Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong" Bryan wrote:

> In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
 > : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong"
> : Bryan wrote:
 >
> : > In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
 > : > : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong"
 > : > : Bryan wrote:
 > : >
 > : > :> In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com>
> : wrote:
 > : > :> : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always
> : Wrong"
 > : > :> : Bryan wrote:
 > : > :>
 > : > :> :> There was no information regarding the 9/11 plot found on
> : any of the computer
 > : > :> :> discs and hard drives they recovered during the latest
> : Pakistan arrest. . .
 > : > :>
 > : > :> : And you know this how, kook?
 > : > :>
 > : > :> They certainly didn't report that they had found intel
> : related to the Twin
 > : > :> Towers
 > : >
 > : > : Are you claiming you are somehow privy to everything
> : recovered? So
 > : > : you went down to CIA Headquarters and got yourself a high-level,
 > : > : personal briefing, did you? I have always known you were
 > : > : delusional, Garrrrrry, but you just seem to be getting more and
 > : > : more out of touch with reality as time goes on.
 > : >
 > : > Blah blah blah, your opinions mean nothing. . .
 >
> : Keep telling yourself that.
 >
> It's true. . .

Keep telling yourself that.

>
> : >
 > : > :> which they would parade out to "prove" Al Qeada was behind
> : the plot. . .
 > : >
 > : > : Um, that was proven beyond any doubt long ago, kook. Have you
 > : > : forgotten that Bin Laden himself has admitted to it on several
 > : > : occasions? Exactly how much more proof do you need, kook? Found
 > : > : those puddles of molten steel yet?
 > : >
 > : > The pools of molten steel were reported by Mark Loizeaux of
> : Controlled
 > : > Demolition. He will tell you
 >
> : He will? Have you confirmed this? I would have confirmed it before
> : making a fool of myself. Kooks like you though just like to charge
> : on ahead and "Damn the torpedoes" of truth that tend to come in
> : from all directions and blow you out of the water.
 >
> Yep, email him if you like, just like I did. . .
 > http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=5
 >
> Three emails that can get in contact with him. . .

So you still want me to confirm your story for you then? Some kooks just never learn.

>
> : > about the workers reports.
 >
> : So assuming for a moment Mark Loizeaux actually did make that
> : claim, then he must have got his information second or third hand
> : at best. So actually the supposed credibility of Mark Loizeaux
> : lends nothing to the credibility of the story, now does it?
 >
> But it isn't made from whole cloth. . .

Why not?

> there is a chain of reporting . . .

Yeah, it goes like this: "I know this this guy who knows somebody who met someone who said somebody told him..."

How does this prove the story isn't just a complete fabrication?

>
> : > There are probably
 > : > photos of it
 >
> : Oh yeah, but no doubt the evil conspiracy has suppressed them, right?
 >
> I just don't have access to the photo archives,

Apparently nobody else does either.

> the ones you claimed were the
> most extensive of any demolition activity. . .without proof. . .

The fact that it was on all the major networks 24/7 isn't proof enough for you?

>
> : > since you claimed this was the most photographed clean up in
 > : > history. Rag on him about the reports.
 >
> : Why would I rag on him? He's not the one making an ass of himself
> : here. You are.
 >
> Sure gets your attention, doesn't it,

Yeah, some loon publicly acting like an idiot does tend to attract a lot of attention.

> oh Complusive One. . .

Google shows 13 posts from you in the last 24 hrs. Only one from me. All yours are crazy, conspiracy crapola and insane political rants. So who is the compulsive one?

>
> : > and as far as bin Laden:
 > : >
> : http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
 >
> : Ananova???? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
 >
> : Oh that's real credible. A story that doesn't cite any sources
> : appearing on a tabloid web shite is the best you can do? So the
> : translations of those videos that appeared on Al Jazeera where he
> : claimed responsibility were all wrong? Sorry, kook, but it came
> : right out of the horse's own mouth in the world-wide media. This
> : feeble attempt of yours to perpetuate your kooky fantasy that the
> : US government itself was somehow behind 9/11 ain't gonna fly. Wake
> : up and smell the reality already, kook.
 >
> Yopu claim "it came right out of the horses mouth",

Yep.

> so do *you* understand
> Arabic?

I don't need to. That's what translators are for.

> Did you actually hear Osama make the claim or did you depend on a
> second and third hand report to make your mid up?

Nice straw man, kook. Translating isn't the same thing as "I know this this guy who knows somebody who met someone who said somebody told him..." Translations can be checked. Do try to get a grip on reality.

> Seems you are just as
 > intellectually challenged as you accuse others of being. . .

It only seems that way to you because you are an idiot. The thing about translations is that the accuracy can be confirmed by having multiple translators go over the same source and comparing the results.

> counting on the
> CIA to not put a spin on a blurry video of someone who resembles Osama and
> the sound was so muddy that whole sections could not be made out. . .

Nice try, kook. First off, the recordings were nowhere near that bad. Secondly, where is the huge cry coming out of the Arabic speaking community that the published translations are inaccurate? If their accuracy is not being disputed, then I have to assume they are correct.

>
> : --- Drivel snip ---
 >
> : >
 > : >
 > : >
 > : > :> just wait for the report to come out. . .
 > : >
 > : > : You mean like how you *couldn't wait* and started making kooky
 > : > : pronouncements about what was or wasn't found, despite the fact
 > : > : that actually you have no clue?
 > : >
 > : > What do you know about what I have or don't have? Wild
> : speculation on your part.
 >
> : Experience, Garrrrrrry. I know from long experience that you have
> : no clue about anything, and are just talking out of your ass as
> : always.
 >
> Looks that way to someone who only sees asses. . .

But I don't only see asses. I just see you being an ass.

>
> : >
 > : > : or ask the FBI. . .
 > : >
 > : > : Ask them what? Whether you are a kook? I'm sure they already
> : know
 > : > : that. It would be interesting to do an FOIA request and see what
 > : > : sort of file they have on you. That Picture of you and your
> : "Pump
 > : > : Room Gang" alone would have been enough to get you on their
> : radar
 > : > : back in the J. Edgar Hoover era.
 > : >
 > : > Thread fade has begun. . .
 >
> : Speaking of fading. What ever happened to your promise to fade
> : away into the sunset in a boat with that mule you married? What
> : happened to the great "happily ever after" you claimed was gonna
> : happen after Agilent downsized your lazy, worthless, ass?
 >
> Funny how little you pay attention. . .

Evasion noted.

>
> : >
 > : > :> but you never do
 > : > :> your own work, just nay-say. . .
 > : >
 > : > : Hypocrisy noted, kook. Where is the work to back up your nutty
 > : > : claims, any of them?
 > : >
 > : > Why the fuck
 >
> : A little melty today, Garrrrrry?
 >
> No, and you?

You don't see me shrieking the "F" word at people just because they refuse to unquestioningly accept something I said.

>
> : > do I need to prove anything to you?
 >
> : Because that's the way it works. You make a claim, you back it up,
> : otherwise you aren't worthy of being believed. I've only been
> : trying to get that through your thick skull for about five years
> : now. I guess you just can't teach old kooks new tricks.
 >
> Sure, you taught me that nothing is good enough for you as evidence unless it
 > comes from a source that you have determined is acceptable

Well of course. Would you accept something as evidence if it came from a source you had determined wasn't credible? What exactly is your point?

My criteria for what constitutes good evidence has been posted many times. It is not an impossible standard to meet. In fact, most people can and do meet it with their sources. Only a very few people fail for some reason. Those few people also happen to be Usenet kooks. Funny how that correlates.

> to you and if they
 > oppose your viewpoint then they made a mistake. . .

Garrrrrrrry, there is no doubt you make a lot of logical mistakes. Your posting history is chock-full of them. My viewpoint has nothing to do with your inability to get anything right.

>
> : > You have been given evidence
 > : > before regarding many things
 >
> : Yes, as opposed to you.
 >
> Huh?

Perhaps you should proofread your posts before hitting the send button. Spelling and grammar check would be nice too.

>
> : > and you just refuse to accept it.
 >
> : Why would anyone accept anything you say? You've never been right
> : about anything.
 >
> it's not about accepting me,

Of course it is. You are the one posting crap here in the delusional expectation that it will be unquestioningly accepted as the truth. It's up to you to prove the credibility of yourself and what you post.

> but the sources and reports that are presented to
 > you for review,

Are crap. Your link to the Ananova tabloid article on bin Laden is a classic example. It cites no source or authority. It seems to just be something some America-hating weenie made up out of whole cloth. Certainly it proves nothing and doesn't deserve to be given any credibility at all. Yet you think it somehow proves your claims. Why is it that you are incapable of grasping the concept that not all sources are credible? Could it be that you are a...

> moron. . .

Could be.

>
> : > Why should now
 > : > bw any different. You still don't think that the flag that
> : draped on Saddam's
 > : > toppled statue had flown over the Pentagon,
 >
> : Revisionist history noted, kook. You originally claimed that flag
> : was the one flying over The Pentagon on the day it was attacked,
> : not that it was just one of the thousands of flags run up the pole
> : for a little while then hauled down and sold to tourists. Either
> : way, the claim remains unproven.
 >
> I never made the claim,

Sure you did, liar.

> I just posted the report and your attempts to discredit
 > it were BS.

The "report" had no credit to begin with. I just pointed that out.

>
> : > even when I gave you the name of
 > : > the marine and his fathers address to write to and get the
> : story. . .
 >
> : Translation: You want others to research your claims for you.
 >
> No, I want you to look at the proof. . .

I will, if and when you ever present any, instead of just pointing to more sources that repeat the same old baseless story. Repeating a story over and over again doesn't make it any more credible.

> turns out that the whole thing was
> staged

You keep claiming that, but you have never produced the first iota of proof to back up that claim.

> and you bought the initial story that the army just came upon the Iraqis
 > trying to pull it down but it was the Army that started to pull it down and
> gathered the crowd for a photo op:

Nonsense, kook. I watched the whole thing happen on live TV. In the beginning there was no military presence in the square. Later a crowd gathered, but the Marines didn't herd people into the square at gunpoint or anything. It was clearly a spontaneous gathering. The early amateur-hour attempts by the crowd to take down the statue with sledgehammers and ropes certainly didn't look staged to me. They were the very definition of spur of the moment improvisation. After watching the futile efforts of the crowd for a while, the Marines decided to help them out. BFD.

> http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Toppling_the_statue_of_Saddam_Hussein

Sorry, not a credible source. Their bias is rather obvious. Also, a wiki by definition allows anyone to post a story. So any loon can post BS there, whether it is credible or not.

>
> So who was the more gullible?

You, as always. You immediately accept anything you are told if it dovetails with your kooky preconceived notions and pathological anti-right paranoia.

> I was doubting the report and researching it, you
 > just supported the status qou. . .real nice debunking there, sport. . .

I watched the "status quo" (note correct spelling) version play out with my own eyes. Your kooky version doesn't fit what I saw, so it will take some seriously high quality evidence from you before I'd even consider your claims. But of course you can't provide any.

>
> http://www.alternet.org/story/15656

Sorry, not a credible source. Their bias is rather obvious.

>
> Here is the Laconia article

I don't care if you have a thousand sites telling the same story. That doesn't make the story any more true. Where is the hard evidence?

> about the MArine and the flag. . .you can even
> write to his father and ask him about the flag. . .

Translation: You still want me to prove your claims for you.

>
> http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/891611/posts
 >
> I successfully found his address and wrote to him, I'm sure you could as well
 > but you hate being proven wrong. . .

Translation: You still want me to prove your claims for you.

>
>
>
> : > you are
 > : > intellectually lazy. . .
 >
> : Look who's talking! You are beyond intellectually lazy, Garrrrry.
> : You are incapable of even thinking for yourself. You have your
> : every thought spoon fed to you by the liberal lunatic fringe, and
> : accept them all unquestioningly no matter how absurd they are,
> : rather than even try think for yourself. No wonder you call
> : yourself a Deadhead. You really are dead between the ears.
 >
> Nice meltdown, Mikey. . .funny coming from someone who has to have everything
 > validated by sources he has predetermined to be acceptable. . .

All rational people do. Why don't you? Oh, that's right, you're a kook.

--
The Evil Michael Davis(tm)
http://www.mdpub.com/scopeworks/
http://skepticult.org Member #264-70198-536
Member #33 1/3 of The "I Have Been Killfiled By Tommy" Club

"I don't have to do anything except post my name and it get ridiculed whether it has anything to do with UFO's or not." - Garrrry Bryan brags about the reputation he has built for himself.