I agree that folks should see http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html
a lot of boring doubletalk where Salter passes off STILL ANOTHER CARTOON as being "real." http://thewebfairy.com/911/saltergate -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Mark Bilk - please answer the question. Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:03:05 +1100 From: Gerard Holmgren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mark Bilk writes [[The Naudet video of the plane hitting the north tower is entirely consistent with an aircraft the size and shape of a 767, recorded under conditions of low resolution, poor focus, interlacing, and subsequent MPEG compression. ]] Mark, will you please answer the question ? Below I will repeat the question, in order to show people how Mark tried to doge it. "Entirely consistent" is not a phrase one normally uses when one can clearly identify an object from it's visual appearance alone. "Look at that beautiful thing which is entirely consistent with a red rose in full bloom ! " "Entirely consistent" is a phrase we use when we are not sure what we are seeing and speculating on what it might be. This strongly implies that Mark is using argument b as defined below in order to come to the conclusion that it's a large passenger jet. But he's failed to state it directly. Because I don’t want to be accused later of misrepresenting his position, it would be common courtesy to the readers for Mark to clearly an unequivocally state which argument he is using, so that an informed debate can proceed. We can’t very well argue if we are not prepared to say what out argument is. If Mark wants to use argument b) as defined below, that's fine. I'm sure he'll present plenty of substance in the course of such an argument. But I would like a clear confirmation that this is indeed the argument he is using. Here is the original question I posed, which Mark failed to answer. 1) The video of the object quite clearly shows from visual observation alone that it is a large passenger jet. Argument becomes superfluous because it is a matter of direct sensory observation, much as distinguishing an image of a horse from that of an elephant, and if someone else sees the image differently, there is no rational process by which the difference of opinion can be resolved. Is this Bilk' argument ? If so, perhaps he can explain why he has spent so much time on explaining why the object does not look like a large passenger jet ? Resolution, pixels etc. Ultimately it either looks one or it doesn't. 2) Direct observation of the object is inconclusive. It is unclear, indistinct, not identifiable from its appearance. Thus direct visual observation neither confirms nor rebuts the assertion that it is a large passenger jet. The object could be plausibly speculated to be any number of objects, known or unknown. Thus, in order to reach the conclusion that it is a large passenger jet, one has turned to evidence of an ancillary nature � eg forensic, witness, documentation, and in that ancillary evidence has found strong indications that the object was a large passenger jet. Since the visual data, although not confirming such an identification does not actually contradict it, one is therefore concluding that it' a large passenger jet on grounds other than the visual appearance of the object. Is this Bilk's argument ? Either argument may well be valid, subject to testing through the debate process, but one cannot simultaneously argue both positions. One cannot simultaneously argue poor video resolution as a reason for it not being visually identifiable as a large jet, while at the same time claiming that it is visually identifiable as a large jet. One or the other. So if Bilk will specify for us which argument he subscribes to, then a debate can proceed. The Naudet video of the plane hitting the north tower is entirely consistent with an aircraft the size and shape of a 767, recorded under conditions of low resolution, poor focus, interlacing, and subsequent MPEG compression. Also, the hole made in the building is a very good match for such a plane. But the video resolution is far too low to show whether it was a passenger version with windows or not. Hopefully in the next month or so I'll have time to publish refutations of various claims of "no WTC planes" made by the Webfairy-Holmgren-Haupt group. At the moment I have some other things I need to take care of. In the meantime I recommend reading Eric Salter's very informative article on the subject: http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html It would also be instructive for readers to analyze Holmgren's post below to identify the logical fallacies and propaganda techniques used in it. Mark On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:40:50AM -0600, Webfairy wrote: >Since Mark Bilk recently joined this group, perhaps he will respond here? > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Will Bilk answer the question which so terrified >Salter ? >Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:59:20 +1100 >From: Gerard Holmgren >To: 'The Webfairy' >Mark Bilk has made it clear that he believes that a large >passenger jet hit the Nth tower of the WTC. >I think we can all agree that the simple stating of an >opinion is not the same as constructing an argument for >that opinion. >I think we can also agree that if the validity of an >opinion is to be tested and debated, then all parties must >be made aware of exactly what argument is being employed >in order to reach the opinion which is the subject of the >debate. >I think we can also agree that there is a video which >shows the object under discussion in flight towards the >WTC. > From this point of agreement, the possibilities diverge. >There are two quite different arguments which Bilk could >use in support of his opinion. Because I am not clear >which of these arguments he chooses to use, I would like >him to clarify that for us, so that we know what we are >arguing about. >Here are the possible arguments which one might develop in >order to sustain the opinion that a large jet hit the Nth >tower. >(If anyone thinks of any potential argument which I >overlooked, then please let us know ) >1) The video of the object quite clearly shows from visual >observation alone that it is a large passenger jet. >Argument becomes superfluous because it is a matter of >direct sensory observation, much as distinguishing an >image of a horse from that of an elephant, and if someone >else sees the image differently, there is no rational >process by which the difference of opinion can be >resolved. >Is this Bilk' argument ? If so, perhaps he can explain why >he has spent so much time on explaining why the object >does not look like a large passenger jet ? Resolution, >pixels etc. Ultimately it either looks one or it doesn't. >2) Direct observation of the object is inconclusive. It is >unclear, indistinct, not identifiable from its appearance. >Thus direct visual observation neither confirms nor rebuts >the assertion that it is a large passenger jet. The object >could be plausibly speculated to be any number of objects, >known or unknown. Thus, in order to reach the conclusion >that it is a large passenger jet, one has turned to >evidence of an ancillary nature -- eg forensic, witness, >documentation, and in that ancillary evidence has found >strong indications that the object was a large passenger >jet. Since the visual data, although not confirming such >an identification does not actually contradict it, one is >therefore concluding that it' a large passenger jet on >grounds other than the visual appearance of the object. >Is this Bilk's argument ? >Either argument may well be valid, subject to testing >through the debate process, but one cannot simultaneously >argue both positions. > >One cannot simultaneously argue poor video resolution as a >reason for it not being visually identifiable as a large >jet, while at the same time claiming that it is visually >identifiable as a large jet. >One or the other. >So if Bilk will specify for us which argument he >subscribes to, then a debate can proceed. >Eric and Brian Salter and Jim Hoffman, when pressed on >this question all refused to identify their argument in >the debate linked here >http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/salter.html ><http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/salter.html> > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [WTC CONSPIRACY] [Fwd: Will Bilk answer the question > which so terrified Salter ? > Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 10:06:52 -0800 > From: Mark S Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > The Naudet video of the plane hitting the north tower is entirely > consistent with an aircraft the size and shape of a 767, recorded > under conditions of low resolution, poor focus, interlacing, and > subsequent MPEG compression. Also, the hole made in the building is a > very good match for such a plane. But the video resolution is far too > low to show whether it was a passenger version with windows or not. > Hopefully in the next month or so I'll have time to publish > refutations of various claims of "no WTC planes" made by the > Webfairy-Holmgren-Haupt group. At the moment I have some other things > I need to take care of. In the meantime I recommend reading Eric > Salter's very informative article on the subject: > http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html It would also be > instructive for readers to analyze Holmgren's post below to identify > the logical fallacies and propaganda techniques used in it. Mark On > Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 10:40:50AM -0600, Webfairy wrote: >Since Mark > Bilk recently joined this group, perhaps he will respond here? > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: Will Bilk answer the > question which so terrified >Salter ? >Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:59:20 > +1100 >From: Gerard Holmgren >Mark Bilk has made it clear that he > believes that a large >passenger jet hit the Nth tower of the WTC. >I > think we can all agree that the simple stating of an >opinion is not > the same as constructing an argument for >that opinion. >I think we > can also agree that if the validity of an >opinion is to be tested and > debated, then all parties must >be made aware of exactly what argument > is being employed >in order to reach the opinion which is the subject > of the >debate. >I think we can also agree that there is a video which > >shows the object under discussion in flight towards the >WTC. > From > this point of agreement, the possibilities diverge. >There are two > quite different arguments which Bilk could >use in support of his > opinion. Because I am not clear >which of these arguments he chooses > to use, I would like >him to clarify that for us, so that we know what > we are >arguing about. >Here are the possible arguments which one > might develop in >order to sustain the opinion that a large jet hit > the Nth >tower. >(If anyone thinks of any potential argument which I > >overlooked, then please let us know ) >1) The video of the object > quite clearly shows from visual >observation alone that it is a large > passenger jet. >Argument becomes superfluous because it is a matter of > >direct sensory observation, much as distinguishing an >image of a > horse from that of an elephant, and if someone >else sees the image > differently, there is no rational >process by which the difference of > opinion can be >resolved. >Is this Bilk' argument ? If so, perhaps he > can explain why >he has spent so much time on explaining why the > object >does not look like a large passenger jet ? Resolution, >pixels > etc. Ultimately it either looks one or it doesn't. >2) Direct > observation of the object is inconclusive. It is >unclear, indistinct, > not identifiable from its appearance. >Thus direct visual observation > neither confirms nor rebuts >the assertion that it is a large > passenger jet. The object >could be plausibly speculated to be any > number of objects, >known or unknown. Thus, in order to reach the > conclusion >that it is a large passenger jet, one has turned to > >evidence of an ancillary nature � eg forensic, witness, > >documentation, and in that ancillary evidence has found >strong > indications that the object was a large passenger >jet. Since the > visual data, although not confirming such >an identification does not > actually contradict it, one is >therefore concluding that it' a large > passenger jet on >grounds other than the visual appearance of the > object. >Is this Bilk's argument ? >Either argument may well be valid, > subject to testing >through the debate process, but one cannot > simultaneously >argue both positions. >One cannot simultaneously argue > poor video resolution as a >reason for it not being visually > identifiable as a large >jet, while at the same time claiming that it > is visually >identifiable as a large jet. >One or the other. >So if > Bilk will specify for us which argument he >subscribes to, then a > debate can proceed. >Eric and Brian Salter and Jim Hoffman, when > pressed on >this question all refused to identify their argument in > >the debate linked here > >http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/salter.html > <http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/salter.html> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> AIDS in India: A "lurking bomb." Click and help stop AIDS now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/X6CDDD/lzNLAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/ Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
