Posted by: graemebird | May 15, 2010

Stephen LEWANDOWSKY Has The Gift Of Second Sight.

((((Actually I suspect he’s deeply deranged and is probably holding his act together one day at a time. But I was much more polite then that in the post below. From elsewhere:)))))

“A good fraction of Americans still believe that the invasion of Iraq was legitimate retaliation for Saddam Husein’s attack on the Word Trade Center.”

Not a bad or disproven theory by the way. Although there appears to be many more culprits than just him. Did you imagine Saddam had some sort of alibi? What was that alibi if so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Phantom-alibis aside for the moment, what is a “Winthrop Professor?” You hear that phrase all the time. Its hard, even with google, to sort out its origins. So far it seems to be associated with someone called Robert Winthrop. With a sample size of only one you’d have to wonder if Winthrop Professors weren’t all dopes.

Its hard to respond to arguments that Stephen makes at Unleashed. Because he makes none relevant to his claims. He just starts “psychologizing” people he disagrees with. Certainly he’s the most irrational person that ABC Unleashed has ever dredged up.

He posted two videos about 9/11. One of them where he claimed that an item that people were saying was an “appendage” on the underside of one of the planes. Stephen didn’t think it was any sort of appendage. Rather he KNEW it was a shadow. He cast aspersions on these people assuring everyone that the supposed appendage was only a shadow.

So I looked at his video, there was a clear shot 98 seconds in, and it didn’t look like a shadow at all. There is no way to assess his claim that it was only a shadow, except negatively, by the evidence that he himself presents. Stephen is a real odd fish.

Some people decide what their view is of a matter. And then that determines what they can and cannot see. “See” here in the literal sense. I’m sure I’d have a hard time getting Stephen to admit that what he is claiming is a shadow, at least doesn’t look even a bit like a shadow, quite irrespective of whether its a shadow or not. I’ve seen people like this before. And its as though they would need extensive therapy before they could admit what was and wasn’t evidence, and what photographs did, and did not, look like.

You can make up your own mind whether this is a shadow or not. Thats not the point I’m making. What I’m saying is that Stephen seems incapable of making any valid argument at all. And using this video, that at least APPEARED to contradict what he was saying……… well in my book that was quite an odd-ball thing to do.

I’ve seen the underside of planes before. It would be one thing for Stephen to suggest that the photographs were misleading or doctored. But thats not what he suggested. He suggested that we ought to not trust our lying eyes. Or if thats not what he suggested, it was pretty hard to figure out what his argument was at all.

I think you are supposed to work forwards from whatever evidence you have. Not work backwards from the conclusion, doctoring all evidence mentally as you go. Stephen seems to think differently if we look at his actions, rather than any implied self-assessment. Here is the video.

98 seconds in. Starboard side (left from underneath). Eye-Witness testimony backing the oddness of it. Well Stephen its a shadow if you say so. But how did you find this out when the rest of us cannot determine this from the video or photo?

I guess Stephen has the gift of second-sight. In fact this implication is in all his writings. Everything he writes seems to imply that he needs no reason or evidence. He just knows stuff. He’s got the gift of second sight. Lucky for him but he ought to take pity on the rest of us and cast about for secondary evidence and clearly superfluous valid reasoning.

Advertisements

Responses

  1. FROM ELSEWHERE:

    I think we are going to have to face it that Malcolm and Jayell are not that bright. Its one thing to disagree, after all I disagreed, since I only came around to the idea of American involvement very recently. But its another thing to be both unwilling and unable to make any sound argument for ones point of view.

    I think we need to look at the structure of big conspiracies more generally. Why things spin out of control as soon as the combination of being cut off from information, or killed, if you were to disapprove of a crazy turn a covert operation may take.

    Once it gets so big that its hard for any one man to stop the momentum of it, without being cut off (from information generally) or killed …. then paradoxically all conspirators are now thrust into a runaway train.

    E Howard Hunt described himself as a “seat-warmer” for the Kennedy operation (codenamed “The Big Event”). He did not appear to have had any great skin involved in it. He didn’t seem to try to stop it or support it enthusiastically. If it gets to a stage where almost everyone is too intimidated to speak against the momentum of it, then you can have virtually no-one wanting to go through with it, but the runaway train just races on ahead in any case.

  2. Goddamn those Jew Bastards turn my stomach.

  3. Graeme I replied on Jonova what a Winthrop Professor is. John Whinthrop Hackett founded UWA… it is a senior UWA professorial title.

  4. Yeah I saw that. Who is this Fiona chick? She a dummy like that idiot Lewandowsky?

  5. hmm well summary is that she was Australian of the year a couple of years back, invented “second skin” for treatment of burns, was a key figure in the aftermath of the Bali bombings, and was rated something like “most trusted Australian” 6 years running… so I doubt she is a dummy. Trust me – Google works.

    On the scale of “scientists what extreme libertarians like” I’d say she is a 10 based on the fact she does actual real research that has real benefit to people in real life threatening circumstances (severe burns), which also would help treat wounded soldiers in war situations…

    ticks all the boxes Graeme. I’m trying to put myself in your mind, and I’m guessing that the Winthrop Prof Fiona Wood would be a celebration of real, genuine and honest scientific endeavour compared to a pseudo-scientific warmist getting rich on the public teat?

  6. Right. As a matter of fact I saw her on TV just the other day. She was talking about ADD and its treatment. She did seem rather intelligent. Unlike Stephen who is a complete doofus.


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: