Tuesday, March 2, 2010

Sometimes I Forget

Just how deceptive debunkers can be. So it's round two of mine and Pat Curley's inter-blog debate. Pat has basically dedicated an entire post to little old me, isn't that sweet! He still refuses to acknowledge my videos, but it's a start. His post essentially makes mountains out of slight molehills of craziness I may come across as having. By the way Pat, my name is SCOOTLE not SCOOTIE, and yes it is an alias.

Now I'm not going to bother responding to the teleportation stuff coz to be honest I probably should never have posted it, and continuing to talk about it would just be feeding the debunkers, so first up Haiti...

Pat quoting me:

"Most of the time however I stick to the facts. And one fact I learned, and have referenced a number of times, is that Southcom was, just by coincidence, preparing for a drill based on the scenario of a natural disaster in Haiti, the day before the earthquake ... Fact!"

Pat's response:

"Well, the link goes to some site called NextGov, which is apparently a site pushing up-to-date technology to the government. But if you read the article linked, it's no where near as specific as he indicates.

Hurricane, earthquake, what's the difference? They were preparing for a drill involving Haiti and the real thing happened? What are the odds? It must have been an inside job; if only they hadn't spilled the beans to the NextGov website!"

Note how he twists my words. Did I say it was an earthquake drill? No I said "a drill based on the scenario of a natural disaster". So I don't know why he said "it's no where near as specific as he indicates". The day before 9/11, FEMA was in New York preparing for a bioterror drill, and then when the attacks happened it was like "well, good thing we had everything in place", that's how these things are carried out. And indeed, what are the odds, Pat? Have you calculated them? What if you did and they turned out to be a billion to one? Would you suspect anything then? Probably not, since even if you were to assign each of the three hundred plus coincidences and anomalies surrounding 9/11 a rather modest one in ten probability, the probability of them ALL being "just a coincidence" would be one in ten to the power of three hundred - one followed by three hundred zeros! - yet you don't find that suspicious. Next up, the red chips ...

Pat quoting me:

"As I said, they blew up skyscrapers with nanotechnology back in 2001. Another fact! You debunkers can deny it all you want but the fact is basic chemistry proves that the red material is thermitic. This stuff ignites when heated to 400-450°C and after ignition we find molten iron. Since iron doesn't melt until 1500°C, this ignition temperature of 400-450°C couldn't possibly melt iron."

Pat's response:

"Okay, can somebody see the problem here? Scootie claims they found thermitic material that does not get the temperature high enough to melt steel. Therefore, they must have melted the steel with something else! The mind boggles."

I have no idea what he's on about here. I think he's saying that I'm claiming that the thermite burns at 400-450°C. Notice how he did not even include in his quote what I went on to say ...

"So the fact that we find molten iron is proof that some kind of chemical reaction has occurred."

What I was actually saying was, 400-450°C is the temperature that TRIGGERS the reaction. Obviously it burns much hotter, that's the point. We find molten iron afterwards, so heat energy must have been released during the reaction. 400-450°C goes in, 1500+°C comes out! The DSC traces prove that a lot of heat energy is released...

If Pat had actually read and understood the paper, he would know that! The sharp, narrow peaks, by the way, prove that the reactions were very rapid (ie. they exploded!).

And finally, Bill Gates' depopulation quote ...

Pat writes:

"Scootie interprets that to mean that vaccines will kill off a billion or so. Of course, if he had half a brain cell, he'd understand that what they are talking about is reducing the rate of population growth, not killing off a bunch of people."

First of all that wasn't just my interpretation, numerous others have interpreted it that way. Second, I did realise the ambiguity in his statement shortly after posting it and have already dealt with that in an edit:

"Some have suggested that "10 or 15 percent" probably meant of 9 billion, not 6.8 billion. And he was probably referring to limiting the population GROWTH by 10-15%, not reducing the CURRENT population by 10-15%. So instead of going up to 9 billion, it will only go up to about 7 billion. The point still stands though. Regardless of whether he's referring to reducing the current population or limiting population growth, he said vaccines and health care will play a role in it. That's the issue here."

To his credit Pat does propose a somewhat plausible "move along, nothing to see here" explanation for Bill Gates' statement. He basically says Gates could have been referring to things like contraceptives, which is also what my friends suggested when I posted the video on Facebook. Of course this assumes that Bill Gates is not part of the phony environmentalist conspiracy and that vaccines are good, in both cases there is evidence to the contrary. And I still don't understand the logic of "In the third world, parents have lots of children ... [because] ... many babies do not survive." and "If more babies survive due to vaccines, then parents do not have the need to have as many children". So the population is high because lots of babies die?! And reducing the number of deaths will decrease population?! ... Makes perfect sense!

I didn't interpret Bill Gates' statement as an admission like other people have - "see Bill Gates admitted vaccines are bad" - but rather I see it as another dot to connect. I already know vaccines are bad, that's Dot No. 1. I also know, from all the scandals, and from common sense, that man-made global warming is a fraud, that's Dot No. 2. And here's a multi-billionaire, who's associated with the likes of David Rockefeller (there's twenty more dots right there!), invoking the climate fraud and saying vaccines are going to be used for population control ... You connect the dots!