of proof is on you. it allways was. Bring your facts here and we will debate them. I assure you I am more qualified than you to debate them.

[T.A.M.]

I don't think we should be worried about rebutting the woo woo theories of someone who rose to the heights of tour guide.
Give us some proffesionals in this field, remember the burden of proof is with you and if you offer this guy as your star witness then you are f****d

The majority of the human race believes 9/11 occured as we were told, with very minor exception. As a result it is the 9/11 truth movement that are bringing "alternatives" to the official story, and therefore, the burden of proof is on YOU, not anyone else, to prove your extraordinary claims true.

TAM:)

[Slayhamlet]

I don't think we should be worried about rebutting the woo woo theories of someone who rose to the heights of tour guide.
Give us some proffesionals in this field, remember the burden of proof is with you and if you offer this guy as your star witness then you are f****d

Your entire argument about this debate could literally provide a perfect example of ad hominem fallacy in any introductory text on formal logic. You clearly have nothing of substance to add.

ETA: By the bye, who's the star witness for the woo camp these days? It's hard to tell which of your "experts" are genuine and which are disinfo agents. It seems to change about every 2 weeks or so.

[jackchit]

Jackchit is that the best you can do to debunk mark Roberts? You bring no facts. You debate no 911 points. you cannot debunk any of Marks facts he brings to the table. You are an empty chasm of thought process. I think it is plain for everyone to see you lost this one.

I deal with facts, and the fact is we have a tour guide telling us what to think.
you follow the guide if you wish i prefer to think for myself.
Quite apt...guide dog for the blind.
Now stop lying and when roberts is on one of these shows make the caption accurate so that everyone knows where they stand and who they are listening to.
roberts is clearly ashamed of his occupation and is trying to make himself, something he is not.
Fact: Mark roberts is a tour guide,
shall we admit that and ammend all hifire video's? no that would not be good for the 911 deniers.
Roberts by his own admission is a de-bunker, now the most obvious thing he can de-bunk is his holy grail, he cares not the rights and wrongs he cares only for his victories and the harder the victory the greater his own feeling of self satisfaction.
He is a tour guide who should have made it bigger and thats why he needs to prove people wrong however spurious its his redemption.
he is a tour guide and that is against him always


jackchit, as you should know by now, the Conspiracy Theory sub-forum is under a stricter interpretation of the membership agreement. Do not attack the person, attack the argument. I will leave your last two sentences present, rather than disrupt the flow of the thread - but in the future stick to dealing with the facts of someone's argument and leave speculative commentary about their integrity and motivation out of the discussion.

[twinstead]

Your entire argument about this debate could literally provide a perfect example of ad hominem fallacy in any introductory text on formal logic. You clearly have nothing of substance to add.

Not entirely. I think ideologue 101 is also well-represented.

[Mercutio]

yeah right that is much less a body of work than a tour guide, and this is your best man.... lol

Einstein was a patent clerk.

No, Gravy is not Einstein--my point is considerably simpler. You are arguing from authority; you list Fetzer's degrees, but not his area of expertise. Gravy has far more academic qualifications than "tour guide" (as a resident of New Hampshire, I find Gravy's undergrad qualifications quite adequate), but frankly, who cares? Neither Fetzer nor Gravy has advanced degrees in 9/11; nobody does. Gravy has studied the available data, though, with the same rigor that he studied the tour guide info (did you know that tour guides have to pass a rigorous test? Do you know how Gravy did?), and it is the available data that is what is important.

Do not argue Gravy's qualifications; they are irrelevant. Argue his data. If you can.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Give us some proffesionals in this field
Err... what about those hundreds, if not thousands, of people involved in the investigation? They're there. Just because you close your eyes to them doesn't make them go away.

remember the burden of proof is with you and if you offer this guy as your star witness then you are f****d
You do know what a witness is, don't you?

[twinstead]

Do not argue Gravy's qualifications; they are irrelevant. Argue his data. If you can.

Any credible opponent of Gravy would have argued his data from second one; attempts at undermining him due to some lame argument about relevant qualifications only smacks of desperation.

Hey. If he is wrong then have at him. I'm a layman myself. If some expert can put him down then HAVE AT IT. I don't care. I just want the facts.

[~enigma~]

I deal with facts, and the fact is we have a tour guide telling us what to think.And can you provide an example of him telling or ordering us what to think please.
i prefer to think for myself.Then kindly show us how you do.
he is a tour guide and that is against him alwaysIs that some kind of prejudice? Are you a bigot and now we have to contend with the anti-zionist woo and the newly formed anti-tourguide brotherhood of woo?

[A W Smith]

I deal with facts, and the fact is we have a tour guide telling us what to think.
you follow the guide if you wish i prefer to think for myself.
Quite apt...guide dog for the blind.We deal with facts too
Now stop lying and when Roberts is on one of these shows make the caption accurate so that everyone knows where they stand and who they are listening to.
Roberts is clearly ashamed of his occupation and is trying to make himself, something he is not.Uh oh you just said you deal with facts. But now you filter your facts dependiong on the employment class status of the messenger. Thats a fatal flaw. You shoild, as we do, research the facts after they are presented, as normal mature logical adults do.
Fact: Mark Roberts is a tour guide,
shall we admit that and ammend all hifire video's? no that would not be good for the 911 deniers.
Roberts by his own admission is a de-bunker, now the most obvious thing he can de-bunk is his holy grail, he cares not the rights and wrongs he cares only for his victories and the harder the victory the greater his own feeling of self satisfaction.ad hominem fallacy
He is a tour guide who should have made it bigger and thats why he needs to prove people wrong however spurious its his redemption.
he is a tour guide and that is against him always
he has admitted on hard fire during a previous debate that he is. in fact a tour guide. had you "researched' that. you would have known. poor you.

[T.A.M.]

I deal with facts, and the fact is we have a tour guide telling us what to think.

and this reflects poorly in what way? The twoof movement is lead by the following:

1. two twenty-something filmmaker wannabes (Avery/Bermas)
2. A Philosophy Professor (Fetzer)
3. A Theologian (Griffin)
4. A Loud Mouth Talk Show Host (A. Jones)
5. An Economist (Reynolds)


you follow the guide if you wish i prefer to think for myself.
Quite apt...guide dog for the blind.

have you forgotten the tightened rules on this subforum. That is clearly an inflammatory remark, insinuating we are all blind.


Now stop lying and when roberts is on one of these shows make the caption accurate so that everyone knows where they stand and who they are listening to.

No, what you really mean, is put "tour guide" under him because you feel it will belittle and demean his position in the eyes of the viewer.


roberts is clearly ashamed of his occupation and is trying to make himself, something he is not.

No, you have no respect for his position, so you are trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill here.


Fact: Mark roberts is a tour guide,
shall we admit that and ammend all hifire video's? no that would not be good for the 911 deniers.

All the deniers know who Mark is and what he does. He still knows the facts of 9/11 ALOT better than you or I.


Roberts by his own admission is a de-bunker, now the most obvious thing he can de-bunk is his holy grail, he cares not the rights and wrongs he cares only for his victories and the harder the victory the greater his own feeling of self satisfaction.

Opinion, and one based on your ill feelings for him and nothing more.


He is a tour guide who should have made it bigger and thats why he needs to prove people wrong however spurious its his redemption.
he is a tour guide and that is against him always

You are acting arrogant and pompous. This is good, as it once again allows the fence sitters to see the attitude and behaviour of the truth movement in action.

There are Structural Engineers, Aerospace Engineers, Architects, Physicians, and all sorts of other professionals on this site, all of whom respect Mark regardless of his profession. You are the only one here obsessed with it.

No positions as a tour guide available across the pond I guess.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

... Neither Fetzer nor Gravy has advanced degrees in 9/11; nobody does.

If there were such a degree, Mark Roberts would be a PhD, and world expert, Fetzer a struggling student.

TAM:)

[Brainache]

I deal with facts, and the fact is we have a tour guide telling us what to think.
you follow the guide if you wish i prefer to think for myself.
Quite apt...guide dog for the blind.
Now stop lying and when roberts is on one of these shows make the caption accurate so that everyone knows where they stand and who they are listening to.
roberts is clearly ashamed of his occupation and is trying to make himself, something he is not.
Fact: Mark roberts is a tour guide,
shall we admit that and ammend all hifire video's? no that would not be good for the 911 deniers.
Roberts by his own admission is a de-bunker, now the most obvious thing he can de-bunk is his holy grail, he cares not the rights and wrongs he cares only for his victories and the harder the victory the greater his own feeling of self satisfaction.
He is a tour guide who should have made it bigger and thats why he needs to prove people wrong however spurious its his redemption.
he is a tour guide and that is against him always

And Einstein was a Patent Office Clerk. Does that make the Theory of Relativity wrong? He did it in his spare time.

I'm not comparing Gravy directly to Einstein, but if this debate was held in 1907 between Einstein and (insert Edwardian philosopher here) would you insist that Einstein's caption read "Office Clerk" instead of "Mathematics Theoritician"?

Your insistence that Gravy's job somehow invalidates his research is totally bogus and just shows how you are totally bereft of real arguments.

ETA I see I'm not the first to raise the Einstein Clerk thing. Damn my slow typing.

[Slayhamlet]

I deal with facts, and the fact is we have a tour guide telling us what to think.
you follow the guide if you wish i prefer to think for myself.
Quite apt...guide dog for the blind.
Now stop lying and when roberts is on one of these shows make the caption accurate so that everyone knows where they stand and who they are listening to.
roberts is clearly ashamed of his occupation and is trying to make himself, something he is not.
Fact: Mark roberts is a tour guide,
shall we admit that and ammend all hifire video's? no that would not be good for the 911 deniers.
Roberts by his own admission is a de-bunker, now the most obvious thing he can de-bunk is his holy grail, he cares not the rights and wrongs he cares only for his victories and the harder the victory the greater his own feeling of self satisfaction.
He is a tour guide who should have made it bigger and thats why he needs to prove people wrong however spurious its his redemption.
he is a tour guide and that is against him always

Actually, we have just about every structural engineer who has ever lived to back up our side, and the consesus of the scientific community. But I can see from your bizarre obsession with the minutiae of Mark's life how you allowed yourself to get riled up into a murderous rage. You are obviously infatuated with the man.

[twinstead]

Actually, we have just about every structural engineer who has ever lived to back up our side, and the consesus of the scientific community. But I can see from your bizarre obsession with the minutiae of Mark's life how you allowed yourself to get riled up into a murderous rage. You are obviously infatuated with the man.

Yeppers

[A W Smith]

jackchit i see your more obsessed with Mark Roberts than any of us are. I see you have not even posted outside of a thread about Mark Roberts

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=804129


This is unhealthy and tragic. It must be frustrating to be unable to form a 911 foundation of fantasy when someone with a briefcase and folder keeps pulling the defective bricks out from under it. It does not matter that it has been brought to the attention of the populace that your fantasy is destined to fail. Not having the tools to repair those flaws you take issue with the messenger. So sad to be you. But i am glad to have you post here. To have your methods exposed for all the fence sitters watching your folly to see. What a sad unfortunate way to spend ones birthday.

[twinstead]

jackchit i see your more obsessed with Mark Roberts than any of us are. I see you have not even posted outside of a thread about Mark Roberts

http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=804129


This is unhealthy and tragic. It must be frustrating to be unable to form a 911 foundation of fantasy when someone with a briefcase and folder keeps pulling the defective bricks out from under it. It does not matter that it has been brought to the attention of the populace that your fantasy is destined to fail. Not having the tools to repair those flaws you take issue with the messenger. So sad to be you. But i am glad to have you post here. To have your methods exposed for all the fence sitters watching your folly to see. What a sad unfortunate way to spend ones birthday.

It's my birthday too. What a sad unfortunate way to spend ones birthday...;)

[CHF]

jackchit i see your more obsessed with Mark Roberts than any of us are. I see you have not even posted outside of a thread about Mark Roberts

Meanwhile, Dylan's got an avatar of Roberts, Kevin Ryan chickens out of a debate...

I gotta tell ya twoofers: if you wanna stage some sort of revolution with this "truth" cult of yours, you should at least be able to successfully take on a NYC tour guide.

[A W Smith]

It's my birthday too. What a sad unfortunate way to spend ones birthday...;)


but your not obsessing over someone on your birthday;)

[pomeroo]

As the shows host you can tell the audience your opinions but must however remain impartial otherwise the show is clearly not balanced.


Here is the source of your confusion on this point: I don't care if the show is unbalanced. David Susskind used to host a show called "Open End." Frequently, it featured Susskind, Gore Vidal, and some other lefty ganging up on William F. Buckley, who invariably crushed all of them. The lesson here is that if you've got the goods, you'll win. If Mark and I are making the same arguments, then you have only to refute one of us.





I notice you do not address the point of the credentials of the protaganists being clearly a lie.



When conspiracy liars prattle about "lies" that are nothing of the sort, I tend to ignore them.



Why did you not point out that Mark has no qualifications in any area other than showing people where the nearest toilet is?



Mark may be better informed about the various issues relating to the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01 than anyone alive. That is not to say that he is the ultimate authority on any particular issue.

[Totovader]

Meanwhile, Dylan's got an avatar of Roberts, Kevin Ryan chickens out of a debate...

I gotta tell ya twoofers: if you wanna stage some sort of revolution with this "truth" cult of yours, you should at least be able to successfully take on a NYC tour guide.

In their minds, this is taking him on: making threats, attempting to mock his credentials, making avatars of him... that's how they deal with it- because they're simply incapable of meeting him on the intellectual level.

Jackchit is a perfect example of that cognitive dissonance- which usually manifests itself in a whopping contradiction: complaining about Mark's "qualifications" (which are really determined by his knowledge, not his academic recognitions) only results in the complete lack of qualifications of the entire truth movement being put into question, as well as the startling fact that a "tour guide" is fully capable of knocking down people like Fetzer with just a little bit of patience and a book of facts (and a knowledge of how to use them).

As many have pointed out- this whining only drowns the conspiracists in their own tears.

[Minadin]

So you all agree that the next time roberts appears on these "shows" his real credentials IE tour guide should be displayed for everyone to see?

Yes, I do. I think that next time Gravy is on Hardfire or any other show, countering a conspiracist, his caption should be "Literate New York Area Resident". It's not at all misleading. I don't really see how that's going to help the CT claims, though. The whole attack on Mr. Roberts based on his chosen career seems like an ad hominem - would the facts that he brings be any less valid if he were a plumber, or a real estate agent, or a stock broker?

Attack the argument and not the arguer.

[~enigma~]

Yes, I do. I think that next time Gravy is on Hardfire or any other show, countering a conspiracist, his caption should be "Literate New York Area Resident". It's not at all misleading. I don't really see how that's going to help the CT claims, though. The whole attack on Mr. Roberts based on his chosen career seems like an ad hominem - would the facts that he brings be any less valid if he were a plumber, or a real estate agent, or a stock broker?

Attack the argument and not the arguer.Don't forget that it is a very inane form of prejudice. IMO it shows the true mentality of the woo.

[PhantomWolf]

Wow.... Just wow.

Ad homenin
Appeal to Authority
Reverse appeal to Authority
Begging the question
Strawman

Did Jack actually miss any major logical falacies in the last two pages?

[boloboffin]

The caption is accurate: Mark Roberts is a 9/11 researcher. That is the relevant expertise he brings to the table.

Why do truthers specialize in creating tempests in teapots? Oh, my bad. That's what truthers do best.

[Foolmewunz]

So you all agree that the next time roberts appears on these "shows" his real credentials IE tour guide should be displayed for everyone to see?

Why, sure! Do you think Mark takes offense at naming his occupation?

Pomeroo(Ron), Could you edit the videos? Put in some more accurate captions to satisfy this....




Mark Roberts: New York City Tour Guide, and Diligent 9/11 Researcher

Jim Fetzer: Philosophy Teacher, Author, Pedant, Sophist, Never Met a Conspiracy Theory He Didn't Like

Dylan Avery: Film School Dropout, Plagiarist, Video Editor, Moving Target, Master of Slippery Slope Morality

Jason Bermas: No One Knows, We're Open to Suggestions

That ought to satisfy JackChit's request. Alternately, as numerous have already pointed out, we disqualify Gravy on the basis of his credentials, ignoring the thousands of hours of research he's put in, and in return every 911 Truth website also agrees to shut down since their credentials are equally relevant to Mark's, and they've done about half the work he has.

[Dog Town]

In actuality your suggestion would only go against the truth movement as their head scholar, Prof. Fetzer, got shown up by a so called "layman."

I have not read all this thread, but I just read this! Bravo!

[stateofgrace]

I don't think we should be worried about rebutting the woo woo theories of someone who rose to the heights of tour guide.
Give us some proffesionals in this field, remember the burden of proof is with you and if you offer this guy as your star witness then you are f****d

Actually the burden of proof lies with you, proceed or leave. Your childish and immature rhetoric is not welcome. If you wish to debate facts do so, if not do not post again. If you have nothing to add other than silly school playground insults then it is of little wonder you and your conspiracies are not taken seriously.

Whether Mark Roberts is a tour Guide or not, is completely irrelevant to what he had to say. If you disagree with what was said, do so, back your arguments with something substantive and make a case.

There is nothing more offensive than seeing silly childish attacks on somebody because you do not agree with their opinions.

Grow up; show you have some level of maturity or depart.

[Dog Town]

no fact just name calling, you are trying to be the bully but losing even against an insane guy like me.

You got one of four right!
Those, are great twoofer stats!

[The Doc]

jackchit,

Are you aware of the concept of an ad hominem argument?

If a tour guide told you the earth was round, and a geologist told you it was flat - which would you believe? The geologist because he's a geologist, or the tour guide because he's right?

[scissorhands]

Jackchit certainly seems fixated on Gravy, devoting his time to gay myspace spoofs, he talks of little else.
Is it just some warped version of unrequited attention seeking?
He is obviously desperate for Mark to respond in person, hence the attempts to belittle his profession.
You see this sort of behaviour in nurseries with young children competing for attention, any attention, and behaving badly to achieve it.

[chillzero]

I think most people have missed a key point here.

Yes there is a difference, I have never claimed to be a 911 expert but roberts has by offering himself for shows like the joke we have seen.

Gravy did not offer himself up for a show, claiming to be an expert.

He was asked to consider doing shows like this, by many people, because there is so much respect for his ability to take claims, review the information and research the facts, then present back understandable and well balanced reports about those claims.

[PhantomWolf]

jackchit,

Are you aware of the concept of an ad hominem argument?

If a tour guide told you the earth was round, and a geologist told you it was flat - which would you believe? The geologist because he's a geologist, or the tour guide because he's right?

Actually Doc, that's Appeal to Authority. He's a Geologist so he must know what he's saying. Ad Hominen is saying, what would you know, you're just a Tour Guide.

Jack has done both, in fact he managed it in the same sentence.

remember the burden of proof is with you

D'oh, need to add Burden shifting to my list.....

[The Doc]

Actually Doc, that's Appeal to Authority. He's a Geologist so he must know what he's saying. Ad Hominen is saying, what would you know, you're just a Tour Guide.

Jack has done both, in fact he managed it in the same sentence.

remember the burden of proof is with you

D'oh, need to add Burden shifting to my list.....

Ah true. My second question wasn't related to my first question though, but it definitely looked that way.

I wasn't intending to use the second question as an example of an ad hominem :( The two are closely related though :p

[PhantomWolf]

I wonder what the World Record for Logical Falacies in one sentence is, and if Jack is in the running for breaking it.

[jackchit]

You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
You should get some real experts on your side since you claim to have many.
Anyway i'm off to celebrate my birthday, many happy returns to you twinstead:cool:

[Disbelief]

You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.


Why not add for Fetzer professor of philosophy then. By just stating he is a professor could unduly influence an audience. Adding what he taught would make people question his motives. I would think that most people would then say that a tour guide just kicked the snot out of a professor, so there must not be much to this truth movement.


ETA: I am sure the entire point of your posting is not to bring any evidence, since you have nothing, but just to stir things up. Then you will run back to your buddies looking for their approval on how you pulled one over on the JREFers. Sound about right?

[stateofgrace]

You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
You should get some real experts on your side since you claim to have many.
Anyway i'm off to celebrate my birthday, many happy returns to you twinstead:cool:

Incorrect you have missed the point. You have been asked by myself and by other members to show some level of civility, you have failed to do so. To reemphasize my point I have reported this post for your continued attacks on Mark Roberts. You references to Marks appearance,is uncalled for,deeply offensive and as absolutly nothing whatsoever to do with the facts.The truth is absolute irrespective of who speaks it, lies are lies,again irrespective of spreads them.

If you wish to be heard and not be viewed as nothing but a spoilt brat grow up and stop your silly personnel attacks.

Post your facts and arguments, or leave for some other forum where like-minded individuals may indulge you in your offensive and uncalled for insults.

[Redtail]

You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
You should get some real experts on your side since you claim to have many.
Anyway i'm off to celebrate my birthday, many happy returns to you twinstead:cool:

Wow just, wow. It doesn't matter if Mark is right because Jim is more qualified than Mark because he has a degree in philosophy? Well hell old son I have a MFA in Theatre and I'm a current Professor at 2 Universities at the same time! I haven't done near the research that Mark has but I could just get him to feed me his side of the debate through my bluetooth.

[qarnos]

You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
You should get some real experts on your side since you claim to have many.
Anyway i'm off to celebrate my birthday, many happy returns to you twinstead:cool:

Ever heard the one about the patent clerk? (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007DCB9-91CE-111A-BAF583414B7F4945)

[jackchit]

oh dear oh dear. insults???? ever heard the one about the kettle and his mate?
I was not insulting i was describing roberts and it was accurate.
Now stop crying.

[qarnos]

oh dear oh dear. insults???? ever heard the one about the kettle and his mate?
I was not insulting i was describing roberts and it was accurate.
Now stop crying.

Insults?

You didn't actually follow the link, did you? That figures...

[The Doc]

oh dear oh dear. insults???? ever heard the one about the kettle and his mate?
I was not insulting i was describing roberts and it was accurate.
Now stop crying.

Jack,

I'm not a moderator, but I'm pretty sure everyone around here would appreciate it if you would keep at a mature level of discussion.

I have yet to see you bring up any other argument then ad hominem personal attacks against Mark. You obsession with him has been noted by many people who post here, and some find it rather disturbing and sad, but that's for you to sort out. Instead of breaching your membership agreement by spouting off insults for a hobby on these boards, how about this. If something troubles you about the official story to the events of 9/11, or you would like to discuss a conspiracy theory - let's to do so in a new thread. However, at this point, it looks like you have absolutely no interest in discussion critical thinking and facts. Itd be awesome if you could change my mind on that one, as I am very keen to hear your viewpoints.

We all know your history with Mark, so your "description" is hardly going to be taken what you say it is. I could offer the members of this forum a description of you from my perspective, and I guarantee you would consider it insulting. But I am above that, and I'll keep my thoughts to myself. I encourage you to do the same.

Again, if you want to discuss conspiracy theories, I'm all eyes. If not, your useless insults and personal attacks are childish, off-topic and inappropriate. You have yet to show any ability to debate with facts, and you are only hurting the "movement" you represent.

Again, I am not a moderator and the opinions expressed above are solely mine and not those of this forum or its moderators.

Sincerely,
Doc.

[stateofgrace]

oh dear oh dear. insults???? ever heard the one about the kettle and his mate?
I was not insulting i was describing roberts and it was accurate.
Now stop crying.

Once again you fail to grasp the point and fail to produce a single fact to endorse your theories. You prefer to deflection your inability to do so elsewhere. Now you have decided it direct towards me because I consider your posts devoid of facts and actually extremely childish.

Again if you wish to be seen a mature individual with some cohesive ideas and some form of rational debating skills do so. Equally so if you wish to continue down the road of making nonsensical ad hominem personal attacks against people, then I am sure you will continued to be viewed as nothing other than a spoilt child.

This is your choice, personally I could not care less how you conduct yourself, the only person being seen as foolish is the individual who acts foolish. Again this is your choice, I’m sure you wish to have you opinions heard, at this moment in time they are not being heard. You are simply destroying your own argument by acting this way.

Anyway enjoy your birthday, another year older, and another year wiser, are we?

[T.A.M.]

Mark brings the arguments of others forth in an articulate, well organized manner. His qualifications concerning the science of 9/11 are immaterial, as the points he makes are from someone elses interviews, calculations, or reports.

You do not see Mark saying "I calculated this myself" or "I personally spoke with FAA chief so and so" do you?

As I have said, Mark, in my opinion, is an Authority, and Expert, on the history of 9/11.

This is the exact same thing that Fetzer, the Philosophy Proff does, or Griffin the Theologian does...no different what soever.

TAM:)

[The Doc]

TAM:)

TAM:)

Double TAMs!

Sexy... :p

[T.A.M.]

stop staring at my TAM TAMs

;)TAM

[~enigma~]

You all have missed the entire point (not for the first time).
The caption is misleading and the viewer should have all the information in order to make up their own minds.
Imagine the scenario a couple are watching these docs when the guy turns to the woman and says "that fat balding guy in the middle seems to know his stuff, who is he?"
She then presses the information button on the sky remote and it reads "debate between former professer jim fetzer and NY tour guide mark roberts about 911 hosted by smarmy partizan bloke who's called ron something"
Can you see the problem? Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
You should get some real experts on your side since you claim to have many.
Anyway i'm off to celebrate my birthday, many happy returns to you twinstead:cool:So only a Math teacher can tell you 1 + 1 = 2. Gotcha but we don't believe you are really that stupid...and I say that politely :)

[uk_dave]

So only a Math teacher can tell you 1 + 1 = 2. Gotcha but we don't believe you are really that stupid...and I say that politely :)

You don't speak for me :D

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Marks views may be correct but unless they are presented by someone with some qualifications then they have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Err... no. Just... no. They should be confirmed regardless of who makes the statement. You do know that advances and discoveries in the sciences are typically confirmed by other scientists in the same field, correct? No one just takes some guy's word for it, just because he's, say, a biologist.

So, tell us... What makes a professor of Philosophy more qualified than a NYC tour guide to talk about the structural response of heavily damaged buildings?

[~enigma~]

You don't speak for me :D
2 + 2 = 4...

[Mercutio]

2 + 2 = 4...

Well, if you say so. I mean, you're the expert...

[~enigma~]

Well, if you say so. I mean, you're the expert...
No...but my caption says so...jackchit's entire argument is stupid. Why are we arguing with a liar anyway?

[beachnut]

I don't think we should be worried about rebutting the woo woo theories of someone who rose to the heights of tour guide.
Give us some proffesionals in this field, remember the burden of proof is with you and if you offer this guy as your star witness then you are f****dNo you have no facts so you have to attack the person. You have no facts so you just talk. You have no experts on 9/11, and the truth movement never will. You have no story about 9/11. You have not one single fact to support any truther ideas about 9/11.

It seems the truth movement has failed and no doubt your engineering degree will help here to prove your ideas. Got some facts? Got a degree?

List your facts so we can see what you have. Just list a fact so we can have a little debate with the expert jackchit.

[~enigma~]

No you have no facts so you have to attack the person. You have no facts so you just talk. You have no experts on 9/11, and the truth movement never will. You have no story about 9/11. You have not one single fact to support any truther ideas about 9/11.

It seems the truth movement has failed and no doubt your engineering degree will help here to prove your ideas. Got some facts? Got a degree?

List your facts so we can see what you have. Just list a fact so we can have a little debate with the expert jackchit.
To be fair, Jason is an extraordinary liar and some might even say expert :)

[Civilized Worm]

And all this time I thought that Mark Roberts was a spy.

[~enigma~]

And all this time I thought that Mark Roberts was a gay spy.
Fixed now...pay attention :)

[The Great Hairy One]

"James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California in 1940, and attended South Pasadena High School where he received The Carver Award for leadership. After completing high school, he went on to study philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962. After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.

Fetzer taught at various schools including the University of Kentucky, the University of Virginia (twice) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before he received tenure at the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he taught from 1987 until his retirement in June 2006.[3]


I'd like to know how any of these qualifications enable Dr Fetzer to claim expert status on demolitions, engineering, aerodynamics, physics, chemistry, weapons development, etc., etc. If anything, Gravy is more highly qualified as a tour guide to discuss 9/11, simply because HE WAS THERE.

Cheers,
TGHO

[David Wong]

I'd agree to use "Tour Guide" under Mark if they're also allowed to put "Likely Crazy Person" under Fetzer.

Full disclosure.

[Mobyseven]

I'd agree to use "Tour Guide" under Mark if they're also allowed to put "Likely Crazy Person" under Fetzer.

Full disclosure.

Great. Now I have to clean chips and water off my desk. You're lucky I didn't laugh it onto my laptop keyboard!

[Civilized Worm]

Fixed now...pay attention :)


Don't ask don't tell.

[gumboot]

If anything, Gravy is more highly qualified as a tour guide to discuss 9/11, simply because HE WAS THERE.

Cheers,
TGHO



To be fair, I don't think he was. IIRC Gravy was leading a tour in Europe on 9/11... though I hope he can correct me if I'm wrong...

I seem to recall him recounting his experience of 9/11 in a thread I created on the 5th Anniversary...

-Gumboot

[Phil]

Nearly 4 pages of this thread arguing what the captions under each debate participant should be?!?!

I didn't realize this was Pomeroo's reason for starting the thread. Had I known we were meant to discuss captions and not the content of the debate, I'd have never responded.

[beachnut]

So what you are saying is that you will not post roberts qualifications right?
I am happy with you calling fetzer a kook or whatever you want but the only person you have to rebutt this guy is a tour guide?
I gotta say you have me backed into a corner, no wait you can lie about roberts qualifications? he is a tour guide plain and simple hold on one second.....
"James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California in 1940, and attended South Pasadena High School where he received The Carver Award for leadership. After completing high school, he went on to study philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962. After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.

Fetzer taught at various schools including the University of Kentucky, the University of Virginia (twice) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before he received tenure at the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he taught from 1987 until his retirement in June 2006.[3]

"
yeah right that is much less a body of work than a tour guide, and this is your best man.... lol
After corresponding with Fetzer on 9/11, I have found Gravy to be more qualified as an engineer and an expert on 9/11, Fetzer had no facts or evidence. I am an engineer and a pilot. If I were to choose an expert on 9/11 I would pick Gravy over any PhD in the truth movement.

Only someone without any knowledge or facts on 9/11 would pick Fetzer as an expert on 9/11.

After looking at Fetzers qualifications, Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science. he is a perfect candidate for the beam weapon story. I suspect you are just trying to get Gravy upset or some strange grudge against someone who can reason and use logic on 9/11 subjects.

I have found zero ability for Fetzer to do more than say what ever he believes is true. So much for him teaching critical thinking for all those years, he never learned anything.

[Gravy]

I'd like to know how any of these qualifications enable Dr Fetzer to claim expert status on demolitions, engineering, aerodynamics, physics, chemistry, weapons development, etc., etc. If anything, Gravy is more highly qualified as a tour guide to discuss 9/11, simply because HE WAS THERE.

Cheers,
TGHOActually, I was in Italy. I never even saw images of 9/11 until December, 2001.

[Civilized Worm]

How conveniant!

[Gravy]

I suspect you are just trying to get Gravy upset or some strange grudge against someone who can reason and use logic on 9/11 subjects.I have him on ignore. There's a police matter pending. I feel bad for him, though. Do people really need more convincing that he's having great trouble with reality?

[~enigma~]

I have him on ignore. There's a police matter pending. I feel bad for him, though. Do people really need more convincing that he's having great trouble with reality?
Yeah...you should read over at LCF...Jason is really well removed from reality.

[Gravy]

How conveniant!Let's just say that I'm always Gladio to visit Italia.

[westprog]

There is a serious point here.

It is, in fact, relevant to the discussion whether someone has a particular expertise. However, it's not the case that one merely tots up the certificates and awards the prize to the person with most letters after his name.

This is the Fetzer technique. He collects a list of people with professorships, and throws them at us. Note how often he claims that so-and-so is a serious researcher who's published books. This is a very limited kind of filter. It removes some people not worth listening to, but it makes one assumption which is clearly wrong - that someone with an expertise is qualified to comment outside his area.

An example of this can be easily found in the debate. Neither Fetzer or Roberts have scientific qualifications. But when Fetzer claims that the steel in the WTC was vapourised, then Roberts is able to point out that this cannot be the case, due to simple laws of physics. In particular, the heat required to do such a thing would be quite obvious and deadly to a large number of people.

It is well within Fetzer's capacity to figure this out for himself. He has chosen not to do so. Instead he relies on Judy Wood. Mark Roberts could believe Judy Wood - she's better qualified than he is - but he applies common sense.

Firstly, Judy Wood is alone in her assertions. Nobody of similar or better qualifications agrees with her. Secondly, the assertions are inherently absurd.

What does this lead us to? Well, clearly we can figure out for ourselves that the WTC wasn't dissolved by a laser from space. That's obvious. What we can also see, quite clearly, is that if Fetzer and Woods are advocating a theory that is obviously, palpably wrong, they must have a serious reasoning deficiency. Since Woods is an engineer, and Fetzer a philosopher, one would normally assume that they know what they are talking about in their own specialist areas. But by their fruits ye shall know them.

[Regnad Kcin]

...Why did you not point out that Mark has no qualifications in any area other than showing people where the nearest toilet is?look at the facts you seem to keep harping on about and the fact is mark roberts is one step down from a bus driver... yet you suckers hang on his every word ... lol @ the dumbo'sEvery once in a while I come across someone attempting to belittle Gravy by snickering at his profession, little realizing what they're saying (what a surprise!). A very intelligent friend of mine required three attempts at the certfication test to become a NYC tour guide. Gravy holds the top score ever earned.

What does this suggest? To be conversant with the minutiae of such a large, complex, and relatively old city means you have to have studied and retained an enormous amount. It means you are a historian.

Sept. 11 presents us with more historical information. Andi it's no surprise Gravy is acing this test as well.

[Regnad Kcin]

...They say immitation is a compliment, well i thank the person who feels he needs to discredit me using underhand tactics rather than facts.

So could you tell me why when there was a caption on the screen refering to Mark roberts it didn't say "tour guide".
this is clearly dis-information

OK fact: mark roberts is not an expert in any field.
Fact: mark roberts is a tour guide

Do you want to debate or try to discredit those with dissenting voices, my money is on the latter.Bolding mine.

Irony much?

[twinstead]

It just seems a bit odd that from a movement famous for its lack of members with relevant expertise would come criticism of somebody for not having relevant expertise.

The more I listen to these folks the more I tend to agree that they just HAVE to be some kind of 'disinfo agents'. Are people really that out of touch?

[Regnad Kcin]

I don't think we should be worried about rebutting the woo woo theories of someone who rose to the heights of tour guide.
Give us some proffesionals in this field, remember the burden of proof is with you and if you offer this guy as your star witness then you are f****dAh, I remember being 15.

[JimBenArm]

Ah, I remember being 15.
15? I have trouble remembering last week!

[pgwenthold]

It took me a bit to find it, but I did.

You want to talk about credentials? Bring it on.

Here is a recent post from T.A.M in another thread

From Judy Wood's own website:

Dr. Wood received her

* B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),

* M.S (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and

* Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Now this seems reasonably qualified, I will agree, as stated above, but how can anyone say she is more qualified than most of the people listed below...


NIST Scientists and Engineers

TEAM LEADERS:
Dr. H.S. Lew – Senior Research Engineer. PhD Civil Engineering, BS in Architectural Engineering. ASCE Fellow.
With NIST: Structural Engineering, Earthquake Engineering, Building and Fire Research.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...p?lastname=Lew
(his full profile)

Richard W. Bukowski – Senior Research Engineer. BSc Electrical Engineering.
With NIST: Co-ordinator of Building and Fire Research Lab.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...tname=bukowski
(his full profile)

Dr. Fahim H. Sadek – PhD Mechanical Engineering SMU
With NIST: Research Structural Engineer
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...lastname=sadek
(his full profile)

Dr. Frank W. Gayle – PhD Metallurgy MIT, MSc Materials Science, BSc Civil Engineering.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle
(his full profile)

Dr. David D. Evans – PhD in Engineering (Fire protection)


Dr. William Grosshandler – PhD Mechanical Engineering UC Berkley
With NIST: Head of Building and Fire Research
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...e=grosshandler
(his full profile)

Dr. Richard G. Gann – PhD Physical Chemistry MIT
With NIST: Senior Research Scientist – Integrated Performance Assessment
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...?lastname=gann
(his full profile)

Dr. John L. Gross – PhD Structural Engineering, BSc/MSc Civil Engineering Cornell
With NIST: Research Engineer – Materials and Construction Research Division
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...lastname=gross
(his full profile)

Dr. Therese P. McAllister – PhD Structural Engineering John Hopkins
With NIST: Senior Structural Engineer.
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...ame=mcallister
(her full profile)

Jason D. Averill – MSc Structural Engineering (working on PhD) John Hopkins
With NIST: Research Engineer
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...stname=averill
(his full profile)

J. Randall Lawson – BA, BSc Industrial Education, AA Computer Science and Math
With NIST: General Physical Scientist
http://www2.bfrl.nist.gov/profiles/p...astname=lawson
(his full profile)


You won't find many anywhere in the WORLD that are better credentialed than these folks.

Yeah, they are hired by the government. You know why? Because they are the BEST around.

This isn't the Bush controlled DOJ hiring peons from a 4th rate law school.

[gumboot]

Let's just say that I'm always Gladio to visit Italia.


I don't want to know what you do with your sword in Italy...

-Gumboot

[Pardalis]

15? I have trouble remembering last week!

Quit the booze man. :p :D

[JamesB]

It took me a bit to find it, but I did.

You want to talk about credentials? Bring it on.

Here is a recent post from T.A.M in another thread


You won't find many anywhere in the WORLD that are better credentialed than these folks.

Yeah, they are hired by the government. You know why? Because they are the BEST around.

This isn't the Bush controlled DOJ hiring peons from a 4th rate law school.

It is actually quite unusual for Wood to get 3 degrees at the same institution. In the academic world this is considered close to incest, especially for someone who wants to go on to a tenured teaching track.

[~enigma~]

Let's just say that I'm always Gladio to visit Italia.
cute, real cute but now I can just see the story on 9/11 blogger "Mark Robert's admits to being a part of Gladio" :D

[~enigma~]

It is actually quite unusual for Wood to get 3 degrees at the same institution. In the academic world this is considered close to incest, especially for someone who wants to go on to a tenured teaching track.
Incest?! That explains why her ideas are so far out. Cognitive disorder brought on from a small gene pool....thanks for clearing that up.

[Undesired Walrus]

I have him on ignore. There's a police matter pending. I feel bad for him, though. Do people really need more convincing that he's having great trouble with reality?

Is it not somewhat coincidental that jackchit chose this time to come on Jref and say he went overboard on Gravy?

[The Great Hairy One]

Actually, I was in Italy. I never even saw images of 9/11 until December, 2001.


Ah, my bad! I thought you were a witness.

Mark Roberts could believe Judy Wood - she's better qualified than he is - but he applies common sense.


I'd dispute that he applies "common sense", rather he does either independent analysis, and crunches the numbers himself, or he gathers the work of other experts and compares them to Judy Wood's work and looks for inconsistencies and errors.

Note that there is a lot in science which seems to contradict "common sense", and can be very confusing for the layperson.

Cheers,
TGHO

[westprog]

Ah, my bad! I thought you were a witness.




I'd dispute that he applies "common sense", rather he does either independent analysis, and crunches the numbers himself, or he gathers the work of other experts and compares them to Judy Wood's work and looks for inconsistencies and errors.

Note that there is a lot in science which seems to contradict "common sense", and can be very confusing for the layperson.

Cheers,
TGHO

I agree that that is what he'd generally do, and even would need to do in the case of Judy Wood, but in this case I was referring to the laser beams from space vapourising steel theory, which can be refuted using simple common sense and a little quantative thinking.

Sometimes to rebut a theory thrown out on a whim takes weeks of detailed analysis. Fortunately Fetzer doesn't operate in that area.

[volatile]

Fetzer's a philosopher of science, and from what I can tell by a brief skim of his non-woo publications is decently versed in a wide range of topics within that area of expertise. He KNOWS about Popperian falsifiabilty, about the proper processes of science, about logic, about the structure of logical fallacies, about experimental controls, all that jazz.

The man's written a book criticising right-wing Christian attacks on evolution, for pity's sake; and one of the blurb quotes is ""Biting assay of Darwinism's latest clash with Biblical-fueled politics. Fetzer diagnoses a chilling fascist beat in his homeland's now-speak of fear, self-righteous conformity, and egoistic belligerence. Essential reading for all who care about science and genuine faith, and their alliance in defense of true liberty". Where has his love of science and his sceptical, critical thinking gone when writing about 911? How can he be such a double-headed coin?

He's beyond qualified to properly think about, and absolutely refute, the kinds of arguments Judy Woods makes. The philosophy of science is all about pointing out where the holes are in the types of things Woods comes out with, and yet he buys the whole thing, hook, line and sinker. During the debate I was just floored by how inept and illogical and un-philosophical his approaches were.

I'm a philosopher myself (though not a philosopher of science, per se, though it is a subject which interests me greatly) and it actually makes me really angry to see someone who should know better so belittle themselves and the whole of their discipline.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan, in the future it would be appreciated if you would post some shorter commentary and simply present the links to the definitions.

Thanks.



For jackchit's edification (if he chooses to ignore it, that's his problem):

Argumentum ad vericundiam
This is a move in argument that may or may not be fallacious, depending on the circumstances. It means an appeal to authority, an example of which could be thus:You say philosophy is important, but Professor X says it's a waste of time.Here the speaker refers to the authority of the professor to counter the claim that philosophy is important. The problem is that the presumed authority may or may not be relevant: if the professor is (or was) a lifelong student of philosophy and decided after years working in the field that it really is a waste of time, then perhaps we should look into his reasons for saying so? On the other hand, if he is a professor of mineralogy, say, then—on the face of it—his opinion bears no more or less weight than anyone else's. It may be that additional factors are important: perhaps this professor has also studied philosophy or is known to us to be a particularly trustworthy and astute individual whose opinion we have come to value?
In short, appealing to authority where the authority does know (or is expected to know) what he or she is talking about is a legitimate move in argument, but when the authority's expertise is not relevant then it is fallacious—indeed, a fallacy of relevance, as before.
Matters are not always so clear-cut, though. Even if the authority in question really is an authority in the field, it may be that the question under consideration is one of much controversy among his or her fellow academics. In our example, other philosophy professors may be found who say that philosophy is important, so that appealing to authorities on one or other side or an argument does no more than appraise us of what they think. Take another instance:Professor Y, a highly respected biologist at a prestigious university, says that the likelihood of live evolving on Mars is so small that, for practical purposes, we can assume it didn't; therefore spending money on searching for life on the red planet is a waste of valuable resources.Here the implicit idea behind the criticism is that with only a finite amount of money to go around and other deserving causes in need of support, why should we support a quest that academics like Professor Y agree is very likely to fail? Is this argument fallacious? It depends: we would need to know more information, such as whether the professor is an expert in the appropriate area of biology and if there is any controversy among similar experts. If the professor's opinion is indicative of the relevant biological community, then perhaps this is information we should keep in mind when forming an opinion on the issue? On the other hand, if the professor is something of a maverick and the weight of biological opinion goes against him or her, then appealing to him or her as an authority could be seen as fallacious, distracting us from the point at issue. In general, we need to be careful in assessing the value of expert testimony, as well as its relevance. http://www.galilean-library.org/int16.html#ad_vericundiam


Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

Also Known as: Fallacious Appeal to Authority, Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority, Questionable Authority, Inappropriate Authority, Ad Verecundiam Description of Appeal to Authority


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:
Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
Person A makes claim C about subject S.
Therefore, C is true.This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.
This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the person in question is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because the fact that an unqualified person makes a claim does not provide any justification for the claim. The claim could be true, but the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept the claim as true.
When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so. More specifically, the person is accepting the claim because they erroneously believe that the person making the claim is a legitimate expert and hence that the claim is reasonable to accept. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities) this fallacy is a fairly common one.
Since this sort of reasoning is fallacious only when the person is not a legitimate authority in a particular context, it is necessary to provide some acceptable standards of assessment. The following standards are widely accepted:
The person has sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question.
Claims made by a person who lacks the needed degree of expertise to make a reliable claim will, obviously, not be well supported. In contrast, claims made by a person with the needed degree of expertise will be supported by the person's reliability in the area.
Determining whether or not a person has the needed degree of expertise can often be very difficult. In academic fields (such as philosophy, engineering, history, etc.), the person's formal education, academic performance, publications, membership in professional societies, papers presented, awards won and so forth can all be reliable indicators of expertise. Outside of academic fields, other standards will apply. For example, having sufficient expertise to make a reliable claim about how to tie a shoe lace only requires the ability to tie the shoe lace and impart that information to others. It should be noted that being an expert does not always require having a university degree. Many people have high degrees of expertise in sophisticated subjects without having ever attended a university. Further, it should not be simply assumed that a person with a degree is an expert.
Of course, what is required to be an expert is often a matter of great debate. For example, some people have (and do) claim expertise in certain (even all) areas because of a divine inspiration or a special gift. The followers of such people accept such credentials as establishing the person's expertise while others often see these self-proclaimed experts as deluded or even as charlatans. In other situations, people debate over what sort of education and experience is needed to be an expert. Thus, what one person may take to be a fallacious appeal another person might take to be a well supported line of reasoning. Fortunately, many cases do not involve such debate.
The claim being made by the person is within her area(s) of expertise.
If a person makes a claim about some subject outside of his area(s) of expertise, then the person is not an expert in that context. Hence, the claim in question is not backed by the required degree of expertise and is not reliable.
It is very important to remember that because of the vast scope of human knowledge and skill it is simply not possible for one person to be an expert on everything. Hence, experts will only be true experts in respect to certain subject areas. In most other areas they will have little or no expertise. Thus, it is important to determine what subject area a claim falls under.
It is also very important to note that expertise in one area does not automatically confer expertise in another. For example, being an expert physicist does not automatically make a person an expert on morality or politics. Unfortunately, this is often overlooked or intentionally ignored. In fact, a great deal of advertising rests on a violation of this condition. As anyone who watches television knows, it is extremely common to get famous actors and sports heroes to endorse products that they are not qualified to assess. For example, a person may be a great actor, but that does not automatically make him an expert on cars or shaving or underwear or diets or politics.
There is an adequate degree of agreement among the other experts in the subject in question.
If there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute among the experts within a subject, then it will fallacious to make an Appeal to Authority using the disputing experts. This is because for almost any claim being made and "supported" by one expert there will be a counterclaim that is made and "supported" by another expert. In such cases an Appeal to Authority would tend to be futile. In such cases, the dispute has to be settled by consideration of the actual issues under dispute. Since either side in such a dispute can invoke experts, the dispute cannot be rationally settled by Appeals to Authority.
There are many fields in which there is a significant amount of legitimate dispute. Economics is a good example of such a disputed field. Anyone who is familiar with economics knows that there are many plausible theories that are incompatible with one another. Because of this, one expert economist could sincerely claim that the deficit is the key factor while another equally qualified individual could assert the exact opposite. Another area where dispute is very common (and well known) is in the area of psychology and psychiatry. As has been demonstrated in various trials, it is possible to find one expert that will assert that an individual is insane and not competent to stand trial and to find another equally qualified expert who will testify, under oath, that the same individual is both sane and competent to stand trial. Obviously, one cannot rely on an Appeal to Authority in such a situation without making a fallacious argument. Such an argument would be fallacious since the evidence would not warrant accepting the conclusion.
It is important to keep in mind that no field has complete agreement, so some degree of dispute is acceptable. How much is acceptable is, of course, a matter of serious debate. It is also important to keep in mind that even a field with a great deal of internal dispute might contain areas of significant agreement. In such cases, an Appeal to Authority could be legitimate.
The person in question is not significantly biased.
If an expert is significantly biased then the claims he makes within his are of bias will be less reliable. Since a biased expert will not be reliable, an Argument from Authority based on a biased expert will be fallacious. This is because the evidence will not justify accepting the claim.
Experts, being people, are vulnerable to biases and predjudices. If there is evidence that a person is biased in some manner that would affect the reliability of her claims, then an Argument from Authority based on that person is likely to be fallacious. Even if the claim is actually true, the fact that the expert is biased weakens the argument. This is because there would be reason to believe that the expert might not be making the claim because he has carefully considered it using his expertise. Rather, there would be reason to believe that the claim is being made because of the expert's bias or prejudice.
It is important to remember that no person is completely objective. At the very least, a person will be favorable towards her own views (otherwise she would probably not hold them). Because of this, some degree of bias must be accepted, provided that the bias is not significant. What counts as a significant degree of bias is open to dispute and can vary a great deal from case to case. For example, many people would probably suspect that doctors who were paid by tobacco companies to research the effects of smoking would be biased while other people might believe (or claim) that they would be able to remain objective.
The area of expertise is a legitimate area or discipline.
Certain areas in which a person may claim expertise may have no legitimacy or validity as areas of knowledge or study. Obviously, claims made in such areas will not be very reliable.
What counts as a legitimate area of expertise is sometimes difficult to determine. However, there are cases which are fairly clear cut. For example, if a person claimed to be an expert at something he called "chromabullet therapy" and asserted that firing painted rifle bullets at a person would cure cancer it would not be very reasonable to accept his claim based on his "expertise." After all, his expertise is in an area which is devoid of legitimate content. The general idea is that to be a legitimate expert a person must have mastery over a real field or area of knowledge.
As noted above, determining the legitimacy of a field can often be difficult. In European history, various scientists had to struggle with the Church and established traditions to establish the validity of their discliplines. For example, experts on evolution faced an uphill battle in getting the legitimacy of their area accepted.
A modern example involves psychic phenomenon. Some people claim that they are certified "master psychics" and that they are actually experts in the field. Other people contend that their claims of being certified "master psychics" are simply absurd since there is no real content to such an area of expertise. If these people are right, then anyone who accepts the claims of these "master psychics" as true are victims of a fallacious appeal to authority.
The authority in question must be identified.
A common variation of the typical Appeal to Authority fallacy is an Appeal to an Unnamed Authority. This fallacy is also known as an Appeal to an Unidentified Authority.
This fallacy is committed when a person asserts that a claim is true because an expert or authority makes the claim and the person does not actually identify the expert. Since the expert is not named or identified, there is no way to tell if the person is actually an expert. Unless the person is identified and has his expertise established, there is no reason to accept the claim. This sort of reasoning is not unusual. Typically, the person making the argument will say things like "I have a book that says...", or "they say...", or "the experts say...", or "scientists believe that...", or "I read in the paper.." or "I saw on TV..." or some similar statement. in such cases the person is often hoping that the listener(s) will simply accept the unidentified source as a legitimate authority and believe the claim being made. If a person accepts the claim simply because they accept the unidentified source as an expert (without good reason to do so), he has fallen prey to this fallacy.As suggested above, not all Appeals to Authority are fallacious. This is fortunate since people have to rely on experts. This is because no one person can be an expert on everything and people do not have the time or ability to investigate every single claim themselves.
In many cases, Arguments from Authority will be good arguments. For example, when a person goes to a skilled doctor and the doctor tells him that he has a cold, then the the patient has good reason to accept the doctor's conclusion. As another example, if a person's computer is acting odd and his friend, who is a computer expert, tells him it is probably his hard drive then he has good reason to believe her.
What distinguishes a fallacious Appeal to Authority from a good Appeal to Authority is that the argument meets the six conditions discussed above.
In a good Appeal to Authority, there is reason to believe the claim because the expert says the claim is true. This is because a person who is a legitimate expert is more likely to be right than wrong when making considered claims within her area of expertise. In a sense, the claim is being accepted because it is reasonable to believe that the expert has tested the claim and found it to be reliable. So, if the expert has found it to be reliable, then it is reasonable to accept it as being true. Thus, the listener is accepting a claim based on the testimony of the expert.
It should be noted that even a good Appeal to Authority is not an exceptionally strong argument. After all, in such cases a claim is being accepted as true simply because a person is asserting that it is true. The person may be an expert, but her expertise does not really bear on the truth of the claim. This is because the expertise of a person does not actually determine whether the claim is true or false. Hence, arguments that deal directly with evidence relating to the claim itself will tend to be stronger. Examples of Appeal to Authority

Bill and Jane are arguing about the morality of abortion:
Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally acceptable. After all, a woman should have a right to her own body."
Jane: "I disagree completely. Dr. Johan Skarn says that abortion is always morally wrong, regardless of the situation. He has to be right, after all, he is a respected expert in his field."
Bill: "I've never heard of Dr. Skarn. Who is he?"
Jane: "He's the guy that won the Nobel Prize in physics for his work on cold fusion."
Bill: "I see. Does he have any expertise in morality or ethics?"
Jane: "I don't know. But he's a world famous expert, so I believe him."
Dave and Kintaro are arguing about Stalin's reign in the Soviet Union. Dave has been arguing that Stalin was a great leader while Kintaro disagrees with him.
Kintaro: "I don't see how you can consider Stalin to be a great leader. He killed millions of his own people, he crippled the Soviet economy, kept most of the people in fear and laid the foundations for the violence that is occuring in much of Eastern Europe."
Dave: "Yeah, well you say that. However, I have a book at home that says that Stalin was acting in the best interest of the people. The millions that were killed were vicious enemies of the state and they had to be killed to protect the rest of the peaceful citizens. This book lays it all out, so it has to be true."
I'm not a doctor, but I play one on the hit series "Bimbos and Studmuffins in the OR." You can take it from me that when you need a fast acting, effective and safe pain killer there is nothing better than MorphiDope 2000. That is my considered medical opinion.
Siphwe and Sasha are having a conversation: Sasha: "I played the lottery today and I know I am going to win something."
Siphwe: "What did you do, rig the outcome?"
Sasha: "No, silly. I called my Super Psychic Buddy at the 1-900-MindPower number. After consulting his magic Californian Tarot deck, he told me my lucky numbers."
Siphwe: "And you believed him?"
Sasha: "Certainly, he is a certified Californian Master-Mind Psychic. That is why I believe what he has to say. I mean, like, who else would know what my lucky numbers are?"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Argumentum ad verecundiam (argument or appeal to authority). This fallacy occurs when someone tries to demonstrate the truth of a proposition by citing some person who agrees, even though that person may have no expertise in the given area. For instance, some people like to quote Einstein's opinions about politics (he tended to have fairly left-wing views), as though Einstein were a political philosopher rather than a physicist. Of course, it is not a fallacy at all to rely on authorities whose expertise relates to the question at hand, especially with regard to questions of fact that could not easily be answered by a layman -- for instance, it makes perfect sense to quote Stephen Hawking on the subject of black holes. At least in some forms of debate, quoting various sources to support one's position is not just acceptable but mandatory. In general, there is nothing wrong with doing so. Even if the person quoted has no particular expertise in the area, he may have had a particularly eloquent way of saying something that makes for a more persuasive speech. In general, debaters should be called down for committing argumentum ad verecundiam only when (a) they rely on an unqualified source for information about facts without other (qualified) sources of verification, or (b) they imply that some policy must be right simply because so-and-so thought so. http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20verecundiam (http://www.csun.edu/%7Edgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20verecundiam)

Appeal to authority

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority#searchInput)
An appeal to authority or argument by authority is a type of argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument) in logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), consisting on basing the truth value of an otherwise unsupported assertion on the authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority), knowledge or position of the person asserting it. It is also known as argument from authority, argumentum ad verecundiam (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin): argument to respect) or ipse dixit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipsedixitism) (Latin: he himself said it). It is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositional_knowledge), but a fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy) in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. The corresponding reverse case would be an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack: to imply that the claim is false because the asserter is objectionable.
On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is plausible: it is likely true, we just don't know for sure, because authority alone is not a proof.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appeal_to_authority&action=edit&section=1)] Forms

There are two basic forms of appeal to authority, based on the authority being trusted. The more relevant the expertise of an authority, the more compelling the argument. Nonetheless, authority is never absolute, so all appeals to authority which assert that the authorities' claims are definitely true are fallacious.
The first form of the appeal to authority is when a person presenting a position on a subject mentions some authority who also holds that position, but who is not actually an authority in that area. For instance, the statement "Arthur C. Clarke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke) recently released a report showing it is necessary to floss three times daily" should not convince many people of anything about flossing, as Arthur C. Clarke is not a known expert on dental hygiene (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_hygiene). Much advertising (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertising) relies on this logical fallacy in the form of endorsements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsement) and sponsorships (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponsorship).
The second form, citing a person who actually is an authority in the relevant field, carries more weight in that the authority is more likely to be correct. However the possibility of a mistake remains.
In mathematics, the second form, especially when the appellant is himself the authority, is wryly referred to as "proof by tenure".

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Appeal_to_authority&action=edit&section=2)] Appeal to authority as logical fallacy

A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:
A makes claim B;
there is something positive about A,
therefore claim B is true.The first statement is called a 'factual claim' and is the pivot point of much debate. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. There are two types of inferential claim, explicit and implicit. Arguments that (fallaciously) rely on the objectionable aspects of the person for the truth of the conclusion are discussed under ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).
An appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority) is a logical fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy): authorities can be wrong, both in their own field and in other fields; therefore referencing authority does not automatically imply truth. However, referencing authority may carry a high enough probability of truth that it be feasible to base decisions on it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
Appeal to Authority: A type of fallacious argument in which undue reliance is placed upon evidence from presumed, and possibly even divine, experts. An attempt to sway an argument by force of personality, reputation, or just plain fear, rather than by objective fact. Human religious belief systems are invariably based upon arguments from authority, delivered as fact by self-proclaimed "chosen ones" known as "priests", and accepted by the rest of us as a matter of faith. Example: " 'And I promise that I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt; to the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, a land flowing with milk and honey' " (Exodus, 3:17; note the double quotation marks, since Moses is at this point reporting the promise at second hand). [Map (http://www.bible-history.com/map-israel-joshua/index.html)showing the locations mentioned; Story (http://www.bible-history.com/map-israel-joshua/map-israel-joshua_conclusion.html) of how those on the receiving end of this heavenly eviction notice had it coming to them anyway.] [Compare hearsay evidence.] http://www.smithsrisca.demon.co.uk/rational-argument-glossary.html
Appeal to Misleading Authority
<B>Alias:
Appeal to Authority
Argument from Authority
Argumentum ad Verecundiam Translation: "Argument from respect/modesty", Latin
Ipse Dixit Translation: "He, himself, said it", LatinType: Genetic Fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html)
Form:


Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true. Quote…

t is not what the man of science believes that distinguishes him, but how and why he believes it. His beliefs are tentative, not dogmatic; they are based on evidence, not on authority or intuition.…Unquote


Source: Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (Book-of-the-Month Club, 1995), p. 527. Example:

Cheating by the Soviets
Barry Schweid of the Associated Press, in his efforts to criticize President Reagan's space-based defense against Soviet missiles, came up with a report from some Stanford University group that claimed to find little evidence of cheating by the Soviet Union on arms-control treaties.
Where were they when Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and George Shultz, secretary of state, and several members of our military forces went on TV and described and enumerated the different times and ways that the Soviet Union has cheated on the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? Does Schweid really believe that the group at Stanford is more knowledgeable about U.S. arms-control policy than all our military experts, with Congress thrown in for good measure? If I thought that was true, I wouldn't sleep much tonight. And I doubt if he would either.
Source: Middleton B. Freeman, Louisville, "Letters From Readers", The Courier-Journal, April 1, 1987.
Analysis (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html#Analysis) Exposition:


We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusion (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Conclusion)s about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion. For instance, those of us who are not physicians usually rely upon those who are when making medical decisions, and we are not wrong to do so. There are, however, four major ways in which such argument (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Argument)s can go wrong:
An appeal to authority may be inappropriate in a couple of ways:
<LI class=noindent>It is unnecessary. If a question can be answered by observation or calculation, an argument from authority is not needed. Since arguments from authority are weaker than more direct evidence, go look or figure it out for yourself.
The renaissance rebellion against the authority of Aristotle and the Bible played an important role in the scientific revolution. Aristotle was so respected in the Middle Ages that his word was taken on empirical issues which were easily decidable by observation. The scientific revolution moved away from this over-reliance on authority towards the use of observation and experiment. Similarly, the Bible has been invoked as an authority on empirical or mathematical questions. A particularly amusing example is the claim that the value of [I]pi can be determined to be 3 based on certain passages in the Old Testament. The value of pi, however, is a mathematical question which can be answered by calculation, and appeal to authority is irrelevant.
It is impossible. About some issues there simply is no expert opinion, and an appeal to authority is bound to commit the next type of mistake. For example, many self-help books are written every year by self-proclaimed "experts" on matters for which there is no expertise.
The "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is the old television commercial which began: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...." The actor then proceeded to recommend a brand of medicine.
The authority is an expert, but is not disinterested. That is, the expert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy.
For example, suppose that a medical scientist testifies that ambient cigarette smoke does not pose a hazard to the health of non-smokers exposed to it. Suppose, further, that it turns out that the scientist is an employee of a cigarette company. Clearly, the scientist has a powerful bias in favor of the position that he is taking which calls into question his objectivity. There is an old saying: "A doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient," and a similar version for attorneys: "A lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client." Why should these be true if the doctor or lawyer is an expert on medicine or the law? The answer is that we are all biased in our own causes. A physician who tries to diagnose his own illness is more likely to make a mistake out of wishful thinking (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html), or out of fear, than another physician would be.
While the authority is an expert, his opinion is unrepresentative of expert opinion on the subject. The fact is that if one looks hard enough, it is possible to find an expert who supports virtually any position that one wishes to take. "Such is human perversity", to quote Lewis Carroll. This is a great boon for debaters, who can easily find expert opinion on their side of a question, whatever that side is, but it is confusing for those of us listening to debates and trying to form an opinion.
Experts are human beings, after all, and human beings err, even in their area of expertise. This is one reason why it is a good idea to get a second opinion about major medical matters, and even a third if the first two disagree. While most people understand the sense behind seeking a second opinion when their life or health is at stake, they are frequently willing to accept a single, unrepresentative opinion on other matters, especially when that opinion agrees with their own bias. Bias (problem 3) is one source of unrepresentativeness. For instance, the opinions of cigarette company scientists tend to be unrepresentative of expert opinion on the health consequences of smoking because they are biased to minimize such consequences. For the general problem of judging the opinion of a population based upon a sample, see the Fallacy of Unrepresentative Sample (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/biassamp.html).To sum up these points in a positive manner, before relying upon expert opinion, go through the following checklist:
Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:
Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else's. If so, proceed to the next question:
Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:
Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:
Is the authority's opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority's opinion.If an argument to authority cannot pass these five tests, then it commits the fallacy of appeal to misleading authority. Exposure:

Since not all arguments from expert opinion are fallacious (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html#Fallacious), some authorities on logic have taken to labelling this fallacy as "appeal to inappropriate or irrelevant or questionable authority", rather than the traditional name "appeal to authority". For the same reason, I use the name "appeal to misleading authority" to distinguish fallacious from non-fallacious arguments from authority.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html</B>

[The Great Hairy One]

Arkan, I am sooooooooo tempted to quote your entire post and just add "Right." at the bottom or something. :D

Cheers,
TGHO

[garypopkin]

A Hardfire viewer has requested to be put on Mark's emailing list, if he has one. Here's what the viewer says:


Please ask Mark Roberts to add me to his email list if he has one.

I like what he, and you have to say about the 9/11 nuts.

If he has an email list, ask him to put me on it.


Mark, if you want to respond to this request, send me your email privately (garypopkin@yahoo.com).

[gumboot]

Mark doesn't have a mailing list. His NWO emailing privelages were revoked after that incident with the monkey. A clear violation of 45.RC.pt34R.IV.Sec.29.A.III.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Also, be aware that certain sock frequenters of this forum have recently been trying to track down info on people, such as JamesB, via the internet. They posted as much over on SLC blog recently....

TAM:)