disinfo agents tactics

[Ignatz]

mmmmm do you have any logic?

it would depend on the design primarily i would suggest that is the most important factor(i have not seen one but that dosnt make it insane to think). if your denying engines exsist that can propel a craft forwards and vertically upwards i have to wonder where your logic stands.

ill explain the logic behind the anti- gravity to while im at it watch the clips i linked, you will notice a control panel and a pad underneath the item that is floating.

put the control panel inside the craft and the pad or something simular underneath the craft and id imagine it works in the same way so just add some type of engine for propulsion. the panel controls up down depending on frequency output some type of engine controls forward motion. viola an anti gravity craft that can hover in one spot as long as its wants and as high as the output allows it. add more than one enigine and switch the power between engines depending which direction you want to go. so all that is important is design to maximise control of the craft. regardless of if they exsist or not is it impossible? insane to think? something only a crackpot could come up with?

If it has no rotor, it isn't a helicopter. that's all.

[Ignatz]

<duplicate deleted >

[marky 54]

mmmmm do you have any logic?

it would depend on the design primarily i would suggest that is the most important factor(i have not seen one but that dosnt make it insane to think). if your denying engines exsist that can propel a craft forwards and vertically upwards i have to wonder where your logic stands.

ill explain the logic behind the anti- gravity to while im at it watch the clips i linked, you will notice a control panel and a pad underneath the item that is floating.

put the control panel inside the craft and the pad or something simular underneath the craft and id imagine it works in the same way so just add some type of engine for propulsion. the panel controls up down depending on frequency output some type of engine controls forward motion. viola an anti gravity craft that can hover in one spot as long as its wants and as high as the output allows it. add more than one enigine and switch the power between engines depending which direction you want to go. so all that is important is design to maximise control of the craft. regardless of if they exsist or not is it impossible? insane to think? something only a crackpot could come up with?

If it has no rotor, it isn't a helicopter. that's all.

well i cannot argue with that, but depending on the design and if they do exsist it could look like one. but by definition i would agree.

[jason67]

Hey Ignatz, I thought you had gone in a blaze of glory??

Couldnt stay away huh? Needed some overtime? Pressure from you handlers?

Oh well, at least both of us have gone back on our word, you said you were going for good and I said I would never post with one of you guys again.

[Dogsmilk]

extraordinary theories require extraordinary proof" - Carl Sagan.

Ah, b*, I'm supposed to be taking a break from this place, but just felt compelled to point out this quote is decidedly unscientific. The burden of proof should remain the same whatever the theory. Otherwise, you can just lower the standard of evidence if you decide you think a theory is likely or raise it of you think it isn't. That's not science.

[marky 54]

dogsmilk said:
[qoute] Ah, b*, I'm supposed to be taking a break from this place, but just felt compelled to point out [qoute]





i know the feeling
im sure you will be compelled a few more times or it will play on your mind! well it does mine anyway.

[IronSnot]

Ignatz, you need to clean up your office (it's disgusting) and stop smoking. Also don't drink out of dirty drinking glasses, you'll get sick.

Off you go.

[Ignatz]

extraordinary theories require extraordinary proof" - Carl Sagan.

Ah, b*, I'm supposed to be taking a break from this place, but just felt compelled to point out this quote is decidedly unscientific. The burden of proof should remain the same whatever the theory. Otherwise, you can just lower the standard of evidence if you decide you think a theory is likely or raise it of you think it isn't. That's not science.

Really?

a/ it rained on the way to work yesterday
b/ I was abducted by aliens on the way to work yesterday

Both claims require the same standard of proof?

[Ignatz]

Hey Ignatz, I thought you had gone in a blaze of glory??

Couldnt stay away huh? Needed some overtime? Pressure from you handlers?

Oh well, at least both of us have gone back on our word, you said you were going for good and I said I would never post with one of you guys again.

Too much time on my hands. One of the perils of a cushy job where the boss spends as much time surfing as I do

[Dogsmilk]

Really?

a/ it rained on the way to work yesterday

b/ I was abducted by aliens on the way to work yesterday

Both claims require the same standard of proof?

Yes.

The standards of empirical evidence should remain the same to prove either case. The major difference is, we'd tend to assume b/ is less likely so would tend to be more incredulous and expect pictures or whatever to evidence it. If proved true, it would change the world (unlike a spot of rain), so we'd be more concerned to be sure. If I say it's raining where I am, what do you care? You don't regard it as unusual or interesting (I assume). If I said I'd been abducted by aliens, you'd find it remarkable and thus want proof. We don't seek to constantly evidence the mundane or else life would be unlivable. The actual standard of evidence should be the same, it's whether you think it worth investigating or not. If aliens had landed 10 years ago and begun a mass program of random anal probes, you'd cease to be so incredulous if I said I was abducted as it would be normal. though you might seek to evidence it if you were my boss and I said I couldn't come into work due to a particularly rigorous probing.
In which case I could also say I was abducted in the rain, but the rain was actually the spaceship flushing out the probulator above me; if you took me at my word it was raining, you'd be onto an inaccurate conclusion, elusive without empirical confirmation. Though I doubt it would matter.
Unfortunately, aliens that allegedly abduct people consistently prove to be elusive whereas rain does not. If you lived on a desert planet as some freakish silicon based waterless lifeform and had never seen rain, you might however be equally sceptical about its existence and engage in theoretical models to determine whether it could or not.
On the other hand, I could have gone mad. If I said I was being abducted, it might be easier to spot as a delusional belief, but there's no reason I couldn't also be having delusions of rain. In fact, delusions that sound mundane do occur and are naturally hard to pick out from reality. So you end up seeking evidence for mundane events you wouldn't normally question. Same if you suspect someone of lying.

To suggest differing standards of evidence to be used to confirm the existence of, say -
a/Aliens
bElephants
moves away from the impartiality the scientific method should adopt. However, strong evidence for elephants is easy to find and 'elephant deniers' are scarce and fail to provide convincing arguments for there not actually being elephants. If aliens roamed Africa, their existence should be confirmed using the same set of tools.
If you accept weaker evidence for hypotheses you like and stronger evidence for hypotheses you don't, you're acting on ideology or belief systems rather than objectivity.


Around the time the war kicked off, I heard a woman on a discussion show speaking about Blair's lies. She said -
"If Tony Blair said it was raining, I'd go outside to check"
She had the right idea there.

I didn't reply to your last madness post, as I'm trying to take time off. Suffice to say, I think neither side is mad and stick to my assertion false or unusual beliefs are not per se significant. If that were the case, holocaust deniers would all be in psychiatric institutions.

must...stay...away...from...this...forum...........

[thought criminal]

Too much time on my hands. One of the perils of a cushy job where the boss spends as much time surfing as I do

While all those kids with so called 'behavioural problems' you are 'supposed' to be working with run amok, I presume?

I mean, what exactly does constitute a 'behavioural problem' in the weird and wacky world of Ignatz?

God help those kids if they happen to agree that 9/11 was an inside job. You would probably have them locked up, wouldn't you? Or maybe a shot of ECT would be the order of the day?

[Ignatz]

Ignatz, you need to clean up your office (it's disgusting) and stop smoking. Also don't drink out of dirty drinking glasses, you'll get sick.

Off you go.

Brilliant.

When all my Illuminati back-pay and bonuses come through I might just sort it. Or slap on a coat of paint and go over the pub instead. Or just go to the pub. Whatever.

You fish?

[IronSnot]

I gather the base pay is nonsense then? Is it based on performance?