Posted by: graemebird | April 28, 2010

The Brain Splatter Consistent Only With An Exploding Bullet From the Storm Drain To Jacks Right

                                                                                                                                                                                  THE WET MALE

MY MOST FAITHFUL INTERPRETER

We have got to put the melon party trick behind us. The second shooter proves that it must have been a conspiracy. The next step is to see if the communists or the mob could have supplied the second shooter and if that could be the end of the matter. I can jump ahead and tell you up front that the communists providing a second shooter, and the Kennedy hit being a small conspiracy, involving the tiniest number of people …… I can tell you that this eminently sensible speculation can be ruled out entirely. I can tell you that we can rule out the mob providing the second shooter, in the context of a tiny conspiracy …. I can tell you that this theory can be ruled out as well, insofar as any theory involving a small conspiracy can be ruled out.

Actually the mob did supply the shooters or some of them. I’m not ruling out the idea that the mob supplied shooters. Since this is what indeed did happen. Rather I’m ruling out the idea that the Kennedy hit was a SMALL conspiracy.

So first we rule out the idea that there was one shooter. Later we rule out any idea of a small conspiracy wherein an additional shooter was added to “underwrite” the first shooter. We rule out the idea of any sort of SMALL CONSPIRACY.

For me this is healthy and somewhat of a revelation. For me this is changing the habit of a lifetime and pivoting on a silver coin. Since for the last quarter century I’ve been apriori ruling out a BIG CONSPIRACY and now, as fate would have it, its time to rule out a small conspiracy. I could not begin to believe that a big conspiracy was possible. I was ruling out a big conspiracy apriori. But while apriori is 95% of science, it is next to useless on its own. I can jump ahead and tell you straight up, for absolute certainty, that this was a big conspiracy. We are going to talk about how this is possible. It IS possible. I know that BIG CONSPIRACIES are possible now (with shame for being a dupe for the longest time). Because thats the way it happened in the case of the murder of JFK. The JFK murder, proves beyond any doubt, that big conspiracies are at least possible.

I can tell you as a prelude that only the concept of a FUCKING MASSIVE CONSPIRACY is possible in the case of the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. But for the moment this thread is only to prove that there was more than one shooter, and that the bullet that caused the brain splatter in the Zapruder film, comes from down low on Jacks right, and that this bullet was an exploding one.

SCIENCE TELLS US THAT THE BRAIN SPLATTER, KNOWN AND WITNESSED BY EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU, CAME FROM AN EXPLODING BULLET, SHOT FROM JACKS FRONT-RIGHT AND LOW-DOWN.

No other set of circumstances is possible.

It has to be down low on Jacks right. It must be an exploding bullet. There is no doubt about either of these two propositions. See if you can prove otherwise….. From comments on this blog:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I share your concerns Ron. But Penn Jiilette is a good man. No commie. And whats more he is one of the few truly smart young blokes today calling himself a “skeptic.” Back in the 70′s was the heyday of the skeptic movement. This was when all the prominent skeptics were true genius level. Today people calling themselves skeptics, particularly the young folk, tend to be the biggest dropkicks in the world. Penn Jiillette is an incredibly smart fellow. This is the first time I’ve seen him stooge himself.

Jiilette and his partner are one of the few people on the planet to get a rave review from our greatest living economist. George Reisman did a write-up on an excellent episode of their show to do with the bullshitartistry of recycling.

So its terrible this one time to see young Penn stooging himself with the old melon balancing trick. Since the order of magnitude of difference of force needed to lift Jack Kennedy’s entire body (minus perhaps the weight of his legs below the knee) up and back …….. and to tip a melon balanced precariously, wherein the melon is stood up vertically …….

We are talking an order of magnitude of force and energy difference in the two examples ….. of at least two orders of magnitude ……. more likely three, and potentially as much as four.

This blind melon chitlen trick, ludicrously tagged “the jet effect” is no “jet effect” but rather a melon balancing trick. It wouldn’t even work if the melon was placed on the horizontal. Its a shame when someone of that level of prestige and credibility screws things up so badly.

To understand how most viewers would be taken in by this, we have to factor in Penn’s prestige, and his awesome ability to perform in front of the camera.

But how did he stooge himself? He stooged himself the same way I stooged myself, the same way Fisk stooged himself, the same way that the brilliant Currency Lad stooged himself.

The way we all four stooged ourselves is we could not bring ourselves to believe that a conspiracy involving that many people was even possible, given that its hard for even three people to keep a secret.

So here you see Penn acting unscientifically with immense panache. But unscientifically just the same. He doesn’t verbalize his reasoning. But a scientist must always verbalize his reasoning lest he stooge himself. The secret reasoning off-screen is tendentiousness, since its working backwards from an off-screen conclusion. That conclusion being “If it was a conspiracy involving more than the tiniest number it would be a thing with short legs.”

In this case his reasoning has got nothing to do with what he demonstrates. Rather his reasoning is off-camera. And merely to do with him not being able to cope with a vast conspiracy that can keep itself afloat.

I’m not hassling Penn too much. How could I do so righteously? I made the same mistake myself. I’m actually pretty old you know. No I’m not telling you how old I am. But I’ve pretty fucking ancient and decrepid.

You see, without applying rigorous method to the problem I’ve gone all this time getting it wrong. But we must be able to pivot on a silver dollar, apply good methodology, and change the habit of a lifetime.

This is an incredibly important issue. Because in a better world we must understand Bobby Kennedy’s tragic yet understandable mistake, and the wider hazard of PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY ……… since this concept of plausible deniability is fraught with the potential of civilisation-destroying bad karma.

Let us repeat the take-home story. The melon-balancing trick would not even work with a horizontal melon. So pitiful is the force difference involved. Ergo we have a second shooter. Ergo we have a conspiracy. And a bullet coming from the front right.

AN EXPLODING BULLET.

The bullet was therefore an exploding bullet. Since witness evidence (as opposed to government lies) tells us there was a clean small whole in Jacks right temple and the left backside of his head was blown clean off with most of his brain gone. Jackie retrieved a solid chunk of Jacks brain. Some of the rest was left there. A lot of the rest immediately spurted out the small clean hole in Jacks temple …. specifically because the bullet was an exploding one.

Had the kill shot, been as the result of a normal rifle shot, from a building to Jacks back right, then if there was this brain spurt ….. (which there probably would not have been) it would have been DOWN….. and to the LEFT …….. that the splattered brains would have travelled.

Jackie would not then have retrieved a solid chunk of brain from the back of the car. And (supposing that there was this splattered brain effect that all of us did see) then there also would have been Jacks LEFT I SAID LEFT TEMPLE BLOWN CLEAN OFF with the neat little bullet hole to the top right of the back of Jacks head.

This is not what the witnesses tell us. So everything is consistent only with an exploding bullet, shot from down low. From lower than Jack. That is to say from the storm drain.

I am right. Prove me wrong. Government reports without backing video witness testimony does not count (or at least is feeble evidence to say the least.) Prove me wrong. You cannot do it.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. Lyle Lovett is rather good isn’t he?
    One imagines that part of ones problems comes from liking folks such as Lyle Lovett.

    This sort of thing may make a man, as Frank Chodorov might say…… Out
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>step

  2. Mr Bird
    Mr Soon has proposed a screen treatment of your life. What is this wily oriental up to?

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/04/24/open-forum-anzac-edition/comment-page-6/#comment-39387

  3. Yesterday I saw a column that was written by an asian man whose name I sadly cannot remember. And it was about the idea that Anzac day was important to non-Anglo migrants.

    Sonofabitch I am in the habit of leaving the paper at work so I never did get to read it. Just yesterday I saw a gawky ethnic Chinese kid in school uniform. Covered in pimples but a tall kid. And right in front of me this girl in school uniform comes up to him and says:

    “Can I come to your birthday party?”

    The kid said yes and without skipping a beat the girl said:

    “Do you want my number?”

    and the high-tech phone was in her hand.

    I perceived this as GOOD.

    Its a bit like bloody going out for a quiet drink with Jason Soon. Sheilas start morphing out of the walls like new model T-1000’s.

    The thing is that all this immigration is a good thing culturally. But does it make us less or more survivable? Because its going to be a trial by fire through many tough decades. We cannot be all the same, but we have to find a way of eliminating those things that divide us, and we must find a way to lock in a counter-bias against crony-town so as to give the small businessman, or anyone who aspires to be that way, a stake in this continent.

    While I pursue the thoughts of the great benefits of mega-culturalist cross-fertilisation every so often you find a song that seems somewhat especially Boll Weevil. Somewhat more peculiar to my Anglo-Celt crowd.

    I’ve played this one many times before and I guess I’ll play it again sometime:

  4. You want to see discrimination in this country contemplate this:

    “The sources of productivity growth”

    Yes thats right. I’m excluded from the thread at Catallaxy. Not wanted. A stranger in a strange land. Exluded. Beaten down. A disrespected, or should I say fucking-dissed minority.

    Dissed, excluded, cut out, cut off, downtrodden, degraded, lost, floating, flotsam or jetsam or both.

    And why?

    Because I questioned the reality and righteousness of the concept of the Keynesian multiplier.

    Here it is at Catallaxy. A thread for which I am the rightful authority.

    Dispossessed. Wings clipped. Muzzled. They don’t want to know. A stranger in my own territory. Put in the Hoosegow in my own house. Lost like last Christmas in a country so unafraid of bad advice that they would tie me up and tie me down and refuse to fucking listen.

  5. You are, Mr B, the Proverbial Wandering Jew. And I mean that in the nicest and most respectful possible way, and not to suggest that you have any Shylock Tendencies or any sort of Affinity for Ponzi Money or that you are in fact of the Hebrew Persuasion.

  6. I am in fact the wandering Jew. For is that not the person seeking the redemption of the human race entire?

    My alter ego says the following”

    “Glad I called in sick today. It’s an afternoon of beer, country music, and you tube science research.”

    But I say that all knowledge is holistic. So I cannot differentiate these activities, one to the other.

  7. Graeme, some of your notifications are not computing 404 etc.

    I’m thrilled about Krudds cancellation of the ETS
    and what a bitch eh raising cigs by 25%. And saying
    cigs by 2012 have to be displayed in black and white
    packets. The tobacco companies will be rejoicing,
    cost less in B & W.

    By midnight tonight G and it is a full moon! LOL

  8. High Bunny-Honey. Yes it is a great victory that the cap and kill has been postponed. Already our Premier has claimed that our power bills aren’t likely to go up as fast as previously projected. 20% as opposed to 46%.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Jim Marrs answering a question about the Kennedy assassination.

    “I have heard about the possibility of a shot from the storm drain for many years and even met the daughter of a woman who said she and friends witnessed someone firing from the drain opening. But the mother refused to be interviewed and I have been unable to substantiate this story. I have always hesitated to discuss the storm drain because many years ago one of the earliest and best researchers, Penn Jones Jr., editor of the Midlothian Mirror, was ridiculed incessantly. Debunkers said he was claiming that Kennedy was shot “from a sewer.”

    I have myself stood down in the storm drain which is located a mere six feet from the point of Kennedy’s fatal head shot. I could comfortably stand in this drain (I’m not too tall being 5’7”) and it would have been an easy pistol shot to a person sitting upright in an open convertible. Some witnesses said that one of the shots sounded hollow, had a ringing sound to it. And it could have been possible to leave the storm drain via a large drain pipe which connected to an opening behind the wooden picket fence on the notorious Grassy Knoll. But did a shot come from this drain? At the moment, there is not enough evidence to state yes, but it remains an interesting premise.”

    The storm drain only six feet from the headshot. We see that the driver was part of the plot. See how he turns his head right at the moment that Jacks brains are blown out. This is because he’s just slowed before the storm drain.

  9. Graeme darlink, The Kennedy assassination will always be a point of debate. But – we were all
    shocked about his assassination, but – I’ve just read a good book ‘The Kennedys’ by Peter Collier and David Horowitz (1984-1885) and they were Right wing conservative zealots, and the Cuban Bay of Pigs, CIA trying to arrange Castro’s assassination, etc.
    Their crack down on the Mafia etc. Their civil rights bill etc. They made enemies within the establishment and internationally.

    Johnston hated the Kennedys. Look send me your address and I will send you this book.

    The beers on you next time though?

  10. The Kennedys were up themselves personally.
    And although Joe wasn’t too bad I feel in someways
    they were a family to deal with politically.

    Ted turned out the best of the lot I feel.

  11. Ted was the Jewish one, right?

  12. “The beers on you next time though?”

    Any time Bunny-Honey.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    “Ted was the Jewish one, right?”

    I know what you are getting at. Teddy was readily blackmailable. Plus he must have actively sold out. If he didn’t he would be a threat to the conspirators, since his position would give him the power to avenge his brothers.

    The coverup murders started with Oswald and I don’t know when they ended. But Kennedy Junior would have to be counted as another coverup murder. Had he got to be Senator he could have dragged up another investigation.

    Here is a great discussion on matters generally

  13. Come on guys! They were all self righteous RC’s
    Out of them all Ted wasn’t so committed. All the three brothers were senators. Jack, Bobby and Ted.

    I think the only thing Ted was blackmailable about
    was that sinking of his car. And the death of the young lass that was left in the car.

    Now – he might have been genuinely shocked. I know I ran over my son’s kitten while he was staying with me, escaping from Aboriginals threats. (That were under police investigation and also police prosecutions – I gave them refuge)

    I felt this bump, and then looked as I was backing
    away, realising in seconds what had happened and my first reaction was to flee the scene. Like killing your best friend by accident.

    I didn’t! All I could do was to admit it to my son
    and his girlfriend staying with me, who punched holes in my door and hall in distress.

    My feelings were also devastated, that kitten
    trusted me. I had shown it how to climb a tree,
    etc., while they were happy to keep him permanently in a crate. I cleaned that crate, and also secured my dogs while I and him went out in the garden to explore and it followed me and thought the car was a good place to hide or come with me.

    Moral thoughts eh? So I don’t blame Ted too much.

  14. Bush Bunny

    I will light a candle for your poor little kitty cat.

    If it makes you feel better, I am sure Pussy is in Heaven and being very well taken care of by Carl, Benji and Lee.

  15. Stop press Graeme. New one. AEU emails wasn’t completely exonerated.

    Check this out.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/the_climategate_investigation_html

    And thank you Ron for your commiserations.
    He’s buried under my compost heap. LOL

  16. You have a compost heap, BB?

    I didn’t realise you were a Leftist.

  17. And why were the blackfellas threatening your puss? That’s a very disturbing story.

  18. My son had been a crown witness in a case of one
    Colin Chatfield. He was an Abo who was a terminal
    and consistent offender. My son was 17 years at the time. Chatfield approached him and offered him a laptop for $200 that had been stolen.

    My son wouldn’t have known this, but was having
    coffee with the friend of the person who had lost
    this lap top. The Wilderness Society.

    He appeared with the promise the cops would protect him from any repricussions and of course was marked man.

    He’s an insulin dependent diabetic, and was attacked by this guy already on parole. Broke his jaw.

    Intimidation followed. Hence he and his gal moved in with me, but only because I said report it to the police!

    I was intimidated too. Phone calls etc.

    I’m not so easily intimidated but I was scared
    I kid you not!

    After 13 months, the guy was sentenced to
    3 years, and immediately let out on parole.

    However, not long after he seriously injured a fellow put him in a coma and brain damage and is now incarcerated for a minimum of 7 years.

    Because he is of Aboriginal descent, he was given
    the most lenient consideration. But unfortunately
    the victims are the ones who loose out.

    End of story. PS personally he is still on herion
    maybe he will die in jail, eh. He’s threatened my son via jail several times – when he gets out he will murder him!

  19. Bloody Wilderness Society! I always hated those pinko bastards, even before I knew they were buying pinched laptops off of blacks.

    It’s disgusting isn’t it that so-called “Law Enforcement” persecute a lad like Carl whose just looking out for his Dear Old Dad while this degenerate blackfella “Colin Chatfield” gets off Scot Free.

    And then your Puss gets splatted across the driveway, but it’s those black bastards who get the apology from the PM!!!

    How about an apology to Puss for getting flattened by a Landcruiser while fleeing from angry Abos?

    I hope Puss tells Carl about this Abo fellow Chatfield cos Carl will greenlight Benji to sort him out quick smart – if the bloody Abo ever makes it to Heaven which I doubt LOL!!!!!!

  20. Actually doing a hit might be against the rules in Heaven, even if it is a blackfella. But Benji will give him a talking to, anyway. Benji loved Cats.

  21. LOL Ron. However, I do have sympathy for the likes of Chatfield. Carls dead and somehow I believe this was manipulated because he had enemies outside as well as within jail.

    Chatfield et al, are victims of society. Chatfield was a racist and also is beyond redemption. He’ll be near his fifties when he gets out of jail. That’s a good age for an indigenous person of his like with his history of incarceration. By then if he lives that long, will be mentally so unstable he’ll be on a rampage. I hope my son isn’t the immediate target. He will have nothing to lose.
    Just more institutional welfare. Don’t kid yourself
    we’ll be watching his movements.

    He believes that my son started all this because he was honest. The Wilderness Society where we live was shut down because of the lap top
    they never received back. All the data they had on it was destroyed. Chatfield was charged
    for repaying the amount, but never did. And was
    never incarcerated at all, nor did any community service. Although he was supposed to do it?

    One detective said to me on the side, the best thing that could happen to Chatfield is someone run him over?

  22. You can see the utter tendentiousness when people start substituting “proof” for “evidence.” So since witness testimony is strong evidence, but any one confession cannot quite be considered as proof, then if anyone actually confesses to murdering JFK the dumbass side of the street can say “Hey. You have no proof”

    “What do you mean I have no proof? I was there? I did it? Aren’t you going to shackle me? I’m turning myself in. Put the cuffs on me”

    “You have no proof!!!!”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    James Files confessed. So did Handsome Johny Rossellini four days before he wound up dismembered and in a barrel of oil. Another mobster was shot in his basement just prior to being due to give testimony. Its pretty tough when all these mobsters are the most candid witnesses you have and they are utterly overmatched for ruthlessness. Here is what the wiki says about Handsome Johny. Who confessed to shooting from the storm drain:

    “Former hitman James Files has claimed that he, Roselli and Charles “Chuckie” Nicoletti fired the fatal shots killing Kennedy at Dallas’ Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. However, there is no proof to support this claim.

    New York mob boss Bill Bonanno claimed in his autobiography that while he was imprisoned with Roselli, he spoke to him about the Kennedy assassination. Roselli allegedly told Bonanno that he had fired a shot from a storm drain located on Elm Street in Dallas.”

    So Roselli claims on at least two occasions to have fired the brain-splattering shot. And now he’s dead. Like everyone else.

    Now where is this single lone nutball story going. Its going nowhere. Its just a terrible lie.

    Jackie married Onassiss to get mob protection for her kids went the rumour. Soon as she died all her kids start dying too. We hear so much about this family being an unlucky family. This is pretty ridiculous. Luck has nothing to do with it. Now that we know that this was a BIG CONSPIRACY. Like 9/11. No small conspiracy.

  23. Here is James Files confessing to shooting JFK. Now do you think he’s lying or not? Sounds pretty right to me.

  24. Note that Files stipulates that he used a Remington fireball. A model of bolt action handgun that came out that year. You might think I’m contradicting the story of the storm drain. But other analysis claims that there were two shots to the head. I cannot show this in a way that is obvious to the untrained eye. Since I cannot explain this clearly myself with the videos, I’ve decided to not include it. However Files confirms that Handsome Johny Rosselli was involved. And Rosselli has on more than one occasion claimed that he shot Kennedy from the storm drain. Files appears to be the only survivor amongst the shooters.

    Here is the Remington fireball handgun

  25. Now we have an enhanced photo of presumably Files shooting from the grassy knoll. This was found and used in this documentary by some crowd who have made the link with David Ferrie and are assuming that Ferrie is the shooter. They seem to be doing this on the basis that Ferrie is linked to both Jack Ruby and Oswald. Well yes of course he was. He was in the CIA project to take down Castro. So he knew them both. Part of that story involves breeding all these rats to make a progressively more powerful cancer causing virus. But since these documentary makers are assuming a small conspiracy rather than a gigantic conspiracy they are trying to minimise the number of characters involved. Which is why they are wrongly assuming that Ferrie is the shooter. Rather than another of many people involved.

    61 seconds into this video we have the enhanced picture of the shooter on the grassy knoll. You will see that though its a pretty blurred picture even after enhancement, it is a picture entirely consistent with a dark-haired version of Files and that the weapon is entirely consistent with the Remington fireball that Files confesses to having used. Furthermore there is a woman who claims to have seen someone shooting from the storm drain. Her daughter is still alive but won’t be interviewed. Very smart woman.

    Compare all this to the idiocy of Vincent Bugliosi claiming that no-one has leaked any information on the hit. A straight lie. People leaked all the time and most of them were killed right away.

    Have we put the old melon trick behind us? Crazy moronic stuff. I can tip a vertically balanced melon with the slightest touch of my pinkie. I might buy one just to prove it. Thats the dumbest idea that anyone has ever come up with. I doubt that I can lift a grown man up with my pinkie. But its not a fair test with me as I am immensely strong. The point is that the force difference is likely to be 100 or 1000 or even 10 000 to one.

  26. Mr B

    Is it really safe to engage in this sort of discussion? You saw what they did to Carl.

  27. Now note the powerful effect of covert operations. The main deal is to control the press. When I say “control” I really mean manipulate the press. And to manipulate the press you need to get to them with your standard story first. There is no turning things around after that. You have the bullshit momentum going at 1000 to 1. The truth is unknown. In the process of looking for the truth everyone is going to come up with ideas that are both bizarre and wrong. The reality is bizarre and right. So the search for the truth is dissolute without one clear story. Whereas the story that the covert ops people have put over is consistent and hammered home at 1000 to 1.

    The key here is to be ready with the bullshit story and force feed it to the media. Because you have to do the force-feeding very quickly and in an utterly massive way, you run the risk of having the media report the bullshit before the faux-evidence for the bullshit is generated. Or within minutes of it being generated.

    So for example. Little New Zealand declared war on Hitler all alone. Such a small country to be taking on the German war machine by itself. Such a staunch and brave country to do this. But really its to do with the time difference.

    In the same way Stone has the New Zealanders issuing the Newspapers chock full of reports on Lee Oswald. So people are reading these stories of Lee Oswald being the lone killer only four hours after he’s been arrested. These stories take awhile to write and the newspapers take some time to be printed and distributed. Its pretty clear then that the force-feeding process probably started even before Oswald was questioned. Perhaps even before he was caught. You would think that this would be a giveaway as to what really happened. Not at all. You have to get your story out to saturation point.

    Another example is with the Odinga election. The campaign of lies that his election loss was rigged had to get full-blown saturation early on. So these lies were force-fed as fast as possible. Turned out that they began to be force-fed even prior to the votes being counted. This doesn’t matter at all. I can prove this doesn’t matter at all by the following video. This is where the official story on 9/11 was being crammed down the throat of the BBC. To such an astonishing extent that the BBC reported on building seven collapsing before it had collapsed.

    The principle involved here was played out to such a massive extent that the BBC reporter, was reporting on building seven collapsing, even though building seven was still standing right behind her.

    People are sheeple. So this cock-up doesn’t matter even a little bit. As I said I can prove this too you. You can bear witness to this cock-up and it won’t matter at all to you. Because 99 out of 100 of you are mindless sheeple. So that therefore the idea that 1 out of 100 of you may not be mindless sheeple won’t matter even a little bit. The other 99 of you will crowd out the one more thoughtful fellow. Who in any case will remain silent so as not to lose his social standing.

    Watch this video and just make a note of how very stupid you are. Then go look in the mirror and admit to yourself what a stupid cunt you are. None of this will matter. You will still live out your days as a dupe because the culprits got to the media first and forced the generic story down into the media maw.

    I’m not a whole lot better I must admit. It took me 8 years to finally decide that 9/11 was a setup. Of course very early on I thought there must be foreign regime intelligence involved. But there was no possibility in my mind that more than half a dozen Americans could have been in on it. Clearly I was wrong and was ruling the idea of a BIG CONSPIRACY out since I didn’t think that BIG CONSPIRACIES were even possible. But of course they are possible and here we have an example of what is required to carry them off.

  28. “So people are reading these stories of Lee Oswald being the lone killer only four hours after he’s been arrested. These stories take awhile to write and the newspapers take some time to be printed and distributed. Its pretty clear then that the force-feeding process probably started even before Oswald was questioned. Perhaps even before he was caught. ”

    Just like the Usurper’s Birth Announcement in Hawaii!!! Uncanny!!!

  29. Bird, your hero Kates has posted again at Catallaxy, but his technical incompetence made him put it in the wrong spot so no one saw it.

    http://catallaxyfiles.com/crowded-out/comment-page-1/#comment-39921

  30. So you are coming down on Kates now? How is this Keynesian multiplier lie ever going to be put into the scrapheap of history if this is your knee-jerk reaction?

  31. Just doing you a service by pointing it out. I saw you were saying he hadn’t posted and then I notice he had even if the spot was wrong.

    I’d like to come down on the Keynsian mutliplier but Sinclair might be reading and ban me so I beter keep quiet.

  32. And to be clear technical incompetence was regarding his ability to deal with technology not a comment on him as an economist.

  33. Can you believe that stupid cunt Mark Hill. I saw through his feeble cover just on the grounds of sheer stupidity on his part. The silly cunt accused me of confusing income with revenue. Never once have I done so. So he’s back to his same old idiocy and lying. And a new disguise cannot help him.

  34. As for his cover I don’t really think he tried to hide his identity all that much. Its been obvious to everyone who he was ever since he changed name.

  35. He couldn’t hide his identity if he tried. Except if he stayed away from economics entirely. A subject for which he is just incredibly ignorant. He must have not studied it all his life and then went into the economics stream at post-graduate level. I studied it from 14 and never stopped.

    His stupidity is also of a terminal nature. He accuses me of being illiterate and then demonstrates, without any explanation his own illiteracy.

    “I think Bird is illiterate:

    “The fellow is just unbelievably idiotic. Gross domestic revenue is not a measure of turnover. The gentleman has lost his mind.

    “For a company, the ratio of annual sales to inventory; or equivalently, the fraction of a year that an average item remains in inventory. Low turnover is a sign of inefficiency, since inventory usually has a rate of return of zero. here also called inventory turnover. For a mutual fund, the number of times per year that an average dollar of assets is reinvested.”

    I pointed out that he had lost his mind. Which is inaccurate. He never had much of a mind to lose. Then I cut and pasted the real definition of turnover. So he’s completely confused turnover with revenue. In some colloquial sense the two phrases are meant interchangeably. But not often. As the definition shows, turnover is to do with revenues/ average inventory levels.

    So the fellow is so deranged he merely quotes me, in such a way as to provide no evidence for the silly cunts insult.

  36. Then there was the time the silly cunt thought he was proving the existence of the Keynesian multiplier. I would wipe any comment of his where he merely asserted the reality of it without providing evidence. Not once did he provide evidence. The dumb cunt doesn’t know what evidence is.

  37. Mr Bird
    Mr Edney turning up merely confirms your very apt characterisation of the present state of affairs in our tertiary education sector about ‘handing out PhDs like toilet paper to the terminally stupid’.

    It is time these false institutions of higher learning were burnt to the ground and the grounds salted and fenced off for better uses. A stint in the army for every school leaver Mr Bird is what we really need. No need for these now degraded paper qualifications.

  38. Well all you need to know is that you can get a PhD without demonstrating any ability whatsoever when it comes to Ranking of Paradigms.

    You can get a PhD without having EVER been subject to a Conceptual Audit. Total Fucking Joke.

  39. Do they let you drive without having passed a driver”s test? NO.

    Do they give you a PhD without passing a Conceptual Audit? YES.

    That’s our so-called Education system in a nutshell.

  40. Why would I need mutliple paradigms when my one paradigm is right.

  41. “Why would I need mutliple paradigms when my one paradigm is right.”

    Hahahahahaha you silly cunt. The reason is because human knowledge is not automatic. And must be obtained by sound methodology. To assume otherwise is to engage in occult epistemology.

    So good of you to drop by and prove Ron and Winchester perfectly right.

  42. It was a joke Bird.

  43. Mr Edney

    Kindly leave this discussion to the serious minded adults. We patricipants in Mr Bird’s fine intellectual salon do not have time for your adolescent jokes when golliwogs are busy expiring from malaria in Africa owing to the machinations of the environmentalists, when native Inuit suffer a diminished quality of life because of our failure to accelerate the pace of global warming, when old war veterans eat catfood in America because of the galloping inflation introduced by the banking cartelists of the Federal Reserve in league with an African sexually confused totalitarian, when numerous wrongs continue. In short Mr Bird has a world to save and no time for your childish jokes

  44. Ok I’ll take my ponzi money and go home.

  45. Look at this. The assertion again. But no evidence. The silly cunt does not know what evidence is:

    “Bird refuses to look at the evidence. I’ve shown him the stuff by Barro – the multiplier is real but often it is statistically insignificant from zero. A fillip for anti-Keynesian arguments is that it may even be zero or less than zero.”

    The assertion. But no evidence. Thats as far as he got. Mentioning the talisman of a hopeless economist. But he’s a conservative don’t you know!!!!!!!!

    If the multiplier is zero then the multiplier does not exist. So the dumb cunt is even hedging there.

    But the reality is that all alleged evidence for the multiplier is simply obtained by using GDP. So the idea is to redirect spending from Gross investment (not recorded by GDP) to Consumer or government spending (recorded by GDP) and HEY PRESTO????? These dumb cunts will find a statistically positive multiplier just so long as increases in consumer price inflation are delayed.

    Hence any faux-evidence discovered using GDP (this time) in the denominator must obviously be rejected out of hand. Yet no other evidence exists.

    So we are seeing simple incompetence in reasoning as applied to statistics.

    You can tell these fucking dumb cunts this 1000 times. Yet the idiot Mark will not get it, and the idiot Sinclair will sashay into the Senate, implicitly confirm the wrong concept to the Senate, and we taxpayers wind up getting shafted by the results.

    This is where we cannot differentiate between conspiracy and zeitgeist. An idiotic concept with seemingly eternal youth. Conspiracy? Or are they all this stupid?

    Part of the answer is that anyone smart enough to see through this will be ruthlessly weeded out of the profession. Kates has managed to hang in there. But probably at the cost of having to be diplomatic to an unseemly extent. Like Hayek was. Diplomatic to the point of embarrassment.

  46. FUCK OFF EDNEY YOU CUNT

  47. Despite the capitals that was Ron Edney. Edney make yourself useful and confirm, using your knowledge of statistics alone, that you understand my debunking of the Keynesian multiplier.

    Bearing in mind that GDP equals:

    C+net(I)+G+X-M

  48. Mr Hanson and Mr Bird

    There is no need to resort to such vulgarities. It is unseemly and alienates fine conservative women. My dear late wife Mavis would have been stunned at some of the language on this blog.

    We have a civilisation to save, Mr Bird. A civilisation, and not just an economy.

  49. Sorry, Mr B. Edney’s so bloody stupid you have to yell to get into the see you enn tee’s thick head.

    If Carl had a skull as thick as Edney’s he’d still be around.

  50. Look at this fucking dumb cunt. No reasoning. No evidence. Just assertion. And he entirely sidesteps the reality that all such faux-evidence is obtained by using GDP, which will often return a false positive for the precise reasons alredy explained. Go tell Mark what a stupid cunt he is Winchester:

    “The multiplier” isn’t zero – there is no one set parameter for all economies. Generally it is statistically insignificant from zero, although it can be less than zero.”

    No reasoning. No evidence. No acknowledgement that his assertion is based on the use of GDP. What a dumb cunt.

  51. We can tell by straight apriori reasoning what results you will likely get if you use GDP in the denominator to try to figure out what this multiplier is.

    If you are stupid enough to try this, under depressed conditions, with extra deficit spending you ought to get a false positive in the short run and a real negative in the long run. This is simply because when you splurge on government and consumer spending you will directly increase nominal GDP via consumer and government spending.

    This will generate a false positive in all cases where you are lucky enough not to get a corresponding increase in consumer prices right at that moment. But because this is conventionally attempted under depressed conditions it will usually “work” and give you your false positive.

    The false positive will be followed by a real negative as soon as the price rises hit.

    If you really want a massively strong false positive you would generate the extra GDP via an extra large deficit created by well-chosen tax cuts alone. As when the Bush tax-cuts supposedly catapulted the American economy out of technical recession giving the Americans an 8 percent GDP growth rate the very first quarter they were made. All of this readily predictable.

    Incredibly Greg Makiw was too stupid to understand why these false positives are generated, that they were indeed false positives, and why it was that tax cuts rather than spending increases generate the stronger false positive.

  52. So now we are back to the global warming like claim of MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE.

    And yet the stupid cunts Mark Hill and Sinclair Davidson can come up with none.

    Mark seems to think that the claim that there is MOUNTAINS OF EVIDENCE is a sufficient substitute for actual evidence.

    Whenever you see this claim made the person making the claim is an idiot and a liar.

    Where is the evidence Mark.

    Any and all faux-evidence will be where people idiotically use GDP in the denominator.

    You fucking stupid cunt. Just come up with the evidence.

    Simple.

    “Barro”

    Apparently Mark thinks that saying the word “Barro” is evidence.

    What a dumb cunt.

  53. Mark and Sinclair contend that spending, santified by either government stealing, or government borrowing becomes tagged and altered.

    These two illiterates claim that spending so tagged is accelerated, creating more spending per time period, without being inflationary.

    Don’t ask me why they think this. Its their thesis.

  54. Jason Soon also thinks this. When asked for evidence he also uses the magic word “Barro.”

    Reasoning? Barro is a conservative.

    Good enough in Jason Soons view.

    So we have a system of weeding out anyone who actually understands economics.

  55. Why not simply follow the scientific method?

    You would actually look at what is purported to be evidence. And then finding that it was all based on using GDP you would reject it and ask for any subsequent evidence. Finding there was none you would eventually have to admit that it was a fraudulent concept.

    Pretty simple really. But no. The idiots Mark Hill, Jason Soon, and Sinclair Davidson will merely parrot what they have been told. Sinclair going so far as to reference Greg Mankiw when he talked to the Senate.

    On what basis? On the basis that Greg Mankiw is at Harvard and is a successful textbook writer. In other words on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.

  56. What Joe Public has to understand when dealing with such people and with conspiracies of this sort, is that they don’t care if they are wrong. They are not interested in truth or falsehood. Living off stolen money makes people jaded. We will continue to be lambasted with conspiracies of this sort until such time as we thin out the public service and prove to the remaining tax eaters that we will not put up with bullshit.

    The economics profession is so incredibly unsound in Australia that Ken Henry’s latest suggestion is to increase the salary sacrifice taxation going to super from 15% to 30%. This is an entirely unambiguously anti-economic proposal. It doesn’t matter. He won’t catch any flak over it. Doesn’t matter how stupid these people are. They are accredited. That is all that matters. PHD’s and masters degrees given out like toilet paper. And these dummies by and large had it sorted that the cap and kill wouldn’t be particularly expensive. Insanity.

  57. you say there’s no multiplier

    Let’s see the EVIDENCE

  58. My evidence is that no evidence can be found that doesn’t use GDP.

    My reasoning is that there is no way to magically tag spending flows that they subsequently retain the memory of being tagged and then pick up the pace of circulation, thus increasing the amount of spending, per unit time, and magically without being inflationary.

    Total proof right there.

  59. Further. If there was evidence that spending could be magically tagged in this way, it surely would have shown up. And you surely would be able to present it.

    But in fact none has showed up. Only false positives generated for obvious reasons, by the use of GDP, have shown up.

  60. Mr B

    Let us pause for a moment and think of Carl, who as we speak is being laid to rest near his Beloved Mum and his Dear Mate Benji.

    The relentless Stupidity of those dumb cunts Hill, Edney, Soon and Birdlab should not be allowed to detract from the solemnity of this occasion.

  61. Right. Carl Williams. Murdered by the pigs. The man who knew too much.

  62. NO LYING ON THIS SITE SOON YOU DUMMY. WHY NOT PRESENT THE EVIDENCE FOR A KEYNESIAN MULTIPLIER OR RETRACT AND SEND IT TO THE FIRES FOR ALL TIME. EVEN THE FAMOUS MELON TRICK IS INFINITELY MORE RATIONAL THEN THE MULTIPLIER.

  63. “Why can’t Graeme understand that having a multiplier that may be negative but usually hovers around zero is a greater argument against Keynes then no multiplier at all?”

    Fucking hell what a dummy.

    1. He reckons there is a multiplier. But he reckons it hovers around not being there.

    2. He’s locking in tendentiousness as a ruling concept of thought. If Keynes said something right I’d acknowledge it. If Marx said something right I’d acknowledge that. If some Ayatollah said something right I’d acknowledge that also. Whereas the dumb shit Mark is here advocating that one bullshit for tactical reasons. Ride the lying tiger as it were.

    Look Ron. Don’t let these people get away with it. They are dummies. In high positions. Take them apart for fucksakes. Like never before the stupid are upwardly mobile. The outliers are ruthlessly ignored and demoted. This wasn’t the case in lets say 1982. Not to this extent. Or before world war 1. Before World War I people were actively looking for talent. Now if you understand things your an outlier. A crank. A weirdo.

  64. Mr Bird,

    The stupid wop Banker Cambria has tried on a classic leftish reversal and tried to put his very own description on to you.

    “The reason he can’t understand is that he doesn’t understand economics or anything remotely to do with economics so he tries to bluster his way through with abuse and hyperbole.”

  65. Exactly. Thats the dumb wop alright. Reckons you cannot cut spending during a recession. Reckons that there is a Keynesian multiplier. Reckons that welfare is a natural stabiliser. Stupid wop cunt only studied economics in his first year and never took it further from there.

    Reckons that the road to recovery consisted of stealing off mainstreet and giving the loot to the banks.

    Doesn’t understand a thing about economics. A full-blown dummy.

  66. BULLSHIT CAMBRIA. YOU ONLY WENT TO FIRST YEAR ON THE SUBJECT. WHICH IS ALL KEYNESIAN CLAPTRAP AND YOU DIDN’T SEE THROUGH ANY OF IT. YOU ARE AN ECONOMICS ILLITERATE.

  67. Mr Bird

    Have you been reading the Catallaxy open forum lately? That Mediterannean Afro-Hebrew Cambria is openly mocking the deceased Mr Williams as is Messrs Hill and Infidel Tiger. These people have no shame. While Mr Williams was undoubtedly not someone whose move into my neighbourhood I would have welcomed if he were still alive, he deserved his moment of peace without the mockery of these decadent urban fraudsters

  68. I know. Notice that many of the hitmen in the Victorian story were also dumb wops. Also in the Kennedy hit. Handsome Johny Rossellini for example.

    Dumb wops showing up everywhere when you want someone whacked.

  69. But Mr Bird

    The biggest wop thug at all didn’t wield a gun – Ponzi

  70. I don’t know. Just sounds like another wop if you ask me. Look at Cambria. Thinks Hank Paulson is the very example of productive success. Not Steve Jobs. But blockhead conmen like Paulson. You can take a person out of wopland. But you cannot take the wop out of that person.

  71. too true Mr Bird.

    The wop is so different from us and so different from his ancient Roman forefathers. This is why i have theorised that they are no longer European, having succumbed to intermingling with the golliwogs from the climes of Ethiopia and such places.

  72. I don’t think its a genetic thing. Cambria is more a golliwog of the heart.

  73. I’ve never once talked about micro-gravity waves. But apparently the dummy Sinclair was unimpressed by me linking supernovas with extraordinary volcanic and seismic activity on earth. People who actually take evidence seriously were less unimpressed than Sinclair. The idea was taken seriously in intelligent circles.

    http://oilismastery.blogspot.com/2010/04/supervolcanoes-origin-unknown.html

  74. Note that the failed economist just KNOWS. He just knows that there can be no connection between the supernova and the supervolcano. He just knows it somehow. How does he know? He just knows. The same way he just knows that there is the Keynesian multiplier. He cannot find evidence for the Keynesian multiplier. He cannot find any reason to believe in such a thing. He just somehow knows.

    This is why mass-sackings of public sector workers is so vital to our culture.

    Incidentally mass-sackings is the quickest way to get productivity increases. First you have to learn how to think. Then you have to figure out how to measure productivity in a way consonant with logic. Then you sack all these successful dropkicks and you will get productivity improvements right away.

  75. Graeme, your mass sacking of public sector workers mantra-riff implies you acknowledge that human labour is the pre-eminent component of national productivity.

    This is a great step forward. From this much leftist conclusions and policies follow much as does night, day.

  76. I think Carl had it right. Mass Killing is even more effective than Mass Sacking.

  77. Now this is interesting: a Hayek-Keynes face-off at Cambridge. The classy ‘Asia Times Online’, no leftist mouthpiece, comes down on the side of guess who?

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/LD15Dj03.html

  78. Who cares?

  79. The fact is that Hayek is right. Keynes is wrong. Although Hayek had a very complex way of getting to the simple conclusion.

    What the AsiaTimes says is just immaterial.

  80. Right. As I thought. Henry fucked it up, in both the body of the essay and the conclusion. Otherwise you wouldn’t have come up with your feeble non-argument, based on magazine brand-name.

    You have to grow out of this fella. Its a dead end. Look at Sinclair Davidson. A complete fucking tosser, cannot get it right, though he’s a Professor. And its not even hard stuff. Its not difficult. Its just applied logic.

  81. Look at that dumb wop Cambria. He’s pronounced Goldman Sachs the best firm in the world? Best at what? Securing government handouts? A welfare recipient is apparently the best firm in the world. The most subsidised firm in the world, who would have gone broke but for massive government handouts, is the best firm in the world in the view of the dumb wop.

    His thinking is that the case against Goldman Sachs isn’t going anywhere. Which is true. It appears to be a bullshit case meant only to whitewash their criminal behaviour.

    If they wanted to nail them they could do so on naked short-selling, which was their main revenue raiser at one stage. They put it under the euphemism of “Prime Brokerage.”

    One of the most disgusting facts of this leach of a firm is that lately they’ve made all sorts of ill-gotten gains with underwriting. An outfit that needed bailing out made money on underwriting. This is simply because they are infiltrated into the government, and so have the taxpayer and printing press backing them, but they are picking up the underwriting money.

    But the current case is likely nonsense from a purely legal point of view. Its only meant for a white-wash. By being proven innocent of this case they will make like they’ve been exonerated for all their many crimes. Just more con-artistry.

  82. Notice that when the case for a JFK murder conspiracy is presented in strong terms, the covert operations people are shown to have done their job so fantastically well, that all the sheeple get tired.

    People are no longer interested. Now its very clear that it was a big conspiracy, and that they cannot show that the brain splatter bullet came from anywhere else but the right front, all the sheeple have gone into insulin shock.

    Its the most important story in the world. Since if we prove the big conspiracy is possible, and that it happened in this case, that it happened again at 9/11 no longer becomes disputable.

    All the same signs are there. Most particularly the one story being crammed down our throat right from the beginning. Its just too hard to turn matters around once the public servants have crammed their story down into the media.

  83. Birdy, maybe you can review the following clip and come up with a conspiracy theory.

    This is important and needs the bird treatment to show us the truth.

  84. Ha ha. I was looking for this one. Thanks. Now lets see just how far gone the Americans are in terms of conspirational activity and financing. The Republic is one mixed up shook up broad:

  85. Now thats one thing. We might see this drug dealing by the CIA, going all the way up to the Vice Presidents office, and with both political parties complicit enough not to touch it, as being bad enough. But what we need for the BIG CONSPIRACY is saturation international cramming of the media. When you have that saturation preemptive cramming then the one story gets out and all alternative stories get rubbished. We saw this on 9/11, when any of us who brought up Iraqi involvement, when the evidence was pretty clear, even low-hanging fruit, were rubbished.

    The story we were crammed with contained the evidence of Iraqi involvement, and yet rubbished that evidence mercilessly. So you had the outer-level story, which involved the 19 Hijackers. Then you had another concentric circle inside of that. This was what I call THE LESSER SCANDAL TRIPWIRE. The lesser scandal tripwire is an inner protective circle.

    The lesser scandal tripwire stops people like me and the brilliant Australian intellectual Currency Lad from peeling another layer off the onion.

    What happens is by allowing the evidence of foreign regime involvement through, and simultaneously strenuously rubbishing the link, it pits all the sheeple against the thinkers. And yet both are taken for a ride.

    So for seven years I try to convince sheeple like Jason Soon, Mark Bahnisch, Tillman et al of the obvious nature of an Iraqi-9/11 link. But the sheeple have already been recruited against me by the saturation media coverage. Currency Lad will sometimes admit the link. He knows the evidence is there. But he may wearily decide not to pursue it too hard, on the grounds that you know, what is the point.

    Meanwhile both the sheeple and thinkers, via this technique, are pitted against the so-called “truthers.” So this is a devastatingly effective structure. When push comes to shove its buttressed by harassment, defamation, and if necessary assassination.

    Now what we need to know to be able to show that the set up of this BIG CONSPIRACY is even possible is that we need to know that some Covert Operations group has a capacity to force-feed the international media the strategic bullshit story. Like they did to the NewZealanders and others with JFK and like they did during 9/11. The whole stupid story was crammed down our throats. With such ferocity, that as we saw, the BBC ended up telling this story about building seven falling even before it did fall. And the NewZealanders already knew that Oswald was the killer before there had been any real investigation into who was the killer.

    So we need to know that covert groups have the capacity to plant stories:

  86. People laugh at this reverse-speech business. But we have to know one way or another if it works or not. There is no use pretending that those of us without experience with this technology already know this one way or another for sure. It is utterly irrational to assume so. To assume that you know that this works or doesn’t work amounts to occult epistemology.

    Here is an example of why we need to know one way or another:

  87. SITE DEITY SEZ:

    No no. Lets go over it again you stupid cunt. Neither you, nor I, are in a position, to either rightly believe or to not believe something of this sort.

    Its not anything to do with BELIEF you fucking dumb cunt. When something is unknown, belief has got nothing to do with it.

    Now do you fucking understand that now you dumb cunt.

    You see you think wrongly, that you have debunked reverse speech as the technique. Now you’ve done no such thing you fucking twit. To imagine that you have is just delusional.

    Do you understand that now you stupid fucking twat?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Covert Ops types must get to work around the clock on a government paycheck. Hell knows what they might come up with to confuse, intimidate, and throw people off their scent. I quite like this here scene in this regard. You don’t necessarily want to tell people you are the mob or CIA. But I doubt that such considerations were really what David Lynch had in mind.

    • NO NO. STOP BEING A STUPID CUNT. WHEN I SAID I WASN’T IN A POSITION TO CONFIRM THIS TECHNIQUE I MEANT IT. OTHERWISE I WOULDN’T HAVE FUCKING SAID SO YOU FUCKING MORON.

      AND WHEN I SAID THAT YOU WEREN’T IN A POSITION TO DEBUNK IT. I MEANT THAT. THE POINT IS THAT YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. FUCKING UNBELIEVABLE HOW DELUSIONAL PEOPLE ARE. WE WENT FOR PAGE AFTER PAGE AFTER FUCKING PAGE WITH THESE MORONS AT RANDI’S PLACE AND I WAS NOT ABLE TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THEY HAD NOT DEBUNKED THIS MATTER.

      NOW IF YOU DON’T WANT TO GET BANNED PUT YOUR FUCKING BRAIN IN GEAR OR BEAT IT.

  88. If you are paid by the taxpayer to do nasty things around the clock to your benefactors, in the service of spooktown, it may not be necessary to kill people or break their legs or this sort of thing.

    You might be able to just destabilize them and render them ineffectual. One wonders what all those alien abduction stories are all about, and if spooks are involved with that sort of thing. In any case the idea would be always to draw attention away from your covert operations crowd, and tag your victim with a story that simply won’t be believable to any third party.

    So for example, when Currency Lad said “I’m out” as a result of an hypothetical I’d launched about digging up Oswalds body and replacing his head, well he really wasn’t being the serious analyst. I kept reading what I had written many times over. It did not cease to be both logical and hypothetical. We have to stop being such terrible dupes towards these people. On the one level they may be counterproductive and harmful. It is not to be thought that they are all like Maxwell Smart.

    Here’s another Lynch scene, that is probably even too weird for the above considerations. But consider if you were a spook who pulled this sort of nuttiness off. People would neither be thinking mob, nor would they be thinking covert ops. Dude would be wondering about his own sanity. You bury the real story in concentric outer circles.

  89. Clearly its important to find out if this technique really does work. It certainly appears to. Only an idiot could imagine for one second that he could debunk this technique without having experience of this taping himself. Yet such idiots are very thick on the ground at the moment.

    We really seem to have an whole generation of kids that think smugness is a great substitute for reason and methodology. Its just fucking unbelievable how stupid people can be. From Jason Soon saying “barro” and thinking he’d confirmed the Keynesian multiplier, to Sinclair thinking he’d debunked the link between Supernovas and supervolcanos, to this shit-for-brains Richie, imagining, without knowing a fucking thing about it, that he’d debunked reverse speech.

    Always we have this delusional thinking. Wherein people imagine that they have all this knowledge that they cannot possibly have.

    Here is some evidence for the affirmative. It is very clear evidence in favour of this technique. However, as I keep saying, I’m not in a position to verify its veracity by remote control. Since to get good “reversals” it might be the case that you need many hours of taping. This is not possible to resolve without actually doing this oneself.

    So far no skeptic has debunked this technique, nor have they come up with even the slightest evidence against this matter. In fact the skeptics haven’t even shown up and seen this fellow’s work.

    So its looking reasonably promising. Anyone can look at the evidence for themselves.

  90. NO NO YOU FUCKING MORON. ITS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. ITS GOT VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH SOUNDS AT ALL. ITS ALL TO DO WITH CONTEXT.

    JUST STOP BEING A DUMB CUNT AND ADMIT YOU ARE IN NO POSITION TO DEBUNK IT. I’VE BEEN ALL OVER THE SHOP WITH THIS AT RANDI’S. WE HAD ANY NUMBER OF DELUSIONAL PEOPLE MAKING THE SAME CLAIM AS YOU THERE.

    NOW TRY AGAIN AND STOP BEING A STUPID CUNT.

  91. Fucking hell Ritchie you are a fucking moron. What an idiot you are.

    Jesus Christ you are a blockhead.

    I’ll have to find the Randi thread. Blockheads like you are just so incredibly thick on the ground.

  92. Here we are. Six pages from these fucking morons. As idiotic as you Ritchie. And they couldn’t admit that they were in no position to debunk this matter without taping themselves. Plus they couldn’t admit that the David Oates stuff was actual evidence.

    Fucking idiots. Its just amazing how moronic people are. And indeed they came up with that term you had starting with P. Which just showed how fucking dumb they were. Because the technique had virtually nothing to do with the sounds and everything to do with context.

    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=11703

  93. So its on page one. And already some idiot had brought up what the idiot Richie brought up. Which has next to nothing to do with the subject. 5 pages later these fucktards were not capable of realising that they had made no case whatsoever.

  94. “The faux-Skeptic in the podcast didn’t go into the theory at all. He just went on about speech-recognition. He’s not taking on the theory on its own terms. It was faux-Popperian falsification. What we want is also to try and see if the theory can be verified. Convergent-verification is how we get rightful certitude about something. Not pre-emptive falsification/dismissal.

    This is not paranormal. Or not necessarily. The same cookie-cutter dismissals ought not apply.”

  95. It may be worthwhile quoting myself, with some of the responses I made to these utterly delusional morons. So that I don’t have to go through it all again.

    “Right. But supposing its the real deal. Just imagine. Well you would form that conclusion anyhow right?

    So to my mind there is nothing for it but that I’d have to be recording and reversing speech until such time as I could tell whether David is giving a fair representation of whats going on.

    After all the fellow in the podcast might have spent a lot of time mucking about with waveforms before he came up with one that was suggestive of a bunch of words. So I wouldn’t rule it in or out until I could test it for myself.

    I’ll tell you what is pretty convincing from the outside though. Its the reversals with kids. Since he reckons that they learn the words backwords earlier than they do forwards. So with very young children it sounds like the backwards stuff is actually clearer than the forward stuff. Like with a two year old where their speech is as yet not fully distinct. Thats what I found pretty convincing. The backwards stuff in toddlers clear or clearer than the forward stuff.

    Then again if I went to do it myself I might find that I had to conclude that his choice of recordings was highly selective and the effect was all from screening.”

  96. “Well you cannot be unless you’ve checked it yourself. That would be occult-epistemology. That would be the belief that you create reality via prejudice.”

    “Right. The thing we have to look at is that in philosophy there is no such thing as THE NULL HYPOTHESIS. This at least is no good way to look at matters. There are competing hypotheses that ought to be investigated in parallel. There is also no cause to be putting any bully-boy consensus as the default position.

    At the moment we really have two hypotheses. One is that this all throws a lot of light on how the brain works and how it composes what we are about to say. One says David has stumbled upon some mystery about the development of the brain as a baby grows up. The idea that you have this foundation that kicks off and the more conscious mind on top of it. And some remnant of this learning process is retained and evident in bursts of speech where there is meaning both forward and backward.

    The other hypothesis is that he’s hearing things. He’s extrapolating pretty much what he wants to here. That he’s showing poor judgement and that his mind is distorting the data and finding patterns that aren’t really there.

    Well thats two hypotheses and without any experience back-taping or any further evidence we are not really in a position to rank them decisively.”

    “Its not real credible though. If I see a couple of heathen infidels babbling away in something other than the Queens English I don’t extrapolate any English chit-chat to their meaningless jibber-jabber.

    I just yell at them to speak English or make their way to the wharf.”

  97. “Likely I’ll get the reversing software and all that. And I’ll find I’ll have to tape and reverse 5 hours of contemporaneous speech to get a couple of really neat-sounding ones and that would be the end of it.”

    Graeme Bird Dec 18 2008

    http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4281605&postcount=79

    Ok then, have you done this experiment? if so, what were your findings?

    SEE YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON RITCHIE. AND YOU ARE CALLING ME A LIAR. IF I HAD DONE THE EXPERIMENT THEN I WOULD BE ABLE TO TELL YOU THE ANSWER. IF IT HAD TURNED OUT RIGHT, THEN I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU THAT THIS TECHNIQUE WORKED. HAD I ONLY GOTTEN ONE OR TWO FEEBLE SOUNDING SNATCHES IN THAT TIME I COULD HAVE GIVEN YOU A NEGATIVE ASSESSMENT. SO HAVE I DONE THE EXPERIMENT? YES OR NO?

    YOU’VE JUST GOT TO STOP BEING A DUMB CUNT.

    • If you’re so passionate about this reverse speech thing, why didn’t you do the test? What’s your excuse?

      All you need is a microphone and sound recorder (which has reversing) and is on any windows pc. If you’d like something a bit fancier, try audacity and you can even analyse the wave functions.

      http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/

      SEE YOU ARE MISSING THE ENTIRE POINT BECAUSE YOU ARE A DUMB CUNT AND DISHONEST. JUST ADMIT THAT YOU CANNOT POSSIBLY DEBUNK THIS MATTER WITHOUT CHECKING IT OUT. SINCE DAVID OATES’ EVIDENCE IS SO POWERFUL ON THE FACE OF IT, UNLESS YOU CHECK IT OUT AND FIND THAT THESE REALLY GOOD “REVERSALS” ARE SOMETHING THAT ONLY COMES ALONG INFREQUENTLY, THEN HIS EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE TO STAND.

      IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ADMIT THAT TO YOURSELF THEN CLEARLY YOU ARE BEING A DELUSIONAL NUTCASE.

      AND YOU ARE JUST A DISHONEST CUNT. WHAT I’M PASSIONATE ABOUT IS REASON AND EPISTEMOLOGY.

      NOW SUPPOSE I WENT AND PROVED THIS TECHNIQUE WAS WITHOUT MERIT?

      NOTHING I’VE SAID HERE WOULD BE WRONG. YOU’D STILL BE A DELUSIONAL CUNT FOR TAKING YOUR FANTASY APPROACH TO THE UNIVERSE. IF IT ISN’T REVERSE SPEECH YOU WERE DELUSIONAL ABOUT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING ELSE.

      • I DON’T NEED AN EXCUSE NOT TO DO A TEST YOU FUCKING MORON? WHAT ARE YOU? ON THE DOT.MOM?
        PEOPLE HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF OTHER THINGS TO DO OTHER THAN DOING REVERSE SPEECH TESTS.

        YOU ARE JUST NOT GETTING THE POINT BLOCKHEAD. THE POINT IS TO DO WITH EPISTEMOLOGY. WITH THE DELUSIONAL NATURE OF DAVIDS CRITICS. NOW I MAY WELL ONE DAY BECOME ONE OF HIS CRITICS. I DOUBT IT. SINCE IT RATHER LOOKS LIKE HE’S ONTO SOMETHING.

        I’VE TOLD YOU TWICE NOW. THE ISSUE IS NOT ABOUT REVERSE SPEECH. THE ISSUE IS ABOUT DELUSIONAL PEOPLE. PEOPLE SUCH AS YOURSELF AND PZ MYERS AND JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER BRAIN DEAD SHEEP WHO IS OUtTTHERE. MARK HILL BELIEVING IN THE KEYNESIAN MULTIPLIER WITHOUT A SHRED OF EVIDENCE OR LOGIC. JASON SOON AND SINCLAIR DAVIDSON AS WELL.

        ITS NOT ABOUT REVERSE SPEECH. ITS ABOUT REASON AND LOGIC. THATS THE TOPIC HERE. THATS THE TOPIC IN EVERY SUBJECT.

      • ITS TRUE THAT I COULD HAVE. BUT I DIDN’T GET AROUND TO IT. WHETHER I GOT AROUND TO IT OR NOT COULD NEVER LET YOUR UNREASON AND PERSONAL IDIOCY OFF THE HOOK.
        SO SUPPOSING I PUT IN 5 HOURS OR 25 HOURS AND FOUND OUT THAT YOU WERE RIGHT. OR THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING IN IT BUT NOT ENOUGH TO WORRY ABOUT.

        THIS COULD NOT SALVAGE YOU FROM YOUR MANIFEST DEMONSTRATION OF SHEEPLENESS AND YOUR REBELLION AGAINST REASON. SO YOU ARE RIGHT TO GO UNDER AN ASSUMED NAME.

      • IRRELEVANT. THE SUBJECT I’M INTERESTED IN IS THE DELUSION OF THE THEORIES CRITICS. OF COURSE THEIR DELUSION DOESN’T PROVE THE THEORY.

  98. “But seriously how much do you do that? If a couple of Dutch people are talking do you interpolate half the conversation for 5 minutes prior to realizing that they are talking in another language?

    What this concept shows is that SOME PEOPLE CAN be doing this sort of interpolation. But it doesn’t yet show that David and his students are typically doing any such thing.”

    “Obviously it depends whether the theory is right or wrong. If you are interviewing a suspect who unbeknownst to you is also the culprit, and you get the backwards information, if the theory is right, presumably that would tip you off as to what further follow-up may need to be done.”

    “Your theory is its just sounds. David Oates theory is that its NOT just sounds. So clearly the idea is to find out whether there is something in his theory. To imagine that you automatically KNOW that there is nothing in it is occultism. You have no such gift of second sight.”

    “No thats not right. The critic hasn’t made his case at all. Hence there is no reason to prejudice his paradigm over the David Oates paradigm. OCCULT EPISTEMOLOGY. The idea that you guys can work backwards from whatever bigoted conclusions you feel disposed to believe at the time.

    You guys are bigtime spoonbenders.”

    “Perhaps not a FINAL conclusion. But having said that the rest of what you have said is entirely wrong. Since there is the matter of context. A lot of what is said appears to be in context. Not only does the backward talk appear to be non-random. Further to that it appears to be in context with the forward speech.

    So once again you guys have to be quits with this voodoo of believing that you can know things you clearly cannot. Unless you have done a lot of this reversing you aren’t in the position to see if the given tapes are the result of extensive weeding out or not.

    The contrary case simply hasn’t been made. Its as though you people have a belief in astral travel that has allowed you to gain some sort of knowledge that you don’t have.”

  99. All the above quotes were taken from one page only out of six pages trying to deal with these congenital morons. You would have thought that they should have gotten the point right away. But no, the sheeple went on with their delusional thinking and will still be delusional unto this very day.

    They will still think they know things they cannot possibly know. Like the idiot Sinclair Davidson. Professor of Economics. Who thinks he knows that supernovae do not cause supervolcanoes. And testified before the Senate, implying at least, that there really was a Keynesian multiplier.

    Idiots everywhere we turn.

  100. AN IDIOT SEZ

    “This is faulty thinking.

    SO I SEZ:

    The person making the claim has the burden of proof”
    No thats absolutely wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong. In fact YOU ARE MAKING A CLAIM. And it is not true that the burden of proof is placed on anyone. No-one gets a headstart.

    There is no need for David to be on the blocks for 50 seconds while you are swimming before he is allowed to dive in and chase you down. There is no need for one competitor in a duck hunting contest to have it that all the ducks are bundled out of a helicopter with their wings clipped so the shooter can get a bunch of easy shots and the other hunter having to trek through the forest on his own.

    You see there is no null hypothesis. There is no compunction to treat the bully-boy advocates of the status quo hypothesis as if they are students in the special class and give them a big fat running advantage and even to clap if they finish the race.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    In fact you never ought to have only two hypotheses you are judging. You ought to always have at least three and it would be better to have six. And the idea is to rank but not prejudice them as you are developing them in parallel. Precisely because you never want to fall into this trap of prejudicing one hypothesis arbitrarily over another.

    Have you ever been to the website Bad Astronomy? I tell you if all scientists get to be like that this is the end of all progress in science.”

  101. Its all coming back to me now. These morons had the idea that their hypothesis had special privileges. Whereas the other guys claim had immense hurdles it needed to jump over while these morons stood around with their arms folded.

    “No the burden of proof is not on the person making the claim. First or otherwise. And you are making a claim yourself so goddamned wake up to your dumbness and do better. There is no burden of proof here. Rather there are competing paradigms in parallel. They are to be ranked for plausibility and reranked as the new data comes in.

    I put it to you that you people are religious and that you have chosen the religion of stupidity. Its as though you have fallen out of the mountain-top pagoda of STUPID and hit every stupid-step on the way down.

    There are two reasons to be interested in what David is presenting at his site. One reason is that if he’s right the implications are world-shattering. No question about that at all. And the second reason is that what he is presenting IS NOT RANDOM.

    Now there is quite an obvious and actually a very likely (from our point of view) possibility for this pronounced lack of randomness. And this would be if the taping is of thousands of hours but the really good reversals are but a tiny subset of all this taping. That would explain the lack of randomness, and would likely be the end of the matter. And from where we sit, we would likely make it, the odds would be, that this WILL be the end of the matter.

    But we don’t know that yet. Someone might know that. But not anyone here appears to have the requisite experience.

    Now look. I was in a secondhand bookshop because this was before the internet. And I was talking to the lady there about this and that and Chaucer. And she comes jabbering out with paragraphs of Middle English quoting by heart the Canterbury Tales. She didn’t even seem to need to bloody breathe. And there wasn’t a bloody English word there that I could understand though I tried my hardest. I could think of any number of cases like this. Where Fijians at work talk ninety miles to the minute and its jibber and not an English word in the room though the room seems suddenly so full of words you want to open all the windows.

    So don’t give me this glib crap about it being random and people just listening out for what they want to hear, because thats one duck that aint leaving the lake. Thats a wooden duck or a dead one.

    You people seem to be spontaneously inventing an whole new concept of what randomness is.”

  102. “What do you mean? The universe laughs at your petty RULES. There is no burden of proof amongst competing paradigms since WE WORK FORWARD TO TRUTH not backward from bigotry.

    To say that there is some burden of proof, and pretend that you are not also putting forward a paradigm, is to take the view that you are capable of occult knowledge.”

  103. It was just unbelievable the knots these morons could tie themselves in. This dumb cunt then asserted that he had a unicorn in his house and asked me to disprove it. The thinking was that if no paradigm had a headstart then I was as obligated to disprove the unicorn in his house as he was to prove the existence of that unicorn.

    Here was my response:

    “Have you got any supporting argument for this contention? After all you are not putting forward a paradigm. You are making an assertion.

    Countering assertions like this is not the same as laying a major series of lectures on your website and showing us your work and why you think like you do.

    If you were to do similar to David you would have an whole documentary about animal husbandry as applied to unicorns.”

    And you would think that would have done it. But four pages more went by and still these people stuck to their delusional point of view that they had debunked David Oates.

    Just incredible.

  104. “No its not impossible IN PRINCIPLE. It may be impossible in reality. But not in-principle. You see there is the mystery of consciousness here. One of the central mysteries of existence. And in thinking about consciousness, since I’m an atheist, I’ve tried to think of what it is that causes this phenomenon.

    Really the existence of consciousness is the ultimate mystery. And all the rest is just mucking about. But in postulating various theories of consciousness this reversal business seems intuitively…… well not quite intuitively right…. but not way out of the ballpark.

    Actually to me it seems intuitively right on that basis. But I cannot make a real good case for that so I toned it down to “not out of the ballpark.””

  105. Ritchie are you going to be like those other delusional buggers at Randi and go on forever without realising that you just don’t know?

    And that you are delusional to pretend that you do know?

    You really want to get this problem seen to.

    • FUCKING CONCENTRATE WILL YOU? IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW SOMEONE “COMES ACROSS”. EVEN GRASPING AT THAT STRAW IS A CONFESSION THAT YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

      SECONDLY. YOU DON’T HAVE AUTOMATIC KNOWLEDGE. YOU MIGHT THINK YOU DO BUT YOU DON’T. YOU MAY BE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT YOU HAVE THIS KNOWLEDGE, BUT IF SO YOU ARE DELUSIONAL. YOU MAY BE DELUSIONAL WITHIN A GROUP SITUATION. IN WHICH CASE YOU MAY NOT BE FOUND OUT AND REMARKED UPON. BUT YOU ARE STILL DELUSIONAL AND IN THIS CASE YOU ARE A TOTALLY WORTHLESS (INTELLECTUALLY SPEAKING) DELUSIONAL SHEEPLE. CLEARLY REASON TELLS US THAT IN THIS SITUATION YOUR OPINION MEANS NOTHING. THIS IS A HARSH VERDICT, BUT A TRUE ONE IF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES APPLY TO YOU, WHICH CLEARLY THEY APPEAR TO.

      SO ALL WE HAVE IS LOGIC, REASON, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD, AND THE CONSISTENT APPLICATION OF THESE OVER TIME. THIS IS ALL WE CAN PUT OUR FAITH IN. CLEARLY YOU AREN’T TRAINED IN THESE MATTERS AND CARE NOT FOR THEM. ELSE YOU WOULD SEE THROUGH SOL INVICTUS AS A COMPLETE MORON AND A MENTAL DUD.

      • ITS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD YOU BLOCKHEAD. IT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. SINCE YOU DON’T HAVE OCCULT KNOWLEDGE YOU DON’T HAVE AN AUTOMATIC WAY TO KNOW IF THE MAINSTREAM THEORY THAT YOU HAVE MINDLESSLY SEIZED UPON, ON THE BASIS OF UNSCIENTIFIC SOCIOLOGICAL REASONS IS THE RIGHT ONE. SO TO TENDENTIOUSLY SHORE UP THE SOCIOLOGICALLY DERIVED PARADIGM IS OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS ALL ABOUT.

        WILL YOU ATTEMPT NOT TO BE A BLOCKHEAD.

        YOU MAY THINK YOU HAVE AUTOMATIC KNOWLEDGE. I ASSURE YOU YOU DON’T.

      • LETS GO OVER IT AGAIN YOU FUCKING MORON. YOU DO NOT HAVE OCCULT KNOWLEDGE. SO FOR YOU TO DO ALL OF WHAT YOU SAY ON THE BASIS THAT YOU’VE SELECTED A THEORY, WITHOUT A COMPETITOR, IS YOU BEING A MORON.

        PARADIGMS, THEORIES, HYPOTHESIS MUST BE DEVELOPED AN RANKED IN PARALLEL. AND THIS FOLLOWS DIRECTLY FROM YOU NOT HAVING OCCULT KNOWLEDGE.

        DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NOW YOU STUPID CUNT.

        YOU MAY THINK YOU HAVE OCCULT KNOWLEDGE.

        I ASSURE YOU YOU DON’T.

        YOUR INSISTENCE THAT SCIENTISTS LATCH ONTO A SINGLE PARADIGM AND TENDENTIOUSLY CONDUCT EXPENSIVE EXPERIMENTS TO PROVE THIS PARADIGM IS WRONG. IT FOLLOWS DIRECTLY FROM THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC KNOWLEDGE.

      • Calm down, I’m just asking you to clarify.

        Different and competing hypotheses can be tested, even in parallel if you like. That is still part of the scientific method.

        YES BUT YOU CANNOT TEST ONE AND NOT THE OTHER. THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NO NULL HYPOTHESIS. YOU MUST CLARIFY YOUR HYPOTHESIS AND APPLY THE SAME STANDARDS TO IT. AND YOU ARE REFUSING TO DO SO. HERE YOU HAVE DAVID OATES PUTTING OUT ASTONISHING EVIDENCE, LIVE ON VIDEO, FOR HIS THEORY. AND YOU SAY HE’S WRONG AND WILL NOT COME UP WITH A DAMN THING FOR YOURS.

        IN FACT ITS REALLY IMPORTANT TO DEFINE AT LEAST THREE HYPOTHESES IN THIS SITUATION, PARTLY SO YOU DON’T FALL INTO THIS TRAP. YOU ARE SAYING THAT DAVID OATES HAS TO HAVE HIS TENNIS NET REALLY HIGH, WHEREAS YOU ARE ALLOWED TO HIT THE BALL UNDER THE NET.

        IF YOU ARE CONTRADICTING HIM FOR NO REASON, WITH NO KNOWLEDGE, NO UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR OWN, ON WHAT BASIS ARE YOU DOING SO? ANY SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY, WOULD HAVE YOUR OWN HYPOTHESIS COMPETING ON EQUAL TERMS. AND PARTLY TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO KEEP A NON-DEFINED, NON-FALSIFIABLE HYPOTHESIS THAT YOU REFUSE POINT BLANK TO BRING EVIDENCE FOR, WE REALLY NEED AT LEAST THREE THEORIES TO TEST IN PARALLEL.

        WE NEED THREE THEORIES IF POSSIBLE FOR OTHER REASONS. BUT HERE IS A REASON RIGHT THERE. SO YOU WON’T ACT LIKE SUCH A COMPLETE CUNT EVER AGAIN. JUST ASSUMING YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS RIGHT, WITH NO EVIDENCE, AND NO WAY TO FALSIFY IT, AND JUST ASSUMING YOU ARE RIGHT EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE A STUPID CUNT.

  106. So far every skeptic has made an idiot of himself on this matter. Not one of them have realised that the subject was about context. And not about imagining random sounds are making sense.

    At this point I’d have to be pretty confident that there is something in it. Mostly on the basis of the fantastically convincing evidence David Oates presents.

    I’ve begun to believe that these alleged skeptics are so delusional they don’t feel they need to even so much as check out one of David’s presentations to be able to assess the matter.

    I myself listened to Davids gear, thought it looked really promising, but I was more humble. I decided I couldn’t yet assess the matter.

    Not so these alleged skeptics. They just feel they know. They know nothing. They know nothing about the human mind that makes this stuff the least bit implausible. They know nothing. And they are delusional about their knowledge.

  107. I don’t know much about reverse speech per se but I would agree that human beings are endowed, at least potentially, with a paranormal faculty. The 23rd letter of the Greek alphabet “psi” has been used to designate this faculty and its various manifestations, including telepathy, clairvoyance and pre-cognition. These are the three principal types of extra-sensory perception.

    And psi is not solely or exclusively a form of knowing either but is in some cases more a form of doing and that may be relevant to understanding phenomena such as reverse speech (though I have no opinion or knowledge about reverse speech specifically).

  108. “telepathy, clairvoyance and pre-cognition”

    The most famous practitioners of these phenomena are known frauds and scam artists such as Sylvia Browne, John Edward, James van Praagh and amongst others.

    Until they are tested scientifically by organizations such as the JREF and there is shown to be some evidence of their claims, then they’ll continue to be charlatans making money from credulous fools.

  109. The simulation by individuals of psychic powers undoubtedly occurs but does not in itself negate their objective existence. From medicine to anthropology and other disciplines we know there are paranormal ways of action as well as paranormal ways of being aware.

    Nor are such things either new or rare. In fact the opposite is true. They are as old as human experience and thus reflected in our stories, history and literature. Prophets, oracles, ghosts, apparitions, second sight, thought reading, premonition are found and have been reported at every period of history among all cultures and classes of being. Up until a couple of centuries ago most people accepted the existence of such phenomena though they attributed their manifestations to supernatural or religious forces.

  110. The paranormal cannot be shown to objectively exist. The claims presented are nothing but subjective hearsay.

    In all objective scientific testing, there has been no demonstration of that the paranormal claims are real.

    If you can point to any scientific evidence for the veracity of any claims, please present it.

  111. Check out the work of Dr J.B. Rhine and his colleagues at Duke University who founded a parapsychology laboratory with fully controlled experimental conditions and rigorous statistical appraisal which established the case for the paranormal.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Banks_Rhine

  112. Rhine’s controversial book, Extrasensory Perception After Sixty Years (1940), led others to criticize his methods and to try to repeat his findings. Most failed, including the London mathematician Samuel Soal, who tried for five years without success. Eventually he re-analysed many of his results and found that one subject was apparently performing precognition. In the early 1950s, further tests with this subject, under tightly controlled conditions, gave statistically significant results—convincing many people that Rhine was right. Accusations and counter-claims abounded until, in 1978, it was finally proven that Soal had cheated and the results were worthless.

    http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Extra_sensory-perception

  113. “I don’t know much about reverse speech per se but I would agree that human beings are endowed, at least potentially, with a paranormal faculty. ”

    One doesn’t rule these things out I suppose. But reverse speech isn’t a paranormal theory. Nor does it contradict anything currently known in science about the human mind. Plus the evidence for it , as presented by David Oates, is astonishingly good, whereas the skeptics and critics, have come up with no evidence against it whatsoever. So that from where I sit its looking like a very good theory, and could shed a great deal of light on human consciousness.

    • Ok. I take your point about reverse speech not having its origins in the paranormal and which apparently, the theory goes, is something open to all from birth.

      ESP OTOH is not accessible to all or even the majority for a complex of reasons objective and subjective and also is neither easily testable or repeatable which again does not negate its existence which in some of its forms have been firmly established by scientific observation and record as a possibility and actuality since at least the 19th century.

  114. Yes paranormal advocates haven’t had a great deal of success with proving their case under any kind of controlled conditions.

    But reverse speech isn’t related to any of that sort of gear.

    • Of course none of this stuff is fashionable today especially in the academy and it is an area of knowledge and intellectual investigation that has become sidelined to a great extent because of its embrace and distortion by religious and fringe cultish groups that are in many cases charlatan and banal in their faith-based beliefs and interests.

      OTOH a determinedly materialist worldview and its science are not going to be very interested in or amenable to something which discomforts and subverts perceived rational processes and knowable, demonstrable facts.

      • What happened is that a whole lot of feeble magicians in the 70’s tried to recast themselves as psychic’s and spiritual heavies. And then Randi, Ian Plimer and those guys debunked them all with such success that the feeling was that all this stuff is nonsense. I don’t try to run this stuff down too much, although I expect the next fellow to come around with any such act, will probably be a trickster just on the revealed odds of matters.

        So I don’t know if there is anything real here. But the point is I don’t have anything in a controlled environment to use to either confirm or debunk.

        Whereas such stories as the Kennedy Hit, Reverse Speech, and the potential for alien visitation …… None of these subjects are to do with paranormal powers. None of them deal with religious belief. None of them are irrational or unscientific. And whats more there is great evidence in their favour. So I can see why a skeptic who had seen all these poor magicians who have been unmasked just get all weary when the next fellow shows up. But its their anti-intellectual approach to anything non-mainstream is what sickens me. Its a rebellion against logic, reason, and the scientific method that gives me the shits.

        Jason Soon is terrible for this anti-reason obsession. I constantly think I can cure him of stupidity but its a losing battle. Like I’ve brought up reverse speech again, because its an important issue. And what is his argument: “Birds brought up reverse speech again. Oh dear.” Or words to that effect. Thats an argument in stupidtown. Jason Soon really feels like thats an argument. Its a terrible mental handicap these Sheeple are getting around with.

  115. Keep at it Graeme?

    I’m still in touch.

    luv

    Bush Bunny from Oz

    • Always Bunny-Honey. But if this jerk refuses point blank to come up with some evidence for his jive soon I’ll just block him.

  116. Consider the theory that David Oates is wrong in the broad thrust of his theory.

    Versus the theory that David Oates is right in broad thrust.

    The skeptics are putting forth their theory on the basis that their theory quite literally cannot be falsified. They will not produce evidence for their theory, nor can it be falsified.

    Whereas on the opposite side David Oates has presented, on video, for all to see, stunning evidence in favour of his theory.

    So good in fact that to verify it beyond any doubt one merely needs to find out if he can do this without hundreds of hours of taping for each snappy little contextually sound reversal.

    So far his opposition have proven to be without any understanding of what constitutes evidence, totally unscientific, and just basically morons.

  117. NO NO YOU ARE LYING. YOUR HYPOTHESIS IS UNFALSIFIABLE AND YOU REFUSE POINT BLANK TO BRING EVIDENCE FOR IT. THEREFORE YOU ARE BEING A COMPLETE CUNT.

    • AGAIN. YOU ARE TREATING YOUR HYPOTHESIS WITH SPECIAL RULES. YOU WON’T BRING EVIDENCE FOR IT. YOU WON’T SHOW HOW IT CAN BE FALSIFIED. THIS IS CHARACTER ISSUE AS MUCH AS ANYTHING. YOU ASSUME YOU ARE RIGHT, YET YOU APPLY TESTS TO OATES THAT YOU WON’T APPLY TO YOUR OWN HYPOTHESIS.

      ALWAYS ITS NOT TESTING A SINGLE HYPOTHESIS. THIS FOLLOWS FROM THE FACT THAT YOU DON’T HAVE ACCESS TO OCCULT KNOWLEDGE.

  118. Supposing you have Newtons theory of gravity? Well Newton didn’t have a theory of gravity. He had some formulas that seemed to work for our planets. Formulas aren’t a theory at all. They are a timesaver.

    If I’m measuring the productivity of capital inputs and I want to factor out capital accumulation. Since capital accumulation is a good thing, and I don’t want to get a measure of improvement in the way we use capital resources that is perversely influenced by the progress of capital accumulation then I may invent a ratio of some sort, then invent a correction, or fudge factor, to give myself a useful metric.

    Suppose I take my first metric of productivity. Then I correct for capital accumulation by multiplying by GDR/GDP. Now clearly this has already gotten pretty arbitrary. But it might be that after studying the history of economics, and how I think our management practices and our technology as well as regulatory environment has improved ……

    …. And in accordance with this I think I’m seeing that this correction factor appears too strong.

    So the next step is a might square root the correction factor. And so I use (GDR/GDP) to the power of one half.

    And supposing I then poured through all the history. Compared this metric with many other countries and territories …. Particularly for example, East Germany after the fall of the iron curtain …..

    Now supposing I think my metric is fair. I don’t have to come up with some bizarre theory to do with unicorn-buggies or space-time to pretend to give my formula more objectivity then it really has.

    Same goes with gravity. So we knew that Newtons formulas weren’t quite cutting it for the orbit of Mercury. Throw in a correction factor. But don’t try and pretend that you’ve proved any amount of bullshit to do with space-time (no such thing) or time (no such primary concept, that is to say no such thing).

    Its just a fucking correction factor for an orbit. Of course we know now that Einsteins formulas don’t work at all. They are useless for the galaxy. And why would we expect otherwise? Formulas are just time-saving devices. They only ever work between two boundary conditions.

    No formula ever works when describing the real world except between boundary conditions. We were mad to think otherwise. What has happened is that, to clamp down on a complete fucking scandal, the dumb physicists have used cult-worship and what amounts to repetitive brainwashing, to exalt themselves above logic and philosophy. Its a real scandal. And people are onto to them. I was just down town and somebody called Smolin has written a book called “The trouble with physics”

    When I first started catching dumb physicists out with their rebellion against logic and reason I thought it was just me. But now we have a growing movement of people speaking out against this scandal of unreason.

  119. Nite guys, don’t contact me unless it is about
    Malcolm Turnabout, or Climate change dick heads.

    Seriously Graeme, I get 150 emails from anti-nuclear, Joan Nova, Tory Aardvark and you. And other sites per day.

    I love them, but it is physically and mentally possible for this old girl to keep up. I spend sometimes 12 hours a day researching and following up on emails.

    Rhetoric is great … I luv yer, but give me some license on the theme of these emails.

  120. Bunny-Honey you must have ticked something that is giving you automatic emails. You must have accidentally ticked the box that says “send me site updates”.

    So that means every time me or anyone else makes a post, the emails will be piling up.

    I’m causing you aggravation because I haven’t moved onto a different thread then the one you ticked I suppose. Or perhaps you get these emails tagged to you as soon as you make a single comment on a thread.

  121. Mr B, is that lying cunt Ritchie hassling Bush Bunny?

  122. No I don’t think so. What I think is happening is that Bush Bunny has probably triggered multiple emails from my blog, without realising it.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Scientific proof that the Bobby Kennedy hit was also a CIA-conspiracy:

  123. Dr Alan Keyes laying down some home truthzz about the state of the US Republic.

  124. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – Ambassador Keyes is truly a Righteous Man.

  125. Indeed he is the very portrait of righteousness. But look at how racism, and targeted ridicule, has reduced a fellow who is clearly Presidential material, to be helping out with other peoples elections. He’s promoting Jim Andersons election. This is good in a way because the bully-boys have successfully screwed up his own chances for electoral success for the moment. So now he turns his superior abilities to get other worthies elected.

  126. “Its a terrible mental handicap these Sheeple are getting around with.’

    Male self-stultification is a real turn off for women and not that pleasurable for those poor dudes in its throes.

    I think what happens with some who are suffused with fears of biological cum personal expediency is that they believe non-rational or scientifically explicable physical/mental powers would not be an advantage, but a handicap. And so they elevate mental privacy and impenetrability and emotional frigidity because they fear without such defence mechanisms which they cling to at all costs, they would cease to exist as individuals.

    This of course is the most terrifying prospect they can envisage. Sadly for them.

  127. Bankers taking gold and turning it into shit is not a forever thing.

    “Every single bond market in Europe is currently getting the shit kicked out of it… even Germany’s.

    Even the core is getting its head handed to it. This is truly fucking ominous because if the German bond market is getting hit, it may cause the virus to spread to the US and Japan.

    It may be time to dig a hole, a really big fucking hole.

    And as timely as ever The Alliance puts up a host of new taxes.”

    What Cambria cannot get is that when reverse-banker-alchemy is practiced sooner or later the public cannot pay the debts. If you steal off the public to pay the banks, this will STILL leave the public unable to pay its debts. Whether you steal 1 trillon, ten trillion or 100 trillion. What could have been wealth-creating funds is turned to shit by incompetent bankers. There is no way out that doesn’t include default.

  128. Just in case you didn’t realise that Cambria was a liar and entirely full of shit.

    “Lol

    Yes Fyodor is very amusing. He really knows his economics too, better than most professors in Australia.”

    Fyodor is tedious, ignorant, Keynesian in orientation, a threadwrecker, and knows nothing about economics. But since Cambria only studied Keynes 101 at uni, and was too stupid to learn anything since, well that is still not much of an excuse for lying. Since what Cambria really means is neither of them have ever seen a baillout they don’t like.

  129. NO NO. FYODOR IS A PROVEN IDIOT, AS YOU USED TO AGREE PRIOR TO THE BAILOUT YOU LYING CUNT. AND YOU ARE A LYING CUNT.

  130. No you are lying fella. And you will never understand why you are wrong in a month of Sundays, you slimiest of the slimy things to crawl out of the sea.

  131. Look at this Keynesian idiot:

    “So if fiscal policy is being tightened there has to be a large and corresponding ease in monetary policy. This isn’t happening.”

    What is the matter with this fucking moron? Savings and fiscal policy do not affect spending. Else China, with its high savings rate, could never have inflation. Now it so happens that a lot of the time your prescription may be the correct one. But what a powerful moron you are to be still so wedded to Keynesian error after all this time.

    When you are that fucking stupid Joseph Cambria, it comes down to a matter of character.

  132. Oh I see. He just want bankers to make more money.

    What a cunt he is. There is nothing this person isn’t stupid about, or isn’t willing to lie about.

  133. Fucking hell Cambria. How can you STILL buy into Keynesian nonsense after all this time. Please. I’m begging you. Castrate yourself or exercise your right to euthanasia. There is already too much stupidity and too much dishonesty in this world.

  134. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. Bloody bloody bloody bloody bloody. If fiscal surpluses are basically equivalent to high savings rates, and Japan in the 80’s and China from time to time, both had high savings rates and inflationary bubbles, then where does this stupid cunt get off with this nonsense that fiscal rectitude is deflationary?

    No wonder he thinks Fyodor is a genius at economics. Its two people, equally stupid, reaching out for each other, for support.

  135. There is a tiny scintilla of faux-truth to what Cambria is saying. Fiscal rectitude is everywhere and always good for employment. But it tends to reduce profits. And particularly it tends to reduce bank profits, unless its accompanied by these fucking bank subsidies that pass for “monetary policy”. So if you take Cambria as being a complete cunt, and a special pleader for the bankers, then there is some sort of logic to his apparent terminal stupidity.

  136. “Modern air travel is already hell on earth. This would send me Mohammad Atta:

    400lb passenger forces man in seat next to him to satnd for entire flight.”

    This is INFIDEL TIGER continuing with the 9/11 blood libel against the Arabs. He knows better than that. This is very bigoted behaviour and Atta’s memory and Atta’s dad deserve better than this.

    Are Jews all white supremacist bigots?

  137. Fuck Cambria is such an obsessively treacherous cunt. Prior to the bailout, he thought that Fyodor was irrational, ignorant, and had no idea about economics. Whereas his view of me, was that I had gotten the wrong idea about fractional reserve, but other than that, in Cambria’s view, I was an economics genius.

    Soon as the bailout comes along, Fyodor is fine, and I don’t understand economics. I mean Cambria really is a treasonous cunt. There is nothing he won’t do to support bank-stealing, bank subsidy, and unjust enrichment of the investment class.

  138. “Gillard knifes Rudd and Jenkins to protect her position as Prime Minister.”

    See how the Bari Shabazz visit, and the new deal with the Americans, has given Julia sufficient political cache, to do what she must have wanted to do all this time, since Rudd started becoming a spoiler in the middle of the election.

    Good on her too. If she could have sacked herself, and made sure Rudd never got near power again,this would have been a good thing. But just pissing Rudd off from foreign affairs is a great move forward. If only she couldn’t send ABU packing at the same time. And all his friends. And friends of those friends.

  139. From elsewhere:

    Graeme Bird :
    23 Nov 2011 6:00:33pm

    There is only one valid form of free trade. That is unilateral free trade. Everything else is government-to-government cronyism deals.

    But in order for Australia to rightly extend unilateral free trade we need to take measures to make sure we have the export advantage when it comes to purchasing power parity. Theoclassical economists like Chris, have missed the reality of the dysfunction of our banking and currency markets, and this is the same dysfunction that has persistently over-valued our dollar, therefore hollowing out our economy.

    If we gain the advantage in purchasing power parity we can confidently then go out to the world, offering unilateral free trade, without strings attached, and asking for the world to SELL stuff to us. We can rest assured that following this system, the ships will not be returning from Australia empty.

    Alert moderator
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    MD :
    23 Nov 2011 4:55:50pm

    Which makes it rather a mystery why dumping is a no-no in free trade treaties. Why isn’t it exalted? If everybody did it, it would be fair and consumers would be the winners, wouldn’t they?

    Alert moderator

    Graeme Bird :

    23 Nov 2011 6:01:34pm

    Yes you are right. Dumping is value-for-money. But its hard to see it that way when our currency is persistently 15-35% out of whack against those who we trade with.

    Alert moderator

  140. The carbon tax is MEANINGFUL according to Joseph Cambria. What on earth can this silly cunt MEAN by MEANINGFUL?????

    “The carbon tax is meaningful of course, but the thing that will absolutely root this economy to the wall is the propeller on sticks and the plastic fucking panel policy.”

    Does the phrase “hang yourself with your tie in the woman’s toilets after hours” mean anything to you Cambria?

    Where the fuck do you get off calling the carbon tax MEANINGFUL? Fuck me I was just about to ethnically cleanse all these insults of you from my blog, because you hadn’t given me the shits for a few weeks. But now I can see you are going out of your way to be antagonistic. I can see you have a serious problem with me that isn’t ending any time soon.

  141. “jarrah, we’re fucked. We just don’t know it yet. We’re three to four weeks away from a total economic annihilation if those morons in Europe don’t do something like ease monetary policy to extreme.”

    Quick, jarrah. Help. Somebody subsidise the bankers with another trillion in zero interest loans!!!!!

    Third parties, surely you can see that if you had access to this much cheap credit, you would be far richer than these worthless pieces of shit, and if they didn’t have access to these relentless subsidies, they would be in rags, and crapping in their pants.

  142. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Cambria. Such a stupid cunt. He never lets me down:

    “Otherwise the stuff is my own. I try not to read too many opinions as I don’t want to pollute my own thinking.”

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  143. Cambria sez:

    “Steve,

    I’m not pessimistic, but realistic. If the Germans continue to prevent the ECB from massively easing monetary policy we’re all fucked.”

    SOMEBODY SOMEWHERE PLEASE AAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH GIVE A BANKER, ANY BANKER, AN INTEREST RATE SUBSIDY OR THE UNIVERSE WILL FUCKING IMPLODE.

    How much more of this shit from this fellow can you take before you just tell him to fuck off and that he’s the real problem here?

  144. While Cambria continues to demand further bank subsidies, on the grounds that the bankers are useless, wealth-destroying cunts, so they need more of our resources ………….

    ……. I would say THIS ISSUE is still a live issue. And it will be a central issue, the next time I can afford to run for election:

  145. YEAH I AGREE RICK PERRY IS A QUISLING CUNT. IMAGINE THINKING YOU WERE THE CATS PAJAMAS, BEING BRAVE ENOUGH TO WANT TO GET RID OF THREE DEPARTMENTS? AND THE STUPID CUNT COULDN’T REMEMBER ALL THREE? BUT HIS MEMORY ISN’T THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS HE’S SUCH A FAKEASS CUNT HE CANNOT GET SERIOUS ABOUT WIPING OUT A HUNDRED DEPARTMENTS BEFORE BREAKFAST?

    WHAT A CUNT HEY?

  146. “Only three stars, Graeme? You underrate yourself.”

    Not me Gab. I don’t know this fellow. He showed up here and called me a vagina, so I took him off air, and the thread that he commented on.

    “Thanks for that, JC. Looks an interesting site.
    Continue buying gold?”

    Good grief. Are you asking this welfare recipient whether his cronies, plan on forcing the gold price up? Or are you deluded that any advice coming from this blockhead can be informed?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: