Tuesday, February 16, 2010

Charles Goyette, Engineer?



Was just watching this scroll of the 1000+ Clowns for 9-11 Troof and this one popped out at me:

Charles Goyette is a "Truther" radio personality in Phoenix; the name strikes me as too unusual for there to be two Charles Goyettes among the fruitcakes. So I'm calling BS on this one.

Labels:

80 Comments:

At 16 February, 2010 01:24, Anonymous TV said...

The very next person in the list (#326) has a very curius job. What does a "Forensic Fire Protection Engineer" do, exactly? I know what a Forensic does and I know what a Fire Protection Engineer does, but how do you combine the two?

 
At 16 February, 2010 04:35, Anonymous Jeves said...

http://www.graingerconsulting.com/?page_id=36

 
At 16 February, 2010 05:53, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

Pat, not to say I know either way, but I do have to point out that your logic leaves some to be desired. So, in your opinion one could not be an engineer in TX and a radio personality? Or one could not divide their time between two different locations for whatever reason? Or one could not give their current location out when registering with an organization (such as A&E For 9/11 Truth), then move and never have that location updated? And, lastly but not leastly, Goyette sounds like a not-so-uncommon French last name; I have come across several over the years who, to the best of my knowledge, where not related.

 
At 16 February, 2010 07:40, Anonymous TV said...

@Jeves: OK, so a fruitcake pretended to be this Grainger guy and got caught by not knowing that Forensic Engineering is one thing and Fire Protection Engineering is another and that Forensic Fire Protection Engineering doesn't exist.

I'm glad you cleared this one up for me. Thanks :)

 
At 16 February, 2010 08:29, Blogger Triterope said...

So, in your opinion one could not be an engineer in TX and a radio personality?

Brian Good better get back soon. Boris Epstein is starting to copy his act.

 
At 16 February, 2010 08:32, Blogger Triterope said...

For big laughs, check outs #48 and #85.

 
At 16 February, 2010 08:36, Blogger Triterope said...

Even funnier, look what happens at about 5:35. God, can these idiots do anything right?

 
At 16 February, 2010 09:28, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

The Debunker Cult,right on the case!!! The muckraking is beyond fantastic.Maybe you can trot out Thomas Eagar to shellack us with his special pancake breakfast! I'll take mine with the exploding chocolate paint chips!

 
At 16 February, 2010 09:29, Anonymous Bikerman said...

Even funnier, look what happens at about 5:35. God, can these idiots do anything right?

HA HA HA HA great!!!!

 
At 16 February, 2010 09:34, Blogger Triterope said...

I have come across several (people named Goyette) over the years who, to the best of my knowledge, where not related.

This is another favorite technique of Boris': inventing personal backstory to support whatever opinion he needs to cling to at the moment.

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, the surname Goyette is used by 9,739 people. Given a U.S. population of 300,000,000, the probability of any one person being named Goyette is approximately .00003.

Given that probability, if we assume that Boris has met 5,000 American people in his life, and that "several" means "at least three", the probability of Boris' statement being true is about .0005, or 2000 to 1 against. Math is fun.

 
At 16 February, 2010 09:41, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

That video is not a complete list.

For example, at 5:35, the video jumps from #333, Andrew Griffith, Engineer, to #958 Joseph Urcinas, B.Eng.

Moreover, I know for a fact that one of the names on the list, a man who claims to be an engineer, is in fact a technical writer. That said, it would not surprise me to discover that half of the alleged "1000 architects and engineers" are nothing of the sort.

 
At 16 February, 2010 09:52, Anonymous Phil said...

That said, it would not surprise me to discover that half of the alleged "1000 architects and engineers" are nothing of the sort.

It actually would surprise me if 1/5 of the people on that list actually are "architects" or "engineers".

So many of those names seem like made-up joke names. I know that when Gage started it up people jumped at setting up fake names. He eventually deleted the "Hugh G Rection"s and the like, but I'm absolutely sure that MANY of those names are joke names. I loved Troy's calls he made to the people on that list.

 
At 16 February, 2010 09:55, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

http://www.whitepages.com/

Look up "Goyette" in Troy, NY

You suppose they're all related?

Can you enlighten us with some more phony statistics?

 
At 16 February, 2010 10:17, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

"Given that probability, if we assume that Boris has met 5,000 American people in his life, and that "several" means "at least three", the probability of Boris' statement being true is about .0005, or 2000 to 1 against. Math is fun."

Hilarious, Triterope.

So, in addition to being a psychotic stalker, Boris continues to be a liar!

 
At 16 February, 2010 10:24, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Boris' imaginary friend growing up was Bigfoot Goyette!

 
At 16 February, 2010 11:24, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The Debunker Cult"

Blather.

Rinse.

Repeat.

 
At 16 February, 2010 11:25, Anonymous troyfromwestvirginia said...

If you'd actually call up and talk to some of these ae911truth folk you'd realize they are an intelligent lot.

 
At 16 February, 2010 11:25, Blogger Triterope said...

Look up "Goyette" in Troy, NY

You suppose they're all related?


Considering that the list of results includes several groups of Goyettes who live at the same address, plus an Edward Sr. and Edward Jr., I'm going to take a wild guess and say that a lot of them are related.

Clustering of surnames in a geographical region is common, since many distant relatives can be descended from a single ancestral family.

And why does it matter what the frequency is in Troy, New York? Boris Epstein's city of residence is in his blogger profile, and it isn't Troy, New York. You are engaging in Texas sharpshooter Fallacy.

To be fair, names data from whitepages.com shows a higher prevalance in Massachusetts (where Boris lives) than the national average. So it's probably better than 2000 to 1. I'll give you 500 to 1. Still crappy odds.

 
At 16 February, 2010 11:29, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

To Triterope:

This is another favorite technique of Boris': inventing personal backstory to support whatever opinion he needs to cling to at the moment.

Being accused of lying by an anonymous nobody is quite hilarious. Thanks for a chuckle, Triterope.

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, the surname Goyette is used by 9,739 people. Given a U.S. population of 300,000,000, the probability of any one person being named Goyette is approximately .00003.

Would that cover varioations on the spelling (Goyete, Guyett, Guyette)? I believe all of those exist and are likely of a Gallic origin. Also, I am not sure but I believe the census only covers US citizens and permanent residents (and at least 10% or the people actually living in the US are neither).

Also, let us not forget that the distribution here is far from uniform. Meeting someone with an uncommon last name is far more likely in a major metro area than, say, in rural Alabama.

Given that probability, if we assume that Boris has met 5,000 American people in his life, and that "several" means "at least three", the probability of Boris' statement being true is about .0005, or 2000 to 1 against. Math is fun.

And your assumptions are based on exactly what? The fact that you spent your whole life somewhere in a hamlet in the hills in Kentucky and never saw more than a dozen people at one time?

Given your dearth of real-life knowledge, Triterope, that may indeed be the case but people who lead active lives in major population centers have a lot more human interaction in their lives. Just over, say, a year on a large college campus one gets to have probably at least a thousand classmates. Doing jobs that require human interactions - be that driving a cab or processing business invoices - brings one in contact with scores of people.

Of course, you don't get to know them closely but you get to meet them - and, often, learn their name, too. So I would guess the number of Americans I have at least briefly met is way higher than your estimate of 5,000 - we are talking at least several times that. Not that I would remember all the names, of course. Not that it makes a principal difference either.

On top of that, it is entirely unclear how you have made your calculations. To model how likely you are to meet a person belonging to a certain category you need to model how this category interacts with other people, etc. Humans are not like grains of sand, randomly encountering each other in a pile - we move through the pile, using the analogy, and move with purpose.

Getting back to the issue of Goyettes - here's what a search for their presence in Boston turns up. Don't know if they are all related but I somehow doubt it.

So, care to share the logic behind your conclusions, Triterope? Or perhaps you shouldn't bother but should instead try to educate yourself to the facts of real life.

 
At 16 February, 2010 11:30, Anonymous KDLarsen said...

Lol, they even flashed Jan Utzon, the very guy who openly admits not having read ANY of the reports surrounding 9/11.

 
At 16 February, 2010 11:43, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Boris,

Think this one through.

I've never met one Goyette. Given the odds, most people here can say the same thing.

You're not a social person. You don't even attend truther meetings, and they're the only ones who would have you. You have very few friends; like any true psycho-stalker, you seem to get along better with dogs.

Given that you're a Dahmer-like loner, and given that we all make it out in the world, it seems like a bit of a lie that you've met "several" Goyettes in your life.

I libel you!

 
At 16 February, 2010 12:51, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

Patrick from Cincinnati,

I should probably not even waste space responding to your baseless statements - and I do apologize to the blog owners in advance for doing so - but this is just too tempting. Not because I expect you, Patrick, to learn anything - you seem to be dead set to stick to your delusions - but because it is just too tempting to show the Grand Canyon-size gaps that separates your delusions from reality.

So, with this preface let's get started.

I've never met one Goyette. Given the odds, most people here can say the same thing.

Even if that is so that proves nothing. Things that are not very likely statistically still do happen.

You're not a social person.

Well, here for once you got a point. What is it - an equivalent of that proverbial broken clock being right twice a day? Or perhaps you read a post someplace where I myself admit to being anti-social?

That said, I know fairly well how to socialize and feel just fine in a group setting.

Getting to the issue of Goyettes here - I can think of at least two. None of them were an informal acquaintance - one was a classmate at college and the other a vendor/partner at one of the jobs. My social skills have absolutely nothing to do with my having met them.

You don't even attend truther meetings...

And the reason you say so is exactly what? I have attended many of them and intend to attend them in the future whenever I find an event that interests me. The same goes for many other events - community support activities, film screenings, etc.

...and they're the only ones who would have you.

With the exception of dozens of people from California to Siberia and many places in between who would be happy to see me any day - I suppose you may be right.

... continued below ...

 
At 16 February, 2010 12:51, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

To Patrick from Cincinnati:

You have very few friends;

Just checked my Google contact book; over a thousand contacts, probably several hundreds unique, people I know and am on friendly terms with; several hundred phone book records - sure, Patrick, I am all alone in the world.

Must be some kind of fluke that I have all those standing invitations I haven't had a chance to take advantage of - how could it be? The all knowing Patrick says I have very few friends, so I must be wrong somewhere.

... like any true psycho-stalker, you seem to get along better with dogs.

Patrick, you have no more seen me exhibit psychotic behaviour than you have seen me stalk anybody. Why? because I am neither psychotic, nor a stalker. Your wish that something be a certain way does not necessarily make it so.

Yes, I do get along with dogs far better than with some people. There are reasons for that. For instance, unlike you, Patrick, a dog would never slander anybody:)

Given that you're a Dahmer-like loner...

Wow, now that's quite a comparison. Jeffrey Dahmer was a violent sexually deviant alcoholic and drug addict; I am a professionally successful heterosexual man with no history of addiction, violence or mental illness. Last time I threw the first punch in a fight was over 20 years ago.

But tell you what... yes, both Dahmer and I are male, and, just like him, sometimes I spend time by myself. So I guess given your criteria for accuracy the comparison stands.

... and given that we all make it out in the world, it seems like a bit of a lie that you've met "several" Goyettes in your life.

No, this is not a lie. If you want to prove me wrong, do. If not - and, given the previous history, I don't expect you to - I will consider this yet another slanderous accusation by you. Akin to tour accusations of stalking activity.

I libel you!

Yes, Patrick, this is exactly what you did. You are a slanderous anonymous coward, and hence this behaviour hardly comes as a surprise.

In conclusion, let me just say, that this little exchange indicates precisely how far from reality your perception is, Patrick. That is not surprising - no one who is a realist would defend the blatantly false official story of 9/11.

 
At 16 February, 2010 12:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe if you girls would try a bit of internet research as opposed to
your butt research you would find that there is a Charles Goyette in Austin Texas.

TV, a forensic fire protection engineer serves as an expert witness in lawsuits involving fire protection.

GuitarBill, if a guy has an engineering degree and he works as a technical writer, that doesn't change the fact that he's an engineer. I know an engineer who's a lawyer.

 
At 16 February, 2010 13:13, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Anonymous writes, "...GuitarBill, if a guy has an engineering degree and he works as a technical writer, that doesn't change the fact that he's an engineer. I know an engineer who's a lawyer."

A bachelors degree in engineering does not necessarily qualify one as an engineer. Normally, the title "engineer" is reserved for those individuals who have an advanced degree or a professional engineering license (PE, SE, etc).

Additionally, the person I mentioned posted his resume on-line. His resume proves that he has never worked as an engineer in any capacity.

Thus, he's a technical writer with an undergraduate engineering degree.

 
At 16 February, 2010 13:26, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"....several hundred phone book records - sure, Patrick, I am all alone in the world."


But how many of them pick the phone up when Call ID reveals your name and number?

 
At 16 February, 2010 14:01, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

God Damnit. Why are all the Libertarian personalities I used to follow losing their minds?
And I thought it was just Austrian economics where they were terribly misguided...

(For the record Austrian economics have nothing to do with the good people of Austria, it's a purely American phenomenon)

 
At 16 February, 2010 14:12, Anonymous paul w said...

"Patrick from Cincinnati,
I should probably not even waste space responding to your baseless statements..."

Followed by, how many words, Boris?

Jeez, mate, ignore him or get stuck in.

What's with all this truther preoccupation with probably, maybe, might be, I might, should be...can any of them actually commit?

"people who lead active lives in major population centers have a lot more human interaction in their lives."

Somewhat OT, Boris, but I'd argue that not the case. One of the issues with large urban areas is alienation, even for people who lead 'active' lives.

And, to something very much on topic:

"(Patrick from Cincinnati said...)
I've never met one Goyette. Given the odds, most people here can say the same thing."

Boris:
"Even if that is so that proves nothing. Things that are not very likely statistically still do happen."

You mean, like the collapse of a building from aircraft damage and unrestrained fire?

 
At 16 February, 2010 14:23, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Boris, you psychotic stalking unemployed moron, why did you previously leave us and what can we do to make you go away?

You really protest way too much in an effort to distance yourself from Jeffrey Dahmer.

Have you started with animals yet, Boris?

Is that why you like dogs so much?

 
At 16 February, 2010 14:42, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

Patrick from Cincinnati,

Boris, you psychotic stalking unemployed moron, why did you previously leave us and what can we do to make you go away?

You really protest way too much in an effort to distance yourself from Jeffrey Dahmer.

Have you started with animals yet, Boris?

Is that why you like dogs so much?


Thanks you for a thoughtful substantive response, Sir!

Wow... even by your standards this is impressive, Patrick. I mean, a couple of short paragraphs and not one sentence that is grounded in reality, not one statement that is correct, not one question that makes sense.

Well... maybe I am going a bit harsh on you. You spelled my name correctly. The punctuation in your text seems OK. So I may have gone a bit harsh on you indeed. Sorry about that.

 
At 16 February, 2010 15:13, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

You mean, like the collapse of a building from aircraft damage and unrestrained fire?

That depends on the odds of energetic materials spontaneously manifesting in WTC dust, one sample of which was collected ten minutes after the collapse of the North Tower.
o
Or, alternatively, the odds of a sky scraper not hit by a plane to fall suddenly symmetrically and smoothly almost into its own footprint due to thermal expansion, while firefighters say it was actually leaning

=)

<3

 
At 16 February, 2010 15:42, Anonymous Roid Rage's Dad said...

Great post, son. Victory is ours.

 
At 16 February, 2010 15:47, Anonymous paul w said...

"energetic materials spontaneously manifesting in WTC dust"

"(falling) symmetrically and smoothly"*

"its' own footprint"**

"thermal expansion, while firefighters say it was actually leaning"

Yup, the same old, same old...


*smoothly!!!
** did you note the 'almost'! Hah!

 
At 16 February, 2010 15:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

energetic materials spontaneously manifesting in WTC dust
They didn't. The "studys" showing residual energetic materials were hopelessly flawed.

WTC7 wasn't a symmetrical collapse, there's no contradiction between the FACT that it was leaning and it's collapse.

You just throw out random recycled truther claims for fun don't you?

 
At 16 February, 2010 15:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Big Islamist-Truther confab near Toronto over the weekend:

http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=2567900

 
At 16 February, 2010 16:53, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"They didn't. The "studys" showing residual energetic materials were hopelessly flawed."
Sigh. If you're going to lie, please spell correctly.

 
At 16 February, 2010 17:30, Anonymous Matthew said...

I couldn't care less who these people are or if their qualifications are genuine or not. Unless they start producing papers for publications and/or conferences that actually convince the engineering world that there's something up, they're irrelevant.

The are hundreds of thousands of experts across the world, who can't possibly all be bought off by some secret cabal (and without anyone noticing at that). All they need is some compelling evidence - a list of names isn't it.

How many more years to AE911Truth need to come up with something that can challenge the consensus? You'd think all those people working to the tougher and more expensive building codes, in Europe and the US, that resulted from the NIST report, would have an interest in proving it wrong. You'd think that perhaps all those insurers who paid out billions on the towers and surrounding buildings would jump at some compelling evidence that it wasn't a terrorist attack. You'd think the press, especially in countries hostile to the US would love any story that could stand up. Indeed, some governments would delight in anything that would stick.

All those people, with considerable resources, just waiting for a rigorous scientific demonstration of foul play. And all these "engineers" putting their "expertise" behind the idea that such an explanation is not only possible but also obvious. And yet nothing happens, for years and years and years. How can this be?

 
At 16 February, 2010 17:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That depends on the odds of energetic materials spontaneously manifesting in WTC dust, one sample of which was collected ten minutes after the collapse of the North Tower.

Where is this study? Has it been peer reviewed? Does anyone take it seriously outside of conspiracy circles?
I'm guessing "some conspiracy website," "no," and "no," otherwise you'd have something more substantive than criticism of my spelling.
Or the Illuminati are just that good at suppressing scientific literature!

 
At 16 February, 2010 18:16, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Yo! Raging Diaper, I have a question for you.

Question: How many conspiranoids does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer: None, because conspiranoids don't screw in light bulbs, they screw in bomb shelters.

 
At 16 February, 2010 18:52, Blogger Triterope said...

Would that cover varioations on the spelling (Goyete, Guyett, Guyette)?

Aaaaand the goalpost move begins.

You didn't say "I've known many people named Goyette allowing for spelling variations". You said "Goyette," and then asserted it was a common name. I have provided proof that it is not.

I believe the census only covers US citizens and permanent residents (and at least 10% or the people actually living in the US are neither).

This is another classic Boris Epstein remark. He brings up a nitpicky detail that wouldn't change anything even if it were true... and it's false. And his logic is wrong whether it's true or false.

The U.S. Census has categories for all manner of non-citizen and non-permanent residents. But there's a bigger story here. Boris argues that my count of Goyettes did not include 10% of Americans not counted in the Census. If that's true, then I also didn't include this 10% in the overall population, the denominator of the fraction from which the probability was determined.

As any one who passed seventh-grade algebra knows, multiplying the numerator and the denominator by the same number has no impact on what the fraction works out to. If 1/2 = 0.5, then 1*x/2*x = 0.5 as well. So introducing this uncounted 10% changes nothing, except to lower the world's opinion of Boris Epstein's intellect one more notch.

Also, let us not forget that the distribution here is far from uniform.

I already said that, Boris. Christ, can't you idiots even recognize when someone concedes you a point? I realize it happens very rarely, but geez.

And your assumptions are based on exactly what?

Only some of what you quoted were assumptions. The rest of it was the actual math problem. Clearly, you don't know the difference.

All right, here's my methodology: I calculated a binomial distribution, given 5000 trials and a probability of .00003. Given those figures, the probability of 0, 1, or 2 or successes adds to .9995. Therefore the probability of 3 or more successes is .0005, for reasons I hope I don't have to explain.

As for where the 5,000 came from... I chose it as a reasonable estimate of the number an average person meets in a lifetime, and knows well enough to remember their names. And I think 5,000 is pretty generous; that's one new person a day for almost 14 years. But hey, make it 10,000 if you want; like every other objection you've raised, it doesn't make your claim statistically likely.

I would guess the number of Americans I have at least briefly met is way higher than your estimate of 5,000. Not that I would remember all the names. Not that it makes a principal difference either.

Of course it makes a principal difference, you tard. The whole math problem is about recognizing a name as common based on names of people you know. Jeezus, you're thick.

here's what a search for their presence in Boston turns up.

Which proves what, exactly? I've already given you the exact number of Goyettes in the U.S. Census, and in the Massachusetts phone book.

Humans are not like grains of sand, randomly encountering each other in a pile - we move through the pile, using the analogy, and move with purpose.

Except for that part where you said the Goyettes you met weren't related. If they weren't related, and your likelihood of meeting one is non-random, what exactly makes it non-random?

care to share the logic behind your conclusions, Triterope?

The logic is fully explained in prior posts or in this one.

 
At 16 February, 2010 19:23, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

Triterope,

Your logic fails in a number of ways... I won't go into detail, I'll just give you one example illustrating that it does fail and then I will let you figure out the rest.

Here's that example. How statistically frequent is the last name "Obama" in the US? How many people in the US do not know at least one person with that last name?

 
At 16 February, 2010 19:28, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

paul w,

I am sorry I can't respond in sufficient detail but here goes:

Followed by, how many words, Boris?

Sorry, gave into temptation, I admit it.

What's with all this truther preoccupation with probably, maybe, might be, I might, should be...can any of them actually commit?

Commit to what? Life ain't a clear-cut black-and-white affair.

Somewhat OT, Boris, but I'd argue that not the case. One of the issues with large urban areas is alienation, even for people who lead 'active' lives.

Living an active life, briefly interacting with scores of people in no way stops one from feeling lonely and alienated. I see no contradiction there.


You mean, like the collapse of a building from aircraft damage and unrestrained fire?

And who's being vague now? :)

I never said no building can ever collapse due to fire. As for the specific buildings in NYC on 09/11/2001 - WTC 1,2 and 7 - collapsing symmetrically and completely through the path of most resistance - well, that's a different story in this particular case.

 
At 16 February, 2010 19:45, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Maybe if you girls would try a bit of internet research as opposed to your butt research you would find that there is a Charles Goyette in Austin Texas

YES!!!! punxsutawneybarney is back and he's calling us "girls". I'm guessing you didn't like having Boris steal your routine.

TV, a forensic fire protection engineer serves as an expert witness in lawsuits involving fire protection.

That's nice.

GuitarBill, if a guy has an engineering degree and he works as a technical writer, that doesn't change the fact that he's an engineer. I know an engineer who's a lawyer.

Nobody cares, punxsutawneybarney.

 
At 16 February, 2010 23:02, Anonymous TV said...

Hm, not a bad soundtrack. Does anyone know where they stole it from? It sounds very much like John Williams.

@NY: So a guy, who is a Fire Protection Engineer and runs a firm which deals in Fire Protection Engineering and Forensic Engineering, speaks of his personal hobbies on that website, and supports AE911twoof, gave his profession as "Forensic Fire Protection Engineer", which is not refferenced as such on his web site, and that site doesn't mention Gages' clowns, even though it speaks of his other interests and activities.

The call to bull on this is stronger by the post.

 
At 17 February, 2010 00:37, Anonymous paul w said...

"Commit to what? Life ain't a clear-cut black-and-white affair."

Hmm. What did Tritrope say about goal post moving?

Or, is this an example of not committing to the point I was making?

Or,`is this...ah, never mind.

The point I was trying to make was, I hope, clear. It was not about 'life', Boris. Read it again, if you have to.

"Living an active life, briefly interacting with scores of people in no way stops one from feeling lonely and alienated. I see no contradiction there."

Oh, dear god...

ALIENATION, Boris, ALIENATION. Do a search.

"And who's being vague now? :)"

Yet another goal post movement, and with a senile smile to round it off.

"I never said no building can ever collapse due to fire."

That wasn't the point. Here it is again:

Boris:
"Even if that is so that proves nothing. Things that are not very likely statistically still do happen."

ME:you mean, like the collapse of a building from aircraft damage and unrestrained fire?

I meant, truthers (and you*), roll their eyes when you say things do happen for a first time, even strange things...and yet, like you, will happily accept unusual things happening if it supports a point YOU are trying to make.

"As for the specific buildings in NYC on 09/11/2001 - WTC 1,2 and 7 - collapsing symmetrically and completely through the path of most resistance - well, that's a different story in this particular case."

1. Changing goalpost. Check.
2. Repeat of catchphrases. Check.

(Also, if it's a different story in this particular case, why mention it?)

Boris, do you have a home to go to? Please go home. I need some quiet time.




* No, Boris, I will not point out the post you said this.

You've been saying it since you arrived. As the truthers, and you, say; disprove it.

PS Do you parents know you're out?

 
At 17 February, 2010 00:40, Anonymous paul w said...

TV..., blah, blah, blah...
GuitarBill...blah, blah, blah...


Hey, I know who THAT is!!!!!

The circus continues!!!

I'm out to get some popcorn and beer. Anyone else?

 
At 17 February, 2010 00:42, Anonymous paul w said...

it supports a point THEY are trying to make.

 
At 17 February, 2010 02:19, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

I couldn't care less who these people are or if their qualifications are genuine or not. Unless they start producing papers for publications and/or conferences that actually convince the engineering world that there's something up, they're irrelevant.

The are hundreds of thousands of experts across the world, who can't possibly all be bought off by some secret cabal (and without anyone noticing at that). All they need is some compelling evidence - a list of names isn't it.


This is an excellent point, because it shows the level of detachment from reality in the "debunker" cult: the ability to have a loaded argument reinforce denial.

(Frankly, I find it amazing. It's like I'm staring at a zoo of denialists, grooming, eating bananas and swinging from branch to branch, now and then menacingly pounding their chests. There is no point whatsoever in trying to train them beyond their inherent limitations.)

 
At 17 February, 2010 02:40, Anonymous paul w said...

"(Frankly, I find it amazing. It's like I'm staring at a zoo of denialists, grooming, eating bananas and swinging from branch to branch, now and then menacingly pounding their chests. There is no point whatsoever in trying to train them beyond their inherent limitations.)"


Frankly, I find it a scream, that you can write the above, and:

a. You may actually be serious
b. You may actually be serious
c. You may actually be serious

You know, even Boris is more stable than you. Wow.

Also, it would appear that Brian's returned, currently hanging around the back of the auditorium, wondering who the joker on stage is.

The one that's taken his place as the most insane truther.

And, he 'aint happy about that.

Unless, you and he are the same person, in which it's REALLY gonna get weird.

 
At 17 February, 2010 03:11, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Here's that example. How statistically frequent is the last name "Obama" in the US? How many people in the US do not know at least one person with that last name?

Go Boris! Go Boris!

Sophistry debunked in one paragraph.

 
At 17 February, 2010 03:15, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Frankly, I find it a scream, that you can write the above

Me too! I'm having a ball with you clowns.

Especially good are the side-splitting remarks about truthers coming here somehow sharing and exchanging identities, and the seeming complete obsession with this "Brian Good" character. (The Brouillet stalker?) You freaks are beyond paranoid!

Then some nut sucking discussion about who is heir to who on this ridiculous sub-par blog. ROFLMLAO! Twit!

 
At 17 February, 2010 04:44, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Go Boris! Go Boris!

Sophistry debunked in one paragraph.


At one time, I considered Roid Rage to be intelligent enough to one day abandon the "truth" movement. What was I thinking?

Especially good are the side-splitting remarks about truthers coming here somehow sharing and exchanging identities, and the seeming complete obsession with this "Brian Good" character. (The Brouillet stalker?) You freaks are beyond paranoid!

Again, I hate to burst your bubble, kid, but nobody cares about your stupid movement since it's utterly irrelevant. If I'm going to put my effort into debunking something that actually has a serious following, I'll go with young earth creationism. You guys are just comic relief.

 
At 17 February, 2010 05:23, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

At one time, I considered Roid Rage to be intelligent enough to one day abandon the "truth" movement. What was I thinking?

Something along the lines of..
"Mmmm...donuts"

Again, I hate to burst your bubble, kid, but nobody cares about your stupid movement since it's utterly irrelevant. If I'm going to put my effort into debunking something that actually has a serious following, I'll go with young earth creationism. You guys are just comic relief.

And yet here you are.

 
At 17 February, 2010 07:38, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"At one time, I considered Roid Rage to be intelligent enough to one day abandon the "truth" movement. What was I thinking?"

At one time he did a pretty good job in covering up his insanity and his cowardace, but the mask came off and the gibbering fascist underneath revealed itself.

Pitiful, really.

 
At 17 February, 2010 08:55, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"At one time he did a pretty good job in covering up his insanity and his cowardace, but the mask came off and the gibbering fascist underneath revealed itself.

Pitiful, really."


Like a broken record! =)

<3

 
At 17 February, 2010 09:01, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Like a broken record! =)"

Spoken like a true coward.

 
At 17 February, 2010 09:07, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Spoken like a true coward."

The problem is, kookloon ultra-nationalists such as you are simply immune to real evidence.

Because it's too HARD for you to ACCEPT.

 
At 17 February, 2010 09:39, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The problem is, kookloon ultra-nationalists such as you are simply immune to real evidence."

And he trys to link to a Youtube video.

A blocked Youtube video.

What a pathetic, cowardly loon.

BTW, you never answered the question: is Dorothy your sister?

 
At 17 February, 2010 11:00, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"And he trys to link to a Youtube video.

A blocked Youtube video.

What a pathetic, cowardly loon.

BTW, you never answered the question: is Dorothy your sister?"



BWAHAHAHAH. Dorothy, you crack me up! =)

 
At 17 February, 2010 12:01, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

BTW, you never answered the question: is Dorothy your sister?

 
At 17 February, 2010 12:06, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds."

-Youtube.com

You fucking moron.

 
At 17 February, 2010 13:28, Anonymous New Yorker said...

And yet here you are.

What part of "comic relief" do you not understand? I check out the retarded posts that you, Boris, and Brian make for the same reason I check out Failblog: to laugh after a long day at work.

 
At 17 February, 2010 14:56, Anonymous All the Goyettes said...

You're a liar, Boris. We've never met you. Unless you count the one you were stalking.

 
At 17 February, 2010 16:35, Blogger Triterope said...

How statistically frequent is the last name "Obama" in the US? How many people in the US do not know at least one person with that last name?

Aaaaaaaaaaand the goalposts move again.

Equivocation fallacy, Boris. You're changing the definition of "know" to include famous people one has heard of, when this whole thread has been about how many people with a name one knows personally. You said it yourself: "I have at least briefly met..."

But even if we ignore that, your example is still invalid. Many people "know" someone with the rare surname Obama, because the name belongs to a famous person. The rare surname Goyette does not. Therefore the example is of no relevance to your original claim. Your comparison is faulty.

 
At 18 February, 2010 04:08, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"What part of "comic relief" do you not understand? I check out the retarded posts that you, Boris, and Brian make for the same reason I check out Failblog: to laugh after a long day at work."

Why don't you just check the mirror as soon as you come home? Humor and cubism all-in-one, and no entrance fee!

 
At 18 February, 2010 04:11, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"You said it yourself: "I have at least briefly met..."

You shameless liar! LOL! That was in reference to the number of people he'd met in general.

In reference to people named "Goyette" he said: "(...) I have come across several over the years (...)"

Typical bunktard connivance! What a crock!

 
At 18 February, 2010 05:03, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Why don't you just check the mirror as soon as you come home? Humor and cubism all-in-one, and no entrance fee!

I think it's time to quit while you're way, waaaaay behind.

You're really getting boring, Roid Rage. Can you at least start babbling about thermite or free-fall speed?

 
At 18 February, 2010 05:22, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

I think it's time to quit while you're way, waaaaay behind.

You're really getting boring, Roid Rage. Can you at least start babbling about thermite or free-fall speed?


Sure. "free-fall speed" does not exist, you overconfident twat. You do sound like a fucking truther.

 
At 18 February, 2010 06:00, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Question: How many conspiranoids does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer: None, because conspiranoids don't screw in light bulbs, they screw in bomb shelters.'

Most implausible - these losers can't get laid.

 
At 18 February, 2010 13:55, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Sure. "free-fall speed" does not exist, you overconfident twat. You do sound like a fucking truther.

Wow, you're a perceptive one! Who else knew I was trying to sound like a "truther" when asking you to blather about the same nonsense that they do?

Also, I'm not overconfident. I'm sane.

 
At 18 February, 2010 15:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

toasted scrotum wrote: these losers can't get laid.

Any idiot can get laid. It's a question of what you're willing to settle for.

 
At 18 February, 2010 15:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now I know Guitar Bill is Wild Bill Drucker-that joke wasn't even remotely funny.

 
At 18 February, 2010 16:27, Blogger Triterope said...

You shameless liar! LOL! That was in reference to the number of people he'd met in general.

It doesn't matter whether "came across" means Boris met them, encountered them, heard of them, got a restraining order from them, or shot his load in their face. I've already said why.

You can bash my mathematical model with as many fallacies and irrelevancies as you want. But you can't make the facts go away. The facts are, there are less than 10,000 Goyettes in the entire nation, and less than 600 in the phone book in Boris' state of residence. Use any model or assumptions or definitions you want; nothing is going to make his original claim statistically likely.

Which is a fine analogy for how you assholes view 9-11, come to think of it.

 
At 18 February, 2010 22:21, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Now I know Guitar Bill is Wild Bill Drucker-that joke wasn't even remotely funny."

Care to substantiate that assertion (heavy emphasis on ass in this case) , fly boi?

 
At 18 February, 2010 22:25, Anonymous GuitarBill said...

sackcloth and ashes writes, "...Most implausible - these losers can't get laid."

No doubt, I can't argue with that statement; thus, I stand corrected.

%^)

 
At 19 February, 2010 04:26, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

It doesn't matter whether "came across" means Boris met them, encountered them, heard of them, got a restraining order from them, or shot his load in their face. I've already said why.
Comical way of weaseling out from under your blunder.

You can bash my mathematical model with as many fallacies and irrelevancies as you want. But you can't make the facts go away. The facts are, there are less than 10,000 Goyettes in the entire nation, and less than 600 in the phone book in Boris' state of residence. Use any model or assumptions or definitions you want; nothing is going to make his original claim statistically likely.
Except... it's not the first time and certainly not the last time that the error need not necessarily be in the math, but in the faulty premises on which the statistical argument is built.

You take a large collection (the entire US population) and a small collection (the number of elements of that collection named "Goyette") and then you frame the argument as if Epstein's likelihood of "coming across" a person named Goyette can be equated to a "bag of marbles" experiment.

You completely ignore clustering and the clustering coefficient, part of the scientific field of social network analysis.

Which is a fine analogy for how you assholes view 9-11, come to think of it.
Considering the above objections to your pseudo-statistical drivel (earlier pointed out by Epstein's 'Obama' example), I find this remark humorously self-indicting.

 
At 19 February, 2010 10:34, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Roid Rage said...
"He was on the sidelines cheering the fascists on.

Nice pom-poms by the way."

PWWWFFFFRRRT!!

This is me taking a big, smelly, damn near toxic dump on your son's military service again, neo-fascist."


Bears repeating.

Just to expose to the world what a child you truly are.

 
At 20 February, 2010 16:52, Blogger Triterope said...

Comical way of weaseling out from under your blunder.

Well, at least I'm comical. Thanks for that. And I hardly need point out your blunders, since they're all over this thread. Just look for the words "Roid Rage said..."

You completely ignore clustering

I addressed clustering, you fuckin' moron. I used the word clustering. I significantly adjusted my initial calculation based on the clustering you pointed out. Jeezus, do you have to argue with me when I'm agreeing with you?

the scientific field of social network analysis

And if you had actually read the Wikipedia article instead of just linking it, you might have noticed the existence of words like "relationship" and "interdependence" and "connection" which are necessary for this model to work. What did Boris say again?

I have come across several over the years who, to the best of my knowledge, where not related.

And no, I'm not twisting the meaning of "related." The larger point is that if you think a non-random model is applicable, there must be some identifiable factor that pushes the probability beyond what randomness would explain. Neither you nor Boris has provided one.

To be fair (which I've been saying an awful lot on this thread), you've provided examples of things that would be valid reasons to reject my random model, but aren't applicable in this case, for reasons I've already given.

As far the rest of it... I know life is not entirely a random ball problem. I know the model is flawed. Everybody who read this post, except you and Boris, knows that. It's a mathematical model. It is not an attempt to model all possible factors, and imprecision is inherent. It's a rough estimate (and I did say "about .0005".) You're not revealing any hidden truths here, Socrates. You are revealing that you are, at best, a master of the obvious.

 
At 20 February, 2010 19:57, Anonymous paul w said...

"It is not an attempt to model all possible factors, and imprecision is inherent. It's a rough estimate (and I did say "about .0005".)"


Just modelled all the possible factors using the truther methodology of getting a smidgen of truth, adjusting it to my needs, and just making the rest of the shit up:

.0006135934

No need for thanks.

 
At 21 February, 2010 08:20, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

And no, I'm not twisting the meaning of "related." The larger point is that if you think a non-random model is applicable, there must be some identifiable factor that pushes the probability beyond what randomness would explain. Neither you nor Boris has provided one.

centrality

The reason I know about this stuff is because I dived into it some years ago. I'm somewhat fascinated by it. I don't claim to know everything about it, but the likelihood of "coming across" a name depends on these things. I'm not necessarily hell bent on proving Boris right either, just pointing out that you can abuse statistics. Now that is stating the obvious.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home