Indeed. Chandler complains that CIT may have been trying to "lead the witness" in the case of their interview with Lagasse. But this is a far more egregious example of the interview technique Chandler is complaining about. Here, Ranke is doing his very best to convince Lloyde that his car halted on the bridge -- Ranke is showing Lloyde a photograph, and arguing with him about the location.Lloyde did his best to explain to Craig Ranke and Christopher Taylor, where he was, but they just did not want to hear it.
Mulling this over, Chandler's case for discarding CIT's work is very weak. In all the cases we've looked at (Lagasse, Hemphill, England) the witness testimony appears to be very robust. In my preferred Bayesian framework, the possibility that Chandler is correct that all these testimonies have been flipped, might be a few percent?I guess I'm allowing at least some possibility that CIT's bias was important.
As a logical syllogism, I don't see how anyone could disagree. But conversely, if the government story about a 757 hitting the Pentagon is true, then it follows that Lloyde must have been mistaken about his location.If Lloyde's story is true, then the government story is a monstrous fabrication,.
There are articles at Truth and Shadows that take a frontal assault on this problem.I just watched Chapter 12 [of the Chandler / Coste video presentation], on the distribution of aircraft debris at the Pentagon. I hadn't seen some of the images and video footage before. At least superficially, this seems pretty convincing. There are images showing various fuselage parts, wing parts, landing gear, and engines. Not that all this couldn't be faked.
But it's easy to see how even a perfectly reasonable person (not in any way a troll or spook) would look at this and think it must be real.
I support that standard, that false arguments should never be used for any purpose. But there's a big gray area of arguments that might be true, or might not.False arguments should not be used to support the no-plane-hit-the-Pentagon theme.
I watched that section of the Mazzucco video and I don't see the error. I agreed with Mazzucco, that there was a section of overlapping frames showing identical smoke cloud shapes, indicating that the cameras were synchronized during those frames. If the exposures were different between the cameras, it doesn't change the fact that they were synchronized. And Mazzucco's conclusion seemed unavoidably correct to me, that frame 23 had been edited in one or both images.Also Massimo Mazzucco made an error in claiming that the two Gatecams were exactly synchronised except for a single frame.
Comparison of all the frames, which run for almost 3 and almost 4 minutes respectively, shows that there was a substantial difference between their exposures.
But the Chandler-Coste group says the same thing about us!"Many of us see evidence of a multi-threaded disinformation campaign waged for the purpose of muddying the waters about the Pentagon in order to create as much confusion as possible.
Problem is, I can't really claim to know anything for sure. I was never crazy enough to point the nose down into ground effect at full speed, so I'm only guessing about what would happen. And besides, I never flew anything bigger than a Cessna 172.Perhaps you should share them with David Chandler.
Are they really giving you a break? That thread has been going for two weeks and it's got 306 total replies! All in those miserable little Facebook comment boxes. And Simon Falkner is back.It's nice to have some respite from the fray.
As a student of human nature, I feel it's hard to overestimate the effects of misunderstanding and obstinacy... especially when there's an agenda involved!... more than misunderstanding and obstinacy, I feel.
This suggests an agenda.
Yes, I was trying to back you up, in that discussion on McKee's site. And I agree that your transcriptions are better than McKee's.Back then, you did back me up to McKee when I posted better transcriptions of what Lloyde said, than McKee did.