Rob Kailey was attacking me on other forums, effectively hijacking them so he could have a piece of me. The original ban-man doesn’t like being banned, it appears. Here’s a comment:
Take this for example: At the beginning of his 3 part thesis on ‘Critical thinking’, MarkT pulls off a magic trick. It has all the earmarks of such, save one. He doesn’t think it’s a trick. He begins with the suggestion of random improbability, a coin flipped 10 times has a very small probability of coming up heads all 10 times. That randomization is the glamor, the same as a magician shuffling a deck of cards. It suggests that the improbability of the result will be that more astounding when revealed. He then shows holw [sic] the improbability of his randomized example shows that in no way is it probable that 4 hijackings could possibly have succeeded in the manner of the official report of 9/11. Do you see the trick?
It was no trick, of course.
You damned well know that the magician palmed the card of marked it or had some *plan* for success, yet somehow, it is inconceivable that 19 individuals with a plan pulled off a trick that was never subject to a randomization at all. See, if you actually go back for 40 years and look at highjackings [sic], redirecting a plane to another destination, the overwhelming majority of those have been *successful*, just as 3 of 4 were on the morning of September 11, 2001.
Later Nameless Range joins. Both are reluctant to come here, but I’ll answer them anyway. Here’s NR:
We can pick out the independent events of nearly any occurrence, and posteriori, claim immense improbability.
That’s why Bayesian Probability is so more important, and is the most salient form of current Probability Theory.
“You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” – Richard Feynman.
Sounds impressive, what with words like Bayesian and invocation of Feynman. It’s gobbledygook.
Both are engaged in an a discipline that is an essential feature of our system of indoctrination, internalizing insanity. My logic, I hope is evident, is crisp and easily understood. I do not need to invoke impressive sounding mathematical concepts or famous really smart scientists.
The word is “coincidence,” or “incidents” that “co”-occur. If they are unrelated events, there is no coincidence to analyze. If we are talking but one event, there is no “co.”
Rob essentially said that because there have been many hijackings in the past, that seeing four successful ones on one day is not an improbable event. That statement might have some merit if we are merely talking about bugs being zapped near the porch light. But …
- The fact that there were four at once;
- That there were no defenses in place against hijackings;
- That the illusory hijackers had primitive weapons;
- That the supposed hijackings coincided with other improbabilities as a massive failure of the air defense system or the virtual impossibility of cell phone calls being made from an aircraft at high altitude …
And on and on. So many things that should never happened all happened at once that day. Just the hijackings, scrawny men with box cutters overcoming burly ex-military men who never even managed to hit their squawk buttons …. nah.
Something else happened that day. What was it? There’s lots of speculation. The best candidate right now, in my mind, is called the Boeing Uninterruptible Autopilot, or something similar. This is anti-hijacking technology, supposedly developed post-9/11, that could be used to hijack a plane. All of the circumstances fit … transponders turned off, communications disabled. Couple that with Vigilant Guardian, the massive air defense drills going on that day that could account for fake blips in radar screens and advance warnings that there would be simulated hijackings, and I can see the resulting confusion. (This could also explain the disappearance of Flight 370 and the crash of the Germanwings aircraft. Unlike Rob’s supposed logic applied here, the technology is quite real.)
What then happened to the planes and people? I don’t know. This I know: It is highly unlikely that four flights on busy corridors would have so few passengers that day.
Then there Newton’s Third Law: what we see above cannot be. Cannot be. Even if you see it, it cannot be. A scientific brain looks at an impossible event, and says that even if it happened on TV, it still cannot be true. (Rob says he has superseded that law with sophisticated math regarding velocity, or “v.” That is laughable. Newton’s Law specifically says equal and opposite. Increase “v,” increased the equal and opposite.)
Rob is merely suffering from what Dr. Wood described as …
- 1) Poor problem solving skills. He doesn’t understand basic probability. When I first met him, he was that dude who threw logic all over the place, analyzing comments and spitting named fallacies at us. Later he would claim to have been the best philosophy student ever at MSU, where he supposedly four-pointed a degree. Still later his specialty became mathematics, and he haughtily described Dr. Wood’s book, which he’s never actually even seen, as deficient in math skills, which he had applied behind a curtain. And now he says with an air of haughty intellectual rigor that because events happen, they happen.
- 2) Groupthink, a common phenomenon with humans, a need to belong, to be part of the general consensus. All who belong to the feckless majority of mainstream American thought have the comfort of being able to ridicule outliers. In so doing they receive support of our Pravda-like mass media. It gives a sense of correctness and comfort from mutual support, even as the conclusions fly in the face of science. That is groupthink.
- 3) Fear of the implications. This is self-explanatory. Example: I have looked a the so-called “evidence” surrounding the Boston Marathon “bombing” in 2013. There isn’t any. It was an obviously staged event. But if so, are not our important “news” media trusted talking heads lying to us? Have not innocent people been framed and murdered by our “law enforcement” institutions? Has not an innocent man now been framed in a “show trial” by our judiciary system? That speaks of massive systemic corruption. How much easier it is to believe than to question. That is fear of the implications.
Nameless Range’s comment about ARW 357 should not be set aside lightly. Rather, it should be thrown with great force, and thank you Dorothy Parker. He doesn’t understand the “co” part of coincidence.
I welcome either gentlemen here to refute my statements above. The Kailey ban is lifted. I have savaged him above, and so he deserves a forum to respond, this one and not someone else’s.
And to both of these gentlemen I ask… Do ya have it in ya? Do ya, punks?
This is getting to be a regular occurrence, but I hit the “publish” instead of “save draft” button again. I intended to make this shorter.