So apparently facebook has a feature that directs messages from people you’ve never been in contact with into a mailbox called “other”. If you look at the left-hand side of the screen under “messages,” the folder is in there. I had nearly 70 messages, and, let me tell you, I am a popular guy. (A shout out to Atlanta homegirl Angie Mattke who alerted me to this feature. You are sorely missed up here in the middle of the snowpocalypse!)
Apparently, in January of this year, I received a pair of messages from Pete Holcomb, who I don’t know:
- Pete Holcomb
I just read your article in the skeptical inquirer and posted to my page, and am willing to debate you point by point. I do not believe that Bland suffered the post hoc fallacy with Siverstien because he is offering a correlative fact in a causal chain of evidence. You then proceed to to suffer that fallacy somewhat in your ad hominim attack on Jones, because he was wrong about fusion therefore he must be wrong about 911. You never mention ockham’s razor once in the piece, or the fact that ours simply has more explanatory powe and better squares with observation and evidence. You are aware that there were plenty of mathematical proofs that Copernicus was wrong, but nobody believes that the sun spins around the earth. Gage in the beginning is citing Karl Popper’s black swan theory when he mentions the falsifiability of a scientific explanation and you seem to be confused about his point. Zionism and antisemitism are our Achilles heal and I think it is a distraction and you used it as a prolonged ad hominim attack. Regardless, we are winning this debate. I have a post on my wall of a squib blowing throw the corner of the north tower through solid concrete-how does compressed air do that? Have you seen Jonathan Cole’s experiments regarding Thermite on You Tube. How could you write for the ‘skeptical inquirer’ and not be aware of Karl Popper’s philosophy and his Black Swan theory?
You know I just called your bosses to complain. That is unacceptable to make the statement regarding Richards claim of falsifiable potentially of a scientific statement. He is obviously citing Karl Popper and you seem unaware of what he means. You simply have no business writing for such named magazine and be so uninformed as we are talking basic philosophy of science. You understand now why you are losing this debate? I have been involved in 911 truth since its inception and this constant lack of respect for the basic soundness and validity of our claims is what spurs us on. You are clearly lost here and have a sole purpose to run interference instead of engage in serious discourse. Like I said I am complaining to your bosses and will make you accountable for such a sorry lack of understanding.
I’m glad you enjoyed the article! How’s that new investigation coming? (By the way, nobody ever mentioned that someone had complained to my employer, so, well done.)
Here’s one that came to me in November, from Padz Evans from Petersburg, VA, apparently after I wrote something about Stanislaw Burzynski, the notorious cancer quack out of Houston.
Hey im sure you get this alot but im a fan of you ideas n the sense that i think your thoughts and beliefs are those of a fuck or fucking fucker that doesnt not posses the appropriate brian functionality to have a reliable or substantial opinion on matters that you cannot comprehend. I have one question for you and its really to satisfy my curiosity in how someone and feel such a way twords benificial activities that may cure cancer. My question is as follows.. how does cancers dick taste?
I’m glad you liked the article, Padz!
I was quite pleased to learn today that a complaint I sent to the ombudsman of PBS was quoted in Michael Getler’s column. It was about PBS putting up promotional material that seemed to be pushing a rather crummy and unconvincing straight-to-internet documentary on their website. Here’s the original letter:
I wanted to alert the viewer advocate about something that I saw on the PBS website and register a complaint. I notice that on the list of the most watched online videos at the PBS website that a 9/11 Truther video is currently very near the top. I understand that member stations maintain their independence, and that this is crucial to the mission. I do not see how it follows, however, that a video which is so misleading and factually inaccurate should be made available through PBS’s national website. It seems to violate basic program quality standards which PBS is known for. I am not advocating censorship, merely that PBS should examine the decision/process that led to this appearing on the national website and see if it aligns with the mission of public broadcasting to produce a better educated populace. I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Bob Blaskiewicz, Chippewa Falls, WI
Well, Jeff Sellars did not like what I wrote.
The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. The American mind simply has not come to a realization of the evil which has been introduced into our midst. It rejects even the assumption that human creatures could espouse a philosophy which must ultimately destroy all that is good and decent…The conscientious citizen asks, “How can one be sure what the truth is?”…[We] must ascertain for [ourselves] what the facts are. [We] must accept nothing less than the facts— neither the majority version nor the minority version. [We] must view all the evidence until the face of truth is plain.
—President J. Edgar Hoover
Your cognitive dissonance is blocking your ability to accept Newtonian Physics. Building 7 collapses in 6-7 seconds at free fall speed. There’s nano sized thermite in the dust. www.RememberBuilding7.org
“Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark or the man afraid of the light?”
There were a number of birthday invites that I missed (which is probably why I’m such a social pariah), honest questions about things I’ve written, and other missives (as well as stuff so abusive that facebook automatically deleted it).
Ah, modern life on the Internet!