| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| John White wrote: | | Is it [the Naudet complicity theory] actually provable? Of course not! |
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | Cite the evidence for your claim that the Naudet complicity theory is unprovable |
| John White wrote: | | You hav'nt provided any |
Les and I have provided scores of evidentiary items for the complicity theory. YOU haven't COUNTERED any of those items.
| John White wrote: | | Failing someone on the naudet team confessing, theres almost certainly no proof to be had |
You think crimes are almost never provable without a confession?? Sheesh.
Do you require a confession before you'll agree the Naudets altered their own raw footage in the following excerpt? Do you honestly think a bloody facial sore can NATURALLY jump from one cheek to the other?
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm
That fakery dovetails with this other fakery in the same scene
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm
to help (see also the rest of the funeral page) establish that
Tony was NOT REALLY THERE. They INSERTED him, and MIRROR-IMAGED "his" part of the scene (which therefore had the truck REALLY driving the OTHER WAY, OPPOSITE the direction at the REAL funeral), because he was an ACTOR, a CIAgent, NOT a fireman.
But YOU DON'T CARE, because lying "documentarians" are fine with you, as long as they resist the urge to confess, which is your only hope of convicting anyone of anything! Hee hee, are you waiting for Bush to confess too?
Ray Ubinger
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You still don't understand what evidence is Ray obviously
Thats fine, its your effort your spending NOT making a convincing case
Yes, courts do convict on circumstantial evidence. Would it be petty of me to mention those are most usually when we have miscarriages of justice?
Its not every case that requires a confession in order to convict: but it is in this one, becuase youive not got anything that can be called "hard" evidence, just supposition
Why have I not chosen to spend my time with a point by point rebuke?
Well Ray, its becuase every point you make comes from the same location:
Your imagination
Therefore, I can make my comments as a job lot
Keep digging by all means, you may turn something up
But why should I lie to you? Your just not there yet
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | every point you make comes from the same location: Your imagination |
So I'm imagining that Tony's sore changes cheeks
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm
and in reality I need an eye exam?
Ray Ubinger
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thats the best you got there Ray?
Wow. Just Wow
I believe its called a reverse angle shot and is used in documentaries, and television in general, all the time
Don't believe everything you see on television now!
So, how does a wandering spot demonstrate the naudets had prior knowledge of the plane (or is it a nonplane?) impact?
I'll take it as proof they make documentaries though
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallious
Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | John White wrote: | | every point you make comes from the same location: Your imagination |
So I'm imagining that Tony's sore changes cheeks
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/tonysore.htm
and in reality I need an eye exam?
Ray Ubinger |
Wait... No, wait... you ARE joking?
......
Ut-o, Tony forgot which hand to salute with!
The boss man is gonna be maaad with him.
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
29.82 KB |
| Viewed: |
166 Time(s) |
|
_________________
"Thought is faster than arrows, and truth is sharper than blades." - David Gemmell | RealityDown wiki |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: Re: Naudet fuzz |
|
|
| MadgeB wrote: | KP50 said: "So you think a plane did hit Tower 1 but not Tower 2? So having flown a plane into a building when almost no cameras were pointing at it, they then faked the second plane impact? Please clarify."
Well something (or things) hit Tower 1 - or maybe fired missiles into it and then flew over the top - but there’s no evidence to show this happened for Tower 2. Comparing the Tower 1 (Naudet) hit to the Tower 2 ones, the webfairy says, “Every field of every frame is different, absolutely opposite the true fakes where the frames are duplicated to make animation easier.”
Short discussion here (including links showing there was no flight 11 that day) http://www.911researchers.com/node/390?page=1
By presenting the the Naudet clip - which shows only fuzzy images not identifiable as any particular plane - and telling us authoritatively, on the news, that it was a Boeing 767, the perps achieved the result that people (even 9/11 ‘truthers’ on this forum) swear they can actually see a Boeing 767 in the image. What more could the perps want from the Naudet setup?
Having hammered home the idea that a hijacked plane hit Tower 1, they were then more able to push the story that a hijacked plane had hit Tower 2, overruling anyone who saw the explosion but saw no plane.
They had no need of real hijacked planes, which would only have complicated issues. Gerard Holmgren explains “Why they didn’t use planes” succinctly here: http://911closeup.com/ |
I have a problem taking seriously any theory that relies on the so called frame-by-frame analysis of the Naudet impact. If nothing else, it is a mis-use of the word "frame" .......
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John White wrote: | | I believe its called a reverse angle shot |
aka a flip or a mirror or a mirror image, I in turn believe. We seem to agree the Naudets altered some of the footage in this scene of theirs by that method.
| Quote: | | and is used in documentaries, and television in general, all the time |
How do you think it would have looked, if they had not used it in this "documentary"; would it have:
(a) consistently shown the funeral procession traveling toward the whole firefighter formation's left (from its right)
(b) consistently shown the funeral procession traveling toward the whole formation's right (from its left)
or
(c) inconsistently shown the funeral procession moving toward ONE side of TONY's part of the formation but toward the OTHER side of the REST of the formation?
| Quote: | | So, how does a wandering spot demonstrate the naudets had prior knowledge of the plane (or is it a nonplane?) impact? |
I didn't say it proved Naudet foreknowledge of 1st Hit. I said Les's article does. I said my contribution to knowledge of Naudet 1st Hit foreknowledge is
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
I did say or at least mean to imply that the Sore page and the page
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm
together establish the INSERTION of Tony into the Gorumba funeral scene after actually being filmed in a mock funeral scene elsewhere--where they
accidentally filmed the truck going the WRONG WAY, OPPOSITE to the direction the real funeral procession turned out.
I say it proves the Naudets construct elaborate lies about deadly serious events and pass them off as authentic, nay Historic documentation.
Ray Ubinger
edited to delete the misplaced "from," from between "moving" and "toward" in (c)
sorryboutthat
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 27, 2007 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallious wrote: | | Ut-o, Tony |
and the fireman next to him too
| Quote: | | forgot which hand to salute with! |
but only in your own reversal of that salute shot. Your image does not actually appear in the movie. All mine do.
Rewatch the pan-left over the crowd revealing Tony with UNblemished LEFT cheek
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral/crowd.htm
If your reversal of the salute shot represents the true view (i.e., if he and a moron next to him truly did salute left-handed, with the blemish truly on Tony's LEFT cheek (blemish and salute hand on same side)), then the apparent pan-left over the crowd, landing on Tony to reveal an UNblemished left cheek, must have really been a pan-RIGHT.
That would in turn make the direction of the soon-revealed funeral procession, SHOWN as being toward the formation's LEFT, actually be toward the formation's RIGHT (from the formation's left).
In other words, for Tony's part of the formation in particular, the direction of the funeral procession would be toward Tony's UNblemished (right) cheek.
Yet that would contradict the existing snippet of the truck actually passing in front of Tony TOWARD his BLEMISHED cheek (from his unblemished cheek).
No matter which cheek you put the sore on, "the" funeral passed Tony in the opposite direction that "it" passed the majority of the formation in.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004
ps I suspect a similarly blood-spotty face wound is discernible on a good, clean, large copy of the file photo of the deceased fireman himself, Michael Gorumba.
The photo I mean, appears in the movie on the front page of the NY Daily News issue, where the resolution of the suspected wound is too low in the Flashie at
http://911foreknowledge.com/funeral
and barely better on the actual dvd. I had hoped to post a clean still copy (the dvd fades out to the next scene right when the suspected wound becomes most discernible) from Google Images, but it's not there anymore. Odd.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
les raphael
New Poster
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 9:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
From the author of the Naudet article - the alleged subject of this thread
John White - I will not be having any more correspondence with you, any more than with Anthony Lawson , and if you give a flier, here's why :
because you are a deliberate time-waster, and you are wasting no more
of mine - and I suggest, Ray, you stop wasting yours, too, on this prat.
White - you're not fit to be a moderator in this or any other discussion -
you don't even understand your own rules. Find something else to do
with whatever talents you have : rational debate is not among them.
I'll take on anybody who has arguments to offer, but you have none,
as you keep advertising, and this thread is, in two words, pointless nonsense.
Les Raphael 9 May 2007
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Les - I read your article but was unable to find anything in it to substantiate your claim that the Naudets had foreknowledge of the attacks. There's plenty of highly repetitive speculation (based on your belief that they did) - but no evidence.
Believing something doesn't make it true.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | Les - I read your article but was unable to find anything in it to substantiate your claim that the Naudets had foreknowledge of the attacks. There's plenty of highly repetitive speculation (based on your belief that they did) - but no evidence.
Believing something doesn't make it true. |
What exactly constitutes evidence to you guys? Is it a statement written in blood? Is that what you are waiting for??
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | gruts wrote: | Les - I read your article but was unable to find anything in it to substantiate your claim that the Naudets had foreknowledge of the attacks. There's plenty of highly repetitive speculation (based on your belief that they did) - but no evidence.
Believing something doesn't make it true. |
What exactly constitutes evidence to you guys? Is it a statement written in blood? Is that what you are waiting for?? |
I await your analysis of the article with baited breath....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | Believing something doesn't make it true. |
That's LES's point. Your mere WISH to believe that the SCORES of SIMULTANEOUS conveniences which Jules Naudet needed to get that particular shot, ALL CAME TOGETHER BY PURE DUMB LUCK instead of by plan, does NOT make it believABLE. You need to explain why you are so willing to swallow the Luck explanation, when the Foreknowledge explanation is astronomically more likely from an objective statistical standpoint.
If SCORES of SIMULTANEOUS coincidences enabling some event (in this case Jules Naudet's video of the 1st Hit) are NOT enough to make you suspicious that it was planned, how many WOULD be enough, please? Hundreds? Thousands? Trillions?
How about the SECOND camera that the Naudets had running at that SAME INSTANT, eleven blocks closer to WTC on the SAME STREET, specifically to capture the initial crowd reaction?
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
Of course the Naudets NEVER EXPLAIN how they got this footage, because that would have required too much work, a whole SECOND cover story, such as perhaps, "We were ALSO doing a documentary on how pedestrians tend to walk freely around on a normally busy street when the street is blocked for some reason-- when all of a sudden this loud overhead sound and explosion occurred, and it turned out to be the start of the 9/11 attacks."
No, they JUST USE the footage, without accounting for it. And I caught them.
Since I wrote that page, the location has been pegged down: it was shot in the east gutter of Church Street, between Park Place and Murray Street, much closer to Murray than to Park, and looking northward and westward, at the west half of the Church-Murray intersection. Here is a Naudet snippet from that same spot a very short while later, looking SOUTH and west, to show how close it was to WTC:
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris/location4.htm
These clips are EXCLUSIVE to the Naudet movie, they appear NOWHERE ELSE.
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | That's LES's point. Your mere WISH to believe that the SCORES of SIMULTANEOUS conveniences which Jules Naudet needed to get that particular shot, ALL CAME TOGETHER BY PURE DUMB LUCK instead of by plan, does NOT make it believABLE. You need to explain why you are so willing to swallow the Luck explanation, when the Foreknowledge explanation is astronomically more likely from an objective statistical standpoint.
If SCORES of SIMULTANEOUS coincidences enabling some event (in this case Jules Naudet's video of the 1st Hit) are NOT enough to make you suspicious that it was planned, how many WOULD be enough, please? Hundreds? Thousands? Trillions? |
Ray - first of all calm down....
Secondly - you and Les are the ones who are turning reality on its head - not me.
His "69 coincidences" are not proof of anything. They are just 69 ways of interpreting the facts in away that fits his belief that the Naudets had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
You could create a similar list of things that - by happening or failing to happen - enabled pretty much any event to take place.
This and all the other "evidence" of foreknowledge in his article consists entirely of conjecture with nothing tangible to back it up. None of his tedious and repetitive accusations against the Naudets contain anything that would even qualify as circumstantial evidence.
Believing something doesn't make it true.
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | How about the SECOND camera that the Naudets had running at that SAME INSTANT, eleven blocks closer to WTC on the SAME STREET, specifically to capture the initial crowd reaction?
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
Of course the Naudets NEVER EXPLAIN how they got this footage, because that would have required too much work, a whole SECOND cover story, such as perhaps, "We were ALSO doing a documentary on how pedestrians tend to walk freely around on a normally busy street when the street is blocked for some reason-- when all of a sudden this loud overhead sound and explosion occurred, and it turned out to be the start of the 9/11 attacks."
No, they JUST USE the footage, without accounting for it. And I caught them. |
Try to think about what you're saying in the above paragraph objectively.
The central fact is that the Naudets were using more than one camera at the same time (something which in itself has no suspicious connotations whatsoever - I'm sure that most people making a documentary use more than one camera at the same time at some point).
You interpret this fact as being suspicious and embellish it with all kinds of speculation because of your preconceived belief that they had foreknowledge.
Believing something doesn't make it true.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | Ray Ubinger wrote: | That's LES's point. Your mere WISH to believe that the SCORES of SIMULTANEOUS conveniences which Jules Naudet needed to get that particular shot, ALL CAME TOGETHER BY PURE DUMB LUCK instead of by plan, does NOT make it believABLE. You need to explain why you are so willing to swallow the Luck explanation, when the Foreknowledge explanation is astronomically more likely from an objective statistical standpoint.
If SCORES of SIMULTANEOUS coincidences enabling some event (in this case Jules Naudet's video of the 1st Hit) are NOT enough to make you suspicious that it was planned, how many WOULD be enough, please? Hundreds? Thousands? Trillions? |
Ray - first of all calm down....
Secondly - you and Les are the ones who are turning reality on its head - not me.
His "69 coincidences" are not proof of anything. They are just 69 ways of interpreting the facts in away that fits his belief that the Naudets had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.
You could create a similar list of things that - by happening or failing to happen - enabled pretty much any event to take place.
This and all the other "evidence" of foreknowledge in his article consists entirely of conjecture with nothing tangible to back it up. None of his tedious and repetitive accusations against the Naudets contain anything that would even qualify as circumstantial evidence.
Believing something doesn't make it true.
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | How about the SECOND camera that the Naudets had running at that SAME INSTANT, eleven blocks closer to WTC on the SAME STREET, specifically to capture the initial crowd reaction?
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
Of course the Naudets NEVER EXPLAIN how they got this footage, because that would have required too much work, a whole SECOND cover story, such as perhaps, "We were ALSO doing a documentary on how pedestrians tend to walk freely around on a normally busy street when the street is blocked for some reason-- when all of a sudden this loud overhead sound and explosion occurred, and it turned out to be the start of the 9/11 attacks."
No, they JUST USE the footage, without accounting for it. And I caught them. |
Try to think about what you're saying in the above paragraph objectively.
The central fact is that the Naudets were using more than one camera at the same time (something which in itself has no suspicious connotations whatsoever - I'm sure that most people making a documentary use more than one camera at the same time at some point).
You interpret this fact as being suspicious and embellish it with all kinds of speculation because of your preconceived belief that they had foreknowledge.
Believing something doesn't make it true. |
Oh look, it's 'gruts', Chek's sock puppet!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Thu May 10, 2007 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gruts wrote: | | His "69 coincidences" are not proof of anything. |
These things just happen, eh, like the same person winning the lottery four times in a row?
| Quote: | | They are just 69 ways of interpreting the facts in away that fits his belief |
Care to take specific issue with one or two for example?
I am really curious how different you think the Naudet movie would have turned out if (contrary to your opinion) the Naudet-FDNY guys really did have foreknowledge, really were a propaganda team working with the perps, for the perverse purposes of obtaining unique, dramatic, "lucky," "accidental" footage of their crime-to-be, under false cover of a rookie-fireman documentary, and then selling it back to us as a respectable film.
You have actually watched the Naudet movie, yes?
| Quote: | | This and all the other "evidence" of foreknowledge in his article consists entirely of conjecture with nothing tangible to back it up. |
Do you dismiss all circumstantial evidence, or just circumstantial evidence that leads to conclusions you dislike? Not four years ago a man I know, Michael Peterson, who was able to afford a several-hundred-thousand-dollar defense, got life in prison from an entirely circumstantial prosecution.
| Quote: | | None of his tedious and repetitive accusations against the Naudets contain anything that would even qualify as circumstantial evidence. |
By what definition? Give an example of something that WOULD qualify as c.e. against the No-Day Bruthaz.
| Quote: | | Believing something doesn't make it true. |
That's Les's point: Believing that luck explains how Jules Naudet was in the perfect place at the perfect time in the perfect way doesn't make it true.
| Quote: | | Ray Ubinger wrote: | How about the SECOND camera that the Naudets had running at that SAME INSTANT, eleven blocks closer to WTC on the SAME STREET, specifically to capture the initial crowd reaction?
http://911foreknowledge.com/bravenewworld.htm
Of course the Naudets NEVER EXPLAIN how they got this footage, because that would have required too much work, a whole SECOND cover story, such as perhaps, "We were ALSO doing a documentary on how pedestrians tend to walk freely around on a normally busy street when the street is blocked for some reason-- when all of a sudden this loud overhead sound and explosion occurred, and it turned out to be the start of the 9/11 attacks."
No, they JUST USE the footage, without accounting for it. And I caught them. |
The central fact is that the Naudets were using more than one camera at the same time |
No, the central fact of that page is that BESIDES getting their unique, famous 1st Hit IMPACT footage, the Naudets ALSO got unique footage of the 1st Hit pedestrian REACTION -- on the very same street -- AND NEVER TOLD ANYONE. But it was too juicy for them not to use, not to sneak into the movie under our noses.
In the background of that shot, by the way, you can see that the perps already at 8:46 had the yellow caution tape up, for where they would cordon off the 2nd Hit "plane" debris about 25 minutes later. They evidently had that debris hidden behind tarps and scaffolding.
http://911foreknowledge.com/debris
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
Naudet 911: The Art of the MOCK-YOU-Drama
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I cannot believe that after 5 years we are still arguing about the Naudet's "documentary".
I guess it's my own fault at not keeping up but I've been living under the distinct impression that the Naudet brothers, whoever they are and the "film" they produced was part of the psy-op.
That much to me, at least has been clear for a very long time.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Can you make a more convincing case than Ray has done?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Erm no.
I'm very happy with the case that Ray and Les have made.
I would not attempt to make a case like Les and Ray have done, which I think more than adequately illustrates the reasons for doubt.
I had come to the conclusion that all was not well with the Naudet film some months ago.
I decided for reasons of incredible expediency and on the grounds of incredible fortuity vis underpinning propaganda.
Oh, and my gut instinct.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan.
Last edited by Mark Gobell on Fri May 11, 2007 4:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | gruts wrote: | | His "69 coincidences" are not proof of anything. |
These things just happen, eh |
First of all - Les's coincidences (or "conveniences" as he calls them) are a list of things that "might have happened but didn't" or "happened but might not have" prior to Monsieur Naudet capturing the 1st plane hit on film - and you could easily make a similar list of such "conveniences" apply to pretty much any event that has ever occured.
None of his "conveniences" is an indication that the naudets had foreknowledge - unless you choose to interpret it in such a way because that's what you want to believe
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | gruts wrote: | | This and all the other "evidence" of foreknowledge in his article consists entirely of conjecture with nothing tangible to back it up. |
Do you dismiss all circumstantial evidence, or just circumstantial evidence that leads to conclusions you dislike? Not four years ago a man I know, Michael Peterson, who was able to afford a several-hundred-thousand-dollar defense, got life in prison from an entirely circumstantial prosecution. |
I repeat - saying that "something happened when it might not have" or "something didn't happen but it might have" isn't in itself evidence of anything - not even circumstantial evidence.
Unlike the prosecution in Michael Peterson's case, you have no case and would be laughed out of court.
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | gruts wrote: | | None of his tedious and repetitive accusations against the Naudets contain anything that would even qualify as circumstantial evidence. |
By what definition? Give an example of something that WOULD qualify as c.e. against the No-Day Bruthaz. |
It would be better if you could explain how each of Les's list of things that "might have happened but didn't" or "didn't happen but might have" qualifies as circumstantial evidence based on a standard definition of that term (and not on one that exists in your imagination).
| Ray Ubinger wrote: | | No, the central fact of that page is that BESIDES getting their unique, famous 1st Hit IMPACT footage, the Naudets ALSO got unique footage of the 1st Hit pedestrian REACTION -- on the very same street -- AND NEVER TOLD ANYONE. But it was too juicy for them not to use, not to sneak into the movie under our noses. |
No Ray - your version of the central fact involves embellishing it with speculation that you can't prove, which is based on your pre-existing belief.
The fact that they got this other footage doesn't prove foreknowledge - it just means they had a second camera running.
In fact it doesn't even necessarily mean that.
You say that the "second camera" footage was filmed at the same time but that's also just an assumption....
And how do you know that they shot this "second camera" footage? they might have used somebody else's footage....
Again - you're speculating, assuming and imagining based on your pre-existing belief that it couldn't have been by chance.
I can't be bothered going round and round in circles on this so unless you can come up with something new and tangible, I suggest we agree to differ....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | Erm no.
I'm very happy with the case that Ray and Les have made.
I would not attempt to make a case like Les and Ray have done, which I think more than adequately illustrates the reasons for doubt.
I had come to the conclusion that all was not well with the Naudet film some months ago.
I decided for reasons of incredible expediency and on the grounds of incredible fortuity vis underpinning propaganda.
Oh, and my gut instinct. |
That's fair enough - part of me also wants to believe Ray, but inferences based on what you want to believe do not make a case for the prosecution....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone yet managed to discover who the Duane St bruvvers actually are ?
Have they made any other films ?
Any pre or post 9/11 information on them anywhere ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| didn't they threaten to sue Dylan Avery last year for including some of their stuff in Loose Change?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So I read.
Any film making pedigree though ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schizophrenogenic element
Moderate Poster
Joined: 09 May 2007
Posts: 102
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | So I read.
Any film making pedigree though ? |
Obviously they would need some form of 'pedigree' even if it is just one film.
Hhahaha. I find it impossible that anyone could seriously think they were making that fireman documentary at that time, filming at that time, it's a big joke.
John White believes it though. He also believes reptillians run the world, so go figure. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| schizophrenogenic element wrote: | | Mark Gobell wrote: | So I read.
Any film making pedigree though ? |
Obviously they would need some form of 'pedigree' even if it is just one film.
Hhahaha. I find it impossible that anyone could seriously think they were making that fireman documentary at that time, filming at that time, it's a big joke.
John White believes it though. He also believes reptillians run the world, so go figure. |
Yeah. I guess the firemen were all CGI as well! LOL! 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Sat May 12, 2007 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
>> You have actually watched the Naudet movie, yes?
>
> [No answer.]
I'm waiting for this to get clarified before addressing you further, gruts.
Ray
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Micpsi
Moderate Poster
Joined: 13 Feb 2007
Posts: 505
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| When one wants strongly to believe something, one will turn any chance coincidence into its confirmation. Then one goes searching for more things that are purely coincidental but which now become interpreted as meaningful, interconnected events because they are seen by the believer (but only he) as confirming what he wants to believe. This is religion, not science. NPT is a religion. No evidence. Just faith and dodgy interpretation.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray Ubinger
Minor Poster
Joined: 09 Apr 2007
Posts: 90
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | When one wants strongly to believe something, one will turn any chance coincidence into its confirmation. |
Have you watched the Naudet movie, Micpsi? Have you read Les's article? If No to either, stay out of the thread. If Yes to both, how do you think the movie would have differed if Les were (contrary to your actual viewpoint) correct?
| Quote: | | NPT is a religion. |
NPT is not the subject of this thread, despite that the leading evidence for it is Jules Naudet's staged 1st Hit Impact footage.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/flashframe.jpg
http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/beautyshots.htm
http://missilegate.com
Ray Ubinger
Durham NC USA
http://911foreknowledge.com
exposing the Naudet-FDNY snuff film since 2004
edited out one typographical error
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
