Freethought & Rationalism Archive

slept2long · 05-08-2003, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
No. Reread my post. I know your reading comprehension is better than that.

Cheers!

I did. There is no evidence of WMD IMO that's why the tip of the iceberg on evidence is nothing to me. There is no evidence. I think he was non-chalant because he realized he was sent to the UN with nothing to really support any effort there for a war. What was he gonna do scold the UK and risk there support? We needed another big player to do this.

slept2long · 05-08-2003, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
We don't really need all the "bullshit"'s.

OK. I'll lay off the "bullshit"'s.

slept2long · 05-08-2003, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde

Yes they have: right here on this forum among other places: Koy says they were forged by the US/UK and I disputed that.

Cheers!

I stand corrected.

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-08-2003, 01:02 AM

Yes, he did dispute that and I have not responded to that....yet (partly because others had already responded to it more than adequately).

If he doesn't respond as ordered by me in my last post, however, I probably won't, since there would be no way for me to confirm who forged the documents. All we heard was that our intelligence had presented forged documents to Congress and the President and all his source stated (if memory serves) was that they did not seem to be forged by the US/UK (without subsequent evidence provided that would lead them to this conclusion; it could be out there, but it wasn't provided by his source) and that the documents were possibly forged for monetary gain (though how this was determined was likewise absent).

The Nigerian government has disavowed all knowledge of the documents.

Given the history of what the British and American (and to a lesser degree, the German) intelligence communities have been guilty of in regard to Iraq, however, it would not surprise me if we (or "they") did forge them. At the very least, it seems extremely odd to me that any intelligence agency (British, German or American) would purchase evidence and not verify it in any way before passing the information along to top secret, executive Intelligence committee meetings, Congress and to the President of the United States (let alone the UN indirectly); especially when that President is basing a war on its veracity, but, again, there's no way for us to know one way or the other.

The fact is they were a central lynchpin in the case for war, determined forged before the war and yet we went to war anyway, with Powell subsequently declaring, "If that information was inaccurate, fine," demonstrating, IMO, a repeated indifference--on at least Powell's behalf--for the veracity of the evidence a war was based upon.

One final warning to leonarde. Do not respond to this posting before proving your accusation that I "inserted" something into a quote from Meacham or I will carry out my threat.

leonarde · 05-08-2003, 05:56 AM

Partial post by slept2long:

Quote:

"There is scarcely any new information in the report published this week by the German Federal Intelligence Service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), on Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction. An almost identical report was published by the BND precisely a war[sic] ago."

So for two consecutive years the BND reported to its government that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program and was within 3 or 4 years of completion. The report covered chemical and biological weapons too but in the interests of brevity we can
omit that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It says it's the same report from a war ago!

(emphases above added by leonarde)

Dear slept2long,
You evidently don't know what "[sic]"means so I'll tell you: it means that the preceding word/expression is probably an error of some sort AND the quoter is POINTING IT OUT but giving the text as it originally appeared anyway. So I was indicating "a war ago" : made no sense in the context and was probably an error.
I later TWICE pointed out why (you'll have to go back and read that-------and if it comes to that you really need to reread everything I wrote on this thread: your comprehension of it is abysmal!)

Cheers!

leonarde · 05-08-2003, 06:05 AM

Partial post by Koy:

Quote:

One final warning to leonarde. Do not respond to this posting before proving your accusation that I "inserted" something into a quote from Meacham or I will carry out my threat

Koy, here as always, you seem to think that this and every thread is about you. It ain't. It was ORIGINALLY about Iraqi-alQaida link(s). While I have been trying to let the thread die its natural death (ie from exhaustion of the material) and while I did more than a little to hijack the thread into peripheral matters, it is your obsession with covering your derriere to conceal your howlers of the PAST which has REALLY taken this thread to new depths of personal invective and threats.

People who are interested in your passion for accuracy can go to
that 18 page Shroud of Turin thread (which I already posted a link to here) and judge for themselves. Early on that thread a certain Tercel let me, a then Infidels neophyte, know the "lowdown" on you. I wish I could say he was mistaken. Have a nice life!

Cheers!

leonarde · 05-08-2003, 07:02 AM

From one of Koy's very long posts:

Quote:

Several clots have the distinctive characteristics of either venous or arterial blood, as seen in the density, uniformity, or modality of coagulation (Rodante 1982)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you see where the attribution is? In the same place that Meacham put it.

DO YOU HAVE ANY CLUE ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO MAKE A STATEMENT AND THEN SUPPORT IT BY INCLUDING THE SOURCE IT WAS BASED UPON? ANY CLUE AT ALL?

Meacham is the one who is stating "Several clots have the distinctive characteristics of either venous or arterial blood, as seen in the density, uniformity, or modality of coagulation" and then supporting this by referencing the source from which he garnered this information.

No, no, no!!!!!! Over a year later and you STILL don't get it!!!
Meacham is REVIEWING what others have found (from about 1902 to 1983): he is covering NUMEROUS studies but the studies DON'T all agree, don't all cover the same exact ground etc. So how can Meacham ------or ANYONE doing such a literature review------- indicate who is claiming what???? There are TWO methods:

1) use a lot of footnotes. (ie a number or letter superscript with attendant note at bottom of page)

2) embed those footnotes at the end of each finding: (Rodante 1982). (and then list the studies in the bibliography by name/year

The preceding means that RODANTE in his 1982 study found : Several clots have the distinctive characteristics of either venous or arterial blood, as seen in the density, uniformity, or modality of coagulation[...]

Meacham is neither agreeing nor disagreeing with Rodante here; he is merely conveying Rodante's finding.

And there's a good reason for that: Meacham is an archaeologist;
Rodante was a medical doctor. Meacham, EVEN IF he had done such a study, would not be qualified to overrule Rodante.
And that is not his intent here: this is the literature review part of Meacham's work.

Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi · 05-08-2003, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Partial post by Koy:

Koy, here as always, you seem to think that this and every thread is about you. It ain't. It was ORIGINALLY about Iraqi-alQaida link(s). While I have been trying to let the thread die its natural death (ie from exhaustion of the material) and while I did more than a little to hijack the thread into peripheral matters, it is your obsession with covering your derriere to conceal your howlers of the PAST which has REALLY taken this thread to new depths of personal invective and threats.

People who are interested in your passion for accuracy can go to
that 18 page Shroud of Turin thread (which I already posted a link to here) and judge for themselves. Early on that thread a certain Tercel let me, a then Infidels neophyte, know the "lowdown" on you. I wish I could say he was mistaken. Have a nice life!

Cheers!

Wrong goddamned answer.

You accused me of deliberately inserting words into an actual quote from Meacham; of deliberately falsifying documentation! That is a very serious accusation. If this were a professional arena, I would sue your ass for libel. Consider yourself formally under board review.

Celsus · 05-08-2003, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Koyaanisqatsi
The Nigerian government has disavowed all knowledge of the documents.

Having been born in Niger, this is a pet peeve of mine: It's Nigerien (NEE-jher-ien). Nigerian refers to people from Nigeria. Don't mind me...

leonarde · 05-08-2003, 03:48 PM

Since Koy insists, absolutely insists, that I substantiate where he concocted a quotation from Meacham, I reluctantly oblige: on page 5 of the 18 page Shroud of Turin thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=5
He posts, among other times, at: March 21, 2002 03:22 PM. It is a long post but the relevant part is here:

Quote:

Last I checked, Golgotha was supposed to be in the desert. Jesus, streaming with blood from multiple head wounds (as Meacham called them "arterial...spike wounds"), [...]

Problem is, when you really LOOK at what Meacham wrote you realize that the 'quotation' is a composite of what RODANTE said and Meacham is merely relating to the reader in one part and OTHER sentences where Meacham uses the words "spike" and "wounds"; let's take a look at the former: (from Meacham's paper reviewing research on the Shroud:

Quote:

The pathology described thus far may well have characterized any number of crucifixion victims, since beating, scourging, carrying the crossbar, and nailing were common traits of a Roman execution. The lacerations about the upper bead and the wound in the side are unusual and thus crucial in the identification of the Shroud figure. The exact nature of these wounds, especially whether they were inflicted on a living body and whether they could have been faked, is highly significant. Around the upper scalp and extending to its vertex are at least 30 blood flows from spike punctures. These wounds exhibit the same realism as those of the hand and feet: the bleeding is highly characteristic of scalp wounds with the retraction of torn vessels, the blood meets obstructions as it flows and pools on the forehead and hair, and there appears to be swelling around the points of laceration (though Bucklin [personal communication, 1982] doubts that swelling can be discerned). Several clots have the distinctive characteristics of either venous or arterial blood, as seen in the density, uniformity, or modality of coagulation (Rodante 1982). One writer (Freeland, cited in Sox 1981) questions the highly visible nature of the wounds and clots, as if the Shroud man had been bald or the stains painted over the body image.[...]

(bold faced emphases by leonarde) Above from:
http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm

So:
1) the phrase "arterial... spike wounds" is not Meacham's, it's Koy's concoction.

2) the IDEA that the blood clots are of "either venous or arterial blood" is Rodante's (though Meacham isn't necessarily disagreeing with him). Meacham is PRESENTING the idea in this part of the paper.

3) using ellipsis to erase "either venous or" from the quotation
makes Koy's argument stronger but is dishonest or at least "inaccurate" and that's why I took him to task for being inaccurate and rather nonchalant about it (alternating with being superdefensive about it).

Cheers!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-08-2003, 01:02 AM	#164
Koyaanisqatsi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me. Posts: 6,508	Yes, he did dispute that and I have not responded to that....yet (partly because others had already responded to it more than adequately). If he doesn't respond as ordered by me in my last post, however, I probably won't, since there would be no way for me to confirm who forged the documents. All we heard was that our intelligence had presented forged documents to Congress and the President and all his source stated (if memory serves) was that they did not seem to be forged by the US/UK (without subsequent evidence provided that would lead them to this conclusion; it could be out there, but it wasn't provided by his source) and that the documents were possibly forged for monetary gain (though how this was determined was likewise absent). The Nigerian government has disavowed all knowledge of the documents. Given the history of what the British and American (and to a lesser degree, the German) intelligence communities have been guilty of in regard to Iraq, however, it would not surprise me if we (or "they") did forge them. At the very least, it seems extremely odd to me that any intelligence agency (British, German or American) would purchase evidence and not verify it in any way before passing the information along to top secret, executive Intelligence committee meetings, Congress and to the President of the United States (let alone the UN indirectly); especially when that President is basing a war on its veracity, but, again, there's no way for us to know one way or the other. The fact is they were a central lynchpin in the case for war, determined forged before the war and yet we went to war anyway, with Powell subsequently declaring, "If that information was inaccurate, fine," demonstrating, IMO, a repeated indifference--on at least Powell's behalf--for the veracity of the evidence a war was based upon. One final warning to leonarde. Do not respond to this posting before proving your accusation that I "inserted" something into a quote from Meacham or I will carry out my threat.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.