The New Math
Another indication how our filmmakers fail to pay even the slightest attention to what they are claiming. It is apparent that you cannot take any of their "research" at face value. At the 2:29 mark:
December 1st, 1984.
A remote-controlled Boeing 720 takes off from Edwards Air Force Base, and is crash-landed by NASA for fuel research. Before its destruction, the plane flew a total of 16 hours and 22 minutes, including 10 takeoffs, 69 approaches, and 13 landings.
Ten takeoffs and 13 landings? That is quite an accomplishment. What an amazing plane!
posted by James B. @ 7:38 PM
10 comments
10 Comments:
Uh, what the government said (and you quoted) I have no problem with. It makes perfect sense. On the other hand, what was said in the LC video is just stupid, and demonstrates how sloppy their fact-checking is.
Yeah, but NASA was smart enough to preface it with "13 remotely piloted" landings, so it actually made sense.
Ha ha ha! Conspiracy smasher = the make it fit crew :D
I may be a moron, but at least I have a shred of reading comprehension. I know that the "10 remotely piloted takeoffs..." comment was from NASA. See that qualifier "remotely piloted"? It makes all the difference. It does not imply that the plane had only 10 takeoffs, just that only 10 were remotely piloted.
Loose Change, on the other hand, says that the plane did 10 takeoffs and 13 landings. They're sloppy with facts.
They're sloppy with facts.
There are a lot of facts in those 2 hours. Not all are going to be to everyone's liking but majority are pretty verifiable as the NASA excerpt proves.
roger_sq wrote:
"How fucking retarded do you have to be..."
Yes! That's what I'm saying - how retarted did Dylan Avery have to be to not realize that 10 takeoffs and 13 landings is preposterous? The NASA article you quoted said it right, Dylan said it wrong and looks sloppy and foolish.
And Paul, I've done lots of touch and gos, and I think that each would count as a takeoff and a landing. But anyway, the NASA article is clear that these weren't touch and gos.
nesnyc wrote:
"There are a lot of facts in those 2 hours. Not all are going to be to everyone's liking but majority are pretty verifiable as the NASA excerpt proves.
First, the NASA excerpt proves that Dylan was sloppy with the facts.
So what are the other facts in the 1:20 of LC2E that are verifiable? From what I've seen, every single substantive claim in Loose Change is verifiably false. Is there just one that you would stand behind?
So what are the other facts in the 1:20 of LC2E that are verifiable? From what I've seen, every single substantive claim in Loose Change is verifiably false. Is there just one that you would stand behind?
Most, if not all are verifiable through some press release or eyewitness account. If you view the movie with a doubting mind and don't check up on the facts, then that is the impression you will be left with. Most of the people that believe the official conspiracy simply pass it off as "kooky" or "retarded" and never really do any checking all their own.
Take the poor excuse of an article Popular Mechanics wrote has been thoroughly debunked and proved false by the facts. The truth may be unpleasant, but the fact remains and the truths self evident.
nesnyc wrote:
Most, if not all are verifiable through some press release or eyewitness account.
I asked if there was even one "fact" from Loose Change that you would stand behind. What I got was a bunch of handwaving. Come on - name just one!
So because producers drop a few words from their lines and quotes automtically makes them sloppy?
I guess that means every single media outlet in the world that has at one time or another shortened a quote is a complete farce.
Post a Comment
<< Home