Very interesting article :)

[Razor]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/040406mainsuspect.htm

t. Col., USAF, ret. flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is the recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Society of Military Engineers Gold Medal (twice), six Air Medals, and dozens of other awards and honors. His Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. He chaired 8 major international conferences, and is one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security.

Bowman worked secretly for the US government on the Star Wars project and was the first to coin the very term in a 1977 secret memo. After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it.

Which would rule out him being a crack pot.

 

[15357]

Agent Orange got to his brain.

 

[B_MAN]

good for him
another person in a position of power that's willing to speak out

 

[Sulkdodds]

Hmmm.
Ominous. Although I'm not sure how being in Vietnam disrules him from being a crackpot.

 

[clarky003]

Interesting. Also this video lecture was given by Steven Jones, a university physics teacher http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

 

[Some_God]

Anyone else think that prisonplanet is the best source of non-biased information?

 

[Icarusintel]

Anyone else think that prisonplanet is the best source of non-biased information?

Yeah, it's about as good as Fox News

 

[15357]

Whats wrong with Fox News?



Although I haven't watched it in about 3 years....

 

[Glirk Dient]

Whats wrong with Fox News?



Although I haven't watched it in about 3 years....

That it is biased like CNN...or heck any news channel/source.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Indeed. News is best kept nuetral and learned on your own.

 

[Gray Fox]

That it is biased like CNN...or heck any news channel/source.

No, CNN cannot be possible compared to fox news. It may not be totally unbiased but it's no fox news.

 

[Glirk Dient]

No, CNN cannot be possible compared to fox news. It may not be totally unbiased but it's no fox news.

Are you kidding? Pull you head out of your butt and try to look at it from an unbiased source. I watch CNN and laugh. I have watched FOX and also laughed when I try to see how biased it is. They are pretty much polar opposites.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

"The government can't be trusted! This weird guy from the government told me so!"

After Bowman realized that the program was only ever intended to be used as an aggressive and not defensive tool, as part of a plan to initiate a nuclear war with the Soviets, he left the program and campaigned against it.

Which would rule out him being a crack pot.

So, he's notable for already making the nutzo claim that Reagan wanted to provoke a nuclear holocaust via his stupidly elaborate system of laser-firing satellites?
And this rules him out from being a crackpot?
I guess Reagan needed the Strategic Defense Initiative because otherwise it was just way too difficult to make the Russians uneasy during the Cold War.

That alone is utterly retarded. And if I need to explain why it is, I feel kinda sorry for you.


I bet you conspiracy guys would lick a hog if I got a pet psychiatrist to tell you it would somehow sadden George Bush.

All the credentials in the world are worthless without facts.

 

[dream431ca]

this keeps getting better and better.

 

[Razor]

"The government can't be trusted! This weird guy from the government told me so!"



So, he's notable for already making the nutzo claim that Reagan wanted to provoke a nuclear holocaust via his stupidly elaborate system of laser-firing satellites?
And this rules him out from being a crackpot?
I guess Reagan needed the Strategic Defense Initiative because otherwise it was just way too difficult to make the Russians uneasy during the Cold War.

That alone is utterly retarded. And if I need to explain why it is, I feel kinda sorry for you.


I bet you conspiracy guys would lick a hog if I got a pet psychiatrist to tell you it would somehow sadden George Bush.

All the credentials in the world are worthless without facts.

Reagan was a certified mad man and nutjob.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, the main symptom of early-stage Alzheimer's is "becoming genocidal".

Thanks for that, doctor.

Your wackey war vet isn't saying Reagan was crazy though. He is saying that the entire Reagan administration actively sought mutually-assured destruction.
Using only anecdotal evidence.

Please, convince me that this isn't another Bob Lazar.

 

[15357]

EDIT NVM lol

 

[CptStern]

Your wackey war vet isn't saying Reagan was crazy though. He is saying that the entire Reagan administration actively sought mutually-assured destruction.

yes:

"All of the other prophecies that had to be fulfilled before Armageddon have come to pass. In the thirty-eighth chapter of Ezekiel it says God will take the children of Israel from among the heathen when they'd been scattered and will gather them again in the promised land. That has finally come about after 2,000 years. For the first time ever, everything is in place for the battle of Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ." - Ronald Reagan


"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand."

- James Watt Secretary of the Interior Responsible for National Policy regarding the Environment under Reagan

 

[clarky003]

All I know is he would pwn all with his knowledge of advanced weaponry.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

yes:

No offense Sterno, but there is are key differences between the biblical end-times and a nuclear strike on cold-war Russia.

Basically, Reagan couldn't start the bible apocalypse because he'd be raptured up with everyone else, and the godless ruskies would burn in hell regardless.

He may very well have believed the end was near. Christians have thought that consistently for hundreds of years.

However, saying that belief was proof he wanted to start WW3 for no reason is more of this same conspiracy nonsmart where we assume things about people's character, and then force those assumptions onto notorious historical events.

 

[CptStern]

while not direct proof, it is evidence that he welcomed it ...plus it's a good way of illustrating to his/his admin's lunacy as well

 

[Mechagodzilla]

What I am concerned with is the events.

And, despite Reagan's biblery, there is honestly no indication that he was planning to attack the USSR, let alone that the Strategic Defense Initiative was built for that express purpose.
It's another 9/11 conspiracy-type claim.

Everyone knows George Bush isn't a very noble president.
Yet it takes a big-ass cognitive dissonance to call that evidence he planted bombs in the columbia space shuttle or whatever.

Again: if Reagan wanted a nuclear war, we would have had it two decades ago.

 

[clarky003]

Bowman is featured in this video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3714795250395473723&q=911&pl=true

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Do you get all you opinions from Google Video?

Have you considered actually reading the 9/11 Commission Report?

Or ANY book, for that matter?

 

[clarky003]

lol, I read loads of books, all of terry pratchett,, political books, chomsky etc, energy books, new energy books,although im not brilliant with the math Ive read a few books on standard quatum physics and particle physics, I read American scientist, New scientist, Im reading Richard Branson autobiography at the moment and I pretty much know the 3DS max bible inside out, Ive read some of the comission report aswell, but the more important question is why is alot missing, ie building 7 and its collapse, probably because its not relevant to the official conspiracey theory.

You seem to insist at making pot shots at the sources im using rather than talking about the subject matter, you realise that google just host the videos and the majority of content is origionally on the market or freeware DVD format.

Again the condescending attitude is not appreciated.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

So, you haven't read the 9/11 Commission Report.

It figures.

Listen Clarky, I haven't the time to refute every single video you throw at me. Each one is half an hour long.
I have fully refuted both versions of Loose Change and recently I posted a minute-by-minute description of every flaw in your video featuring an Electrical Engineer's guesswork.

In that last one, you completely ignored the post and kept falsely nattering on about how logical thought and peer-review aren't important parts of science.

If you can't suscinctly summarize the points made by these hours upon hours of low-quality videos, I'm going to have to assume that they have no point and that in most cases you haven't even watched them yourself.
Google Video is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument.
The laundry-list of logical fallacies you use every time you write something down exemplifies this.

In just the last two days, you have used the following fallacious arguments, or have posted videos that are based on the following fallacies:

IGNORING BURDEN OF PROOF
POST HOC ARGUMENTS
COMPLEX QUESTIONS
ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
QUOTE MINING
WISHFUL THINKING
FALSE ANALOGIES
WISDOM OF DISGUST FALLACIES
STRAW MEN
APPEALS TO AUTHORITY
ARGUMENTS FROM IGNORANCE
TRIVIAL OBEJCTIONS
ENTHYMEMES

And more.

Every time I point them out, you ignore what I say.

When I said you didn't understand Peer Review, you denied it - and then posted a google video of an electrical engineer and claims from a large number of websites that had similarly undergone NO FACT CHECKING WHATSOEVER.
The only conclusion I can make in the face of that is:
1) You reject scientific understanding in favor of elaborate pseudoscientific fantasies.
or
2) You do not understand the very fundamental elements of what science is.

When (repeatedly and consistently) I point out that you are dodging the BURDEN OF PROOF you just drop the topic and bring up another one like some sort of anti-intellectual Whack-A-Mole game.
Every time I knock down a fallacy, another pops up.
I have often had to knock down the same point repeatedly, because you apparently forgot that I refuted it the first time around.

Why can't you just admit that you are wrong?
Loose Change 1 was wrong.
Loose Change 2 was wrong.
The electrical engineer was wrong.
All the websites you posted were wrong.
The claim the towers fell in 10 seconds was wrong.
The claim that the steel couldn't weaken was wrong.
The claim that the pentagon was hit by a missile was wrong.
The claim that Steven E. Jones wasn't a nuclear physicist was wrong.
The claim that his essay had been peer-reviewed was wrong.
The claim that the towers could only be destroyed with thermite bombs was wrong.
The claim that the towers could only be destroyed with dynamite was wrong.
The claim that the core was airtight was wrong.
The claim that WTC7 demolished by the owner was wrong.
The claim that you had discovered three or more sources of perpetual motion were wrong.
The claim that the government had mystery evidence that could validate the above was wrong.
The claim that you understood peer review was wrong.
The claim that you had genuine footage of a UFO was wrong.

And that's just the ones I remember.

By "wrong" I mean that the claim is based on pseudoscience and/or logical fallacy.

Yet you have not once admitted to basing your ideas in faulty logic and bad science.

I personally consider you to be a terrible person in that way: a "Typhoid Mary" for fraud, ignorance and deciet.
However, I have been very kindly to have kept that opinion out of the way, and have consistently presented exact, easy-to-understand recounts of your many, many failures in the hopes that you would improve.

The least you could do is actually try to do so.