So twice called delusional, and yet nobody is trying to be rude. Also called the village idiot, yet nobody is trying to be rude.
I'm satisfied that what I can see is clear indication of 'weird behaviour', IE breaking a bag of dust over victims of a terrorist bomb blast.
Still, nobody has explained how the man's actions (his hand/ arm movements & positioning, etc) could have led to a blanket being unfurled. I'm
hazarding a guess that the reason is that the whole thing is totally inexplicable (unless he's bursting a bag of dust..)
You guys are desperately now using repetitive 'ad hominem' insults, and derogatory statements which will make the reader think I'm somewhat dimwitted
(I am not - my IQ is around the 150 mark..) and appeals to pseudo-authorities (yourselves) instead of addressing the question of why a man would smash
his hands together, from having them spread wide apart in a 'crucifix pose', bringing them together in front of his sternum with force, in order to
unfurl a 'hospital blanket/ space blanket/ towel/ towels'.
As pointed out clearly, such physical action would cause any sheet-like object in his hand/s to fall loosely to the floor at his feet. On his feet,
to be precise. To suggest that such actions would unfurl a sheet-like object over the body of a victim on the ground in front of him, is ludicrous.
You obviously didn't look at the gif animations which clearly show what actions would be required to unfurl a sheet.
However, if he were bursting a bag of dust in his hands, then precisely what we saw happen, would happen - a shower of dust in a starburst spread
before him. It could vaguely resemble a sheet being unfurled, if you don't look closely. However, the actions leading up to the event are clearly
not those necessitated if one is to unfurl a sheet - yet are clearly those necessitated by the intention to burst a sealed bag. The actions, and the
results we observe, clearly support the fact of a bag of dust being burst, not an unfurling blanket.
THE ONLY THING THAT DOESN'T SUPPORT THE REALITY OF WHAT I DESCRIBE, IS 'THE CONTEXT'.
The only evidence you have to support your claim of a blanket being unfurled, or in support of your repetitive ad hominem attacks (that I must be
delusional) is the context. Your rationale, every facet of your appeal, is that the context forbids anything so 'out-of-the-ordinary' as a man
bursting a bag of dust over victims & first responders.
However - if the incident was being deliberately 'theatrically upscaled', with aspects of the aftermath being specifically emphasised by a complicit
party/parties, to maximise the devastating visuals of the incident and cause a greater subconscious/conscious fear response in the American public's
collective mind, then the addition of dust is logical, and the argument based in context is thrown out the _
I am now satisfied that you cannot answer my criticisms of your explanations, and so you are simply attempting to 'forum slide' my responses into
oblivion by stating repeatedly that I am 'delusional', or by appealing to our primitive emotional psyche, with specific focus on empathy & moral
courage, etc, as regards how wonderfully brave the man was to be helping out.
How about addressing the obvious issues clearly raised in my previous comments, requiring response, in which I have pointed out that your
'explanation' defies the laws of physics, specifically relating to thrust, inertia & momentum, not to mention gravity.
Please, enlighten my 'delusional' mind. I mean, obviously, anyone who doesn't 100% trust the what the TV tells them via mainstream media must be
And anyone who believes that causative actions which apparently (according to the magic of television) lead to response effects which defy the laws of
physics must be delusional, right?
Or is it rather that anyone who believes that, events which defy the known laws of the universe are liable to happen randomly on television, with such
nature-defiant miracles happening spontaneously & repeatedly in the same series of news reports covering one incident, conveniently explaining away
suspicious elements of what is being portrayed, elements which could even suggest complicity, or worse, intentional design, that is delusional?
Please, I would love to hear your non-delusional rationale for the way in which the man in the video defied the laws of physics. Namely, and I'll
keep it brief, the following areas of concern:
I'm fairly confident we could slip a few more in there, but stick to those for the time being, saves you a bit more time to brush up on your own 'show
of many wonders'.
edit on 30-4-2013 by FlyInTheOintment because: removed final comment to decrease the ad hominem rate