It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

JREF - "The Players"

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 04:45 AM
link   

JREF - "The Players"

1. Anti-Sophist: Prefered Debate Style - Ad Hom Attack. Yells "Debunked" when unable to counter data and Ad Hom no longer works. Has been proven to be a liar as follows.

Anti-Sophist claims/"debunks" that there is up to "2 seconds missing" from the FDR data. His claims/excuses are shown here.
forums.randi.org...
forums.randi.org...
forums.randi.org...

Anti-Sophist uses the above thread (as do many of his "collegues" at JREF) and yells "Debunked" many times a day. He refuses to acknowledge the fact that his own words places the aircraft too high. He is proven to be a liar. The FDR data has not been "Debunked".

Using his own claims, the aircraft is still too high.
pilotsfor911truth.org...

Anti-Sophist is unable to address Radar Altitude and passes it off to Beachnut.

Anti-Sophist has also said he has challenged P4T to a debate on the FDR. That is a lie. He cannot provide a link to such a claim, nor has he emailed P4T for such a challenge.

However,
www.911blogger.com...

P4T has not received one email from any JREF member challenged in above blogger article/comments.

Conclusion -
Anti-Sophist is proven to be a liar. His own words place the aircraft too high. Refers to Beachnut when shown his own claims as an "FDR Expert" do not add up.

2. Beachnut: Preferred Debate style - Ad Hom. Has almost 7000 posts on JREF mostly attacking others and calling names. Rarely provides any post of substance. Mostly incoherent. The majority of his posting consist of attacking P4T specifically through name calling. Mods continue to protect Beachnut even though the majority of his posts break forum rules. (Attacking the person instead of the argument). Is protected most likely due to the fact he is a "Forum Donor".

Beachnut has claimed the aircraft is 2600, 2800, 3000, and 3000+ feet from the wall when the data ended. He claims this is why the altitude shows too high. His claimed distance is based on 1.5 DME from DCA VOR. He keeps changing distance due to the fact each position is still too high if data terminated at each point. When shown the altitude is still too high quoting his own words at those points, he goes back and deletes his post/claims.
forums.randi.org... (starts at post 102)

His excuse when caught deleting his incriminating words... "Saving Space".

Beachnut deleted incriminating post content twice in the same thread and was caught both times. The mods removed tony's post calling out Beachnuts' second attempt showing extreme Mod bias.

3. Reheat: Prefered debate style - Ad Hom. Lies constantly.

Most blatant lie - Reheat claimed P4T igonored DME data. Review link referenced in Aldo's OP to see Reheat twist in the wind. s1.zetaboards.com...

4. Apathoid - Preferred debate style - Ad Hom. Still trying to figure out why the altimeter shows 300 feet at IAD on the runway and uses it as the excuse the aircraft shows too high at end of data. (its ground elevation of IAD)

All of the above break JREF rules constantly. Attacking the person instead of the argument. None have been warned once. Mod extreme bias is apparent.

All the above are the most harsh "critics" (and who claim to have experience in aviation) of P4T's work. All of their claims have been shown, in their own words, that the FDR data still does not support the govt story. They all have been proven to be liars by yelling "Debunked" time and time again, when in fact their own words show the aircraft too high. Some prefer to cover it up by deleting their own incriminating posts as did Beachnut. None have signed up at P4T, with the exception of Apathoid. Apathoid was banned due to his preferred debate style, which is ad hom. Although, JREF members prefer to say they get banned because they "disagree with us".

Finally -
Ron "Pomeroo" Wieck: Preferred debate syle from behind his screen - Lies, Ad Hom.

Preferred Debate Stlye on phone when recorded - Pleasant, Ad Hom. agrees with most of P4T's objective as shown on top of home page.

Ron does not have any aviation experience. Ron claims in Aldo's linked thread -- s1.zetaboards.com... -- P4T refuses to debate JREFers. If P4T refuses to debate JREFers, and JREFers claim "Tony Soprano" is Rob Balsamo, why would Rob specifically create a sock bypassing his last ban in order to debate JREFers?

Ron is still unable to provide a quoted claim from our site in which he would like to debate and instead runs around saying "P4T refuses to debate". P4T is still waiting for Ron to submit a quote/claim from P4T's site in which Ron would like to debate.

That is all...




posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Where did you quote that from? Cant see it on Jref first few pages.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I guess the reason I keep saying that P4T refuses to debate is that P4T refuses to debate. That wasn't so hard, was it?

I dislike being accused of telling lies, especially when the accusers are conspiracy liars. In six years of deranged screaming, this gaggle of frauds and fools have produced bogus science, distorted quotes, and a blizzard of outright falsehoods, but not a shred of real evidence to support their pernicious myths.

My phone conversations with Rob Balsamo were taped without my permission. There is nothing I would say over the phone that I won't affirm in print, so no harm was done. The behavior, however, is unethical and provides a strong clue to characters of the self-styled "truth-seekers."

The so-called "pilots" can debate a team of qualified rationalists whenever they choose. I have offered to provide a forum on 'Hardfire,' the public access show I occasionally host. A JREF regular who posts as "The Doc" has set up a platform for online debates. You can't spread Da Twoof by hiding under your beds. No guts, no glory.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Hi Ron,

Glad you could make it...
How's the "counting cards" business treating ya. Good i hope.

What exactly do you want to debate? In order to have a debate, you need to quote a claim made by the opponent that you would like to debate. You have not done so. We are still waiting. Please quote a claim from our website you would like to debate. Also, it appears "Hardfire" wants to use our banner and name to promote their DVD sales. www.customflix.com...
(ETA#2 - if above link doesnt work, try this www.createspace.com... if they remove that as well, just go here and look up debates with Loose Change on DVD. www.hardfire.net... nice mug they have for sale there.. huh?)
Yes, thats right folks, The people who accuse us of "making money off 9/11" are in fact hypocrites.

I have told Ron that P4T refuses to promote "Hardfire" and will set up another venue. They have declined to debate in any other more neutral venue agreed upon by both sides and it appears they only want to debate on "Hardfire" who will not donate to our organization any part of the proceeds of their DVD sales of our proposed "Debate". Talk about a stacked deck.

But again, you first need to quote a claim you would like to debate. You havent done so. And why does Hardfire/Mark Roberts refuse to debate CIT?

By the way Ron, is it customary for "rationlists" to delete their own post(s) content, when shown their claims are incriminating to the govt story, as did your "star rationlist" Beachnut... twice?

If your star "FDR Expert" cant get his claims under the "rational category", how do you expect to do so when you have zero aviation knowledge?

ETA: I told Ron he was being taped at the start of the phone call. He could have hung up. He didnt. Thats consent. Matter of fact his words were, "Thats ok... i feel anything i say i can stand behind, so it shouldnt matter if im recorded". (off the top of my head)

Again, if we refuse to debate, and if im "tony soporano" as JREFers claim, why does JREF ban "tony" when attempting to debate?

Ron, you run around saying "P4T refuses to debate". That is a lie, and makes you a liar. Your own JREF community proves it. If you would like to be more accurate, try using "P4T refuses to promote the hypocritical nature of Hardfire with Host Ron Wieck and that Ron Wieck refuses to submit a claim he would like to debate". That would be more appropriate and would make you less of a liar.

How about you get Beachnut over here and we'll hash it out. Think he can post without ad homs? Or deleting his own post content? Cause i dont think the mods here will tolerate his preferred debate style he displays at JREF (which in fact break JREF rules as well).

ETA #2 - First link worked initially, then started to have errors. Fixed link.)



[edit on 20-2-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Azriphale
Where did you quote that from? Cant see it on Jref first few pages.



Thank you for your question Azriphale.

You wont find it on JREF im sure. Does it matter where it came from? Arent you more concerned with the content? All of it is pretty much sourced. Click the links. The best part is where "Beachnut" deletes his own post content when he realizes his excuses for the govt story still do not support the govt story. Beachnut is their star "FDR Expert". Thats pretty much all they got. And he deletes his posts. Too funny.

Again, thanks for your input.

Rob
ETA: The reason i say Beachnut is their "star" is because Beachnut is the only one who has used his real name online, Keith Beachy, and i have personally verified that he in fact does have aviation experience, albeit, very outdated. Many JREFers also rely heavily on his post content regarding the FDR, when he doesnt delete it. The rest are all anonymous and have not been verfied by anyone except, reportedly, the mods at JREF, who are also anonymous.

JREF also requires you to use your real name when registering. Anyone ever seen this before at any other forum? I havent, and i've registered to alot of forums. Does anyone know that JREF started their "operation" the month prior to Sept 11, 2001? hmmm... And why do they call it an "Operation"? I thought its a "Foundation"?

More from the hypocrites -

As part of our fund-raising efforts for supporting the operation, the James Randi Educational Foundation offers certain products related to the work of the Foundation.
www.randi.org...

]

[edit on 20-2-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
What is your point, Balsamo? What does this have to do with ATS or 9/11 conspiracies?

Sounds like to me you just want to (Ironically) Ad-Hominem attack some posters from a far away board..for what? Narcissistic gratification?

I suppose when there is little more to discuss on these matters--your OP is eventually all you have left.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex

Does it matter where it came from?


Absolutely.

Please read;

1c.) Intellectual Property: You will not post in a message any copyrighted material, material belonging to another person, nor link to any copyrighted material (with the exception of publicly available sites and pages that the legal owners of the copyrights have created to make that material freely available to the general public), unless that copyright is owned by you or by this website.

1d.) Cross-Posting: You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive advance permission from The Above Network, LLC). You will not post-by-proxy the material of banned members or other individuals who are not members, but have written a response to content within a thread on these forums.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As well, please read: Posting work written by others

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is also a U2U on this waiting for you in your member center which I sent to you earlier today.





[edit on 20/2/08 by masqua]



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 09:01 PM
link   
My apologies masqua. The original source is me written in third person for clarity. It was sent via email, that is why it cannot be linked. The reason i quoted it, is because the original was sent via email.

Now does anyone care to discuss the content? Or are we just trying to get the content removed.

The reason it is here on a CT site is because those listed above are the most notorious so-called "debunkers "of the FDR work who also claim to have experience in aviation. It appears even their own words/claims/excuses do not support the govt story. When they finally realize their claims are incriminating to the govt story, they delete their own post content. Is anyone concerned about that?

Regards,
Rob

edit: typo



[edit on 20-2-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by johndoex
Beachnut ... "FDR Expert"... deletes his posts. Too funny.

ETA: Beachnut ...., ..., ... verified that he in fact does have aviation experience, albeit, very outdated.

JREF also requires you to use your real name when registering.
More from the hypocrites -
[edit on 20-2-2008 by johndoex]

My posts.
You login as Tony Soprano at JREF (formerly banned!). I did edit my posts, and you told on me; oh noes I edited my posts; my posts! You said you had them, and you had already quoted them. And you were making up stuff about them out of context; there and here! The endless, oh look he said this! Or That! Too easy to see it was you. You were banned, again. Why do people who post rational thoughts at p4tf get banned?

Outdated. Not for 9/11.
On active duty on September 11th 2001; a liaison officer to CAP (Civil Air Patrol); I flew the planes they flew! Flying small single engine planes in the weather is tougher then a 4 engine, 300,000 pound jet. I was director of operations, western region; instructor pilot and evaluator Pilot for Alaska, Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, and California. I flew the day after 9/11 to get gas so I could pick up my office mate from Oregon. I was getting gas and Departure asked my intentions. Being the day after 9/11 aircraft flying around got people a little worried. They nixed my approaches but allowed me to get gas. Gee, it was hard enough getting the kids (USAF guys at base ops) at base ops to let me fly when I told them we are the military we can fly! After I taxied out of the civil field to return back to my base, the CHP plane came in to check on me, the air field manager was all over me on the radio, I calmed him down with the fact I was a mil flight. The next day, 13 September, I flew to Oregon; the only other air traffic was the civil air patrol flying blood products around the country since airliners could not. I flew up to my last day in the service! Had a final flight in a small Maul, nice plane. My daughters were there to help soak me in champagne (28 years).

USAF; I flew T-37, T-38, KC-135A/Q,C-172 and other single engine planes. I have type ratings in B707/720 and an ATP; (johndoeX, got your ATP yet; and I am outdated??). Ask JohndoeX what an ATP is? Private pilot since 1973, USAF pilots wings 1975 and I served in the USAF as an Instructor and Evaluator Pilot KC-135. Chief of training flight for over 200 crew members in the KC-135. The KC-135 is a 300,000 pound 4 engine jet. I have over 4,000 hours in the KC-135. I am also an electrical engineer, with a masters degree in electrical engineering. EE and a pilot when working at Wright Aeronautical Labs on projects, neat. So being outdated for 9/11 is not a fact, it is an attack on me. Thanks JohndoeX.

USAF trained accident investigator. Chief of Safety 14th Air Division the same year I flew missions for 5 months in Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Board president for aircraft mishap investigations, and investigator. In charge of the scene of an aircraft impact/accident for purposes of recover of data and evidence for the board. Trained for accident investigation, experience at real accidents; easy to see scenes at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania look exactly how they should.

Hypocrites? JREF actual meet and get together sometimes; real people, real names when the meet. Not people calling up people and taking their words out of context making up stories by ignoring facts and evidence. Rational people who use evidence and facts to form logical conclusions. As you spread my name around without my permission are you breaking a rule here?

Retired November 2002 from the Air Force, we failed to find the inside job fantasy the paranoid 9/11 truth movement has made up. A year is long enough for Woodward and Bernstein! Why not 9/11 truth, or p4t? So just some bs to show I am up to date on 9/11 issues; no stand down order issued.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by johndoex
 


Does anyone know that JREF started their "operation" the month prior to Sept 11, 2001? hmmm...
Hmm..... now that is interesting!


And why do they call it an "Operation"? I thought its a "Foundation"?
Maybe the Secret Government Cabal that planned 9/11 thought it would be a good idea to set up an 'operation' to counter the counter arguments from the inevitable 'Truth Movement' that would stem from the inherent mistakes that would be made by such a large operation and they forgot to replace the word 'operation' with foundation.

You know, kind of like how they programmed the wrong data into the planted black box found at the Pentagon.

Just a theory.



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Excellent to see you here Beachnut. Lets get started shall we?


Why do you state your information regarding FDR's comes from information published in 1970?


I think I can find the general trend of errors based on speed in my books. I still have computer runs from 1970. I have punch card to program in fortran from 70-74. I must have my UPT books some where.

forums.randi.org...


Can you please answer these question which you have avoided.

Does ED-55 and TSO-124 set the standard for SSFDR's?

What is the standard buffer lag for SSFDR's?

Were these regs effective in 1965, 1970, 1980, 1990, or 2001?

Were they only effective for SSFDR?

Do you put your name on the fact that SSFDR's can have a 4 second buffer lag?

Why do you claim the FDR is missing more than 4 seconds when you also claim the last position is at max 2800 feet? I understand you deleted this claim as well when you realized it is contradictory.

Start with those, then we'll move onto your other claims. Thanks.

Rob


typo


ETA: Trying to point out the ATP is some major accomplishment among professional pilots will certainly expose you more. Be careful Beachy. Its a matter of 1000 bucks. Send me the cash, i'll have it done by next month. Every pilot knows the ATP is the easiest to get (once at that level of experience) and the most procrastinated certificate. You only hurt yourself in the eyes of professionals using such rhetoric and stale tactics.

But if its ATP's you need, with type ratings, take your pick, we have many... Including an instructor of the type aircraft you flew, from the USAF Academy in Colorado Springs. Did you go to the Academy Beachy?

pilotsfor911truth.org...
Keep in mind this list hasnt been updated in awhile and have many more to add.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by johndoex]



[edit on 20-2-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 10:02 PM
link   
Funny I feel like I was having a drink in my quiet neighborhood bar(ATS) when suddenly boom an all out street brawl comes bustin down the door


I don't go to JREF because James Randi (poof) is soooooo lame


Please don't let me distract you continue slugging



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Ok.. .im out for the night. Please have Beachy post answers to above questions. I know he'll try to avoid as usual. But hopefully it wont take pages to get answers. After all, he does say he has the experience, he should be able to answer instead of dance around it for pages.


And Beachy, when you post your name on youtube, your name is on the net.. period. I verified your credentials, whats the problem? For crying out loud, JREF has tags using real names to posts full of defamation and libel. Can i say you and those at JREF dont have permission to post my name? Talk about hypocrtical.

Have a great night folks...

Rob

typo

[edit on 20-2-2008 by johndoex]



posted on Feb, 20 2008 @ 10:58 PM
link   
No Thanks

In addition to what masqua has already pointed out, I'd like to add this from AboveTopSecret.com Terms And Conditions Of Use:


Originally posted by SimonGray
2g.) Board Wars: You will not use these boards to organize "attacks" on other boards, blogs, or discussion groups, and similarly, you will not organize such attacks against this board. Doing so will result in removal of your post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

This is not on topic for this or any ATS forum and is just a little too close to board wars for my comfort.

I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but ATS is not the place for this.

If you disagree with my decision, please feel free to send me a U2U or submit a complaint, and I promise I won't take it the wrong way.


Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join