((((Actually I suspect he’s deeply deranged and is probably holding his act together one day at a time. But I was much more polite then that in the post below. From elsewhere:)))))
“A good fraction of Americans still believe that the invasion of Iraq was legitimate retaliation for Saddam Husein’s attack on the Word Trade Center.”
Not a bad or disproven theory by the way. Although there appears to be many more culprits than just him. Did you imagine Saddam had some sort of alibi? What was that alibi if so?
Phantom-alibis aside for the moment, what is a “Winthrop Professor?” You hear that phrase all the time. Its hard, even with google, to sort out its origins. So far it seems to be associated with someone called Robert Winthrop. With a sample size of only one you’d have to wonder if Winthrop Professors weren’t all dopes.
Its hard to respond to arguments that Stephen makes at Unleashed. Because he makes none relevant to his claims. He just starts “psychologizing” people he disagrees with. Certainly he’s the most irrational person that ABC Unleashed has ever dredged up.
He posted two videos about 9/11. One of them where he claimed that an item that people were saying was an “appendage” on the underside of one of the planes. Stephen didn’t think it was any sort of appendage. Rather he KNEW it was a shadow. He cast aspersions on these people assuring everyone that the supposed appendage was only a shadow.
So I looked at his video, there was a clear shot 98 seconds in, and it didn’t look like a shadow at all. There is no way to assess his claim that it was only a shadow, except negatively, by the evidence that he himself presents. Stephen is a real odd fish.
Some people decide what their view is of a matter. And then that determines what they can and cannot see. “See” here in the literal sense. I’m sure I’d have a hard time getting Stephen to admit that what he is claiming is a shadow, at least doesn’t look even a bit like a shadow, quite irrespective of whether its a shadow or not. I’ve seen people like this before. And its as though they would need extensive therapy before they could admit what was and wasn’t evidence, and what photographs did, and did not, look like.
You can make up your own mind whether this is a shadow or not. Thats not the point I’m making. What I’m saying is that Stephen seems incapable of making any valid argument at all. And using this video, that at least APPEARED to contradict what he was saying……… well in my book that was quite an odd-ball thing to do.
I’ve seen the underside of planes before. It would be one thing for Stephen to suggest that the photographs were misleading or doctored. But thats not what he suggested. He suggested that we ought to not trust our lying eyes. Or if thats not what he suggested, it was pretty hard to figure out what his argument was at all.
I think you are supposed to work forwards from whatever evidence you have. Not work backwards from the conclusion, doctoring all evidence mentally as you go. Stephen seems to think differently if we look at his actions, rather than any implied self-assessment. Here is the video.
98 seconds in. Starboard side (left from underneath). Eye-Witness testimony backing the oddness of it. Well Stephen its a shadow if you say so. But how did you find this out when the rest of us cannot determine this from the video or photo?
I guess Stephen has the gift of second-sight. In fact this implication is in all his writings. Everything he writes seems to imply that he needs no reason or evidence. He just knows stuff. He’s got the gift of second sight. Lucky for him but he ought to take pity on the rest of us and cast about for secondary evidence and clearly superfluous valid reasoning.