OT- Tony Stewart

[sdhusky]

One of the great tragedies of the Internet is the inherent propagation of this falsehood.

(this is not directed at Husky 25 in particular)

Well, he was right. His opinion is just as valuable as anyone else on the internet.

ie: worthless.

At least that's my opinion.

 

[Husky25]

Which is worth as much as yours, evidently.

 

[Strummer]

Re: science - I live for science. My first great love (outside of females, baseball, and cracker jacks). I don't think the moon landing science is particularly overwhelming on either side. I also don't think that the psychology is particularly slam dunk on either side. There are plenty of holes in the official story, to be sure, but there are holes in the conspiracy story, as well.

I'd really love to be able to put a few folks on a lie detector on this one.

Some quick examples of eyebrow raisers in the official story - the story goes that hundreds of pounds of rocks were brought back from the moon. Only rice sized grains have ever been allowed to be examined, however. It is well known that moon rocks ended up in Antarctica after meteorite collisions on the moon. Von Braughn went to Antarctica prior to the moon missions. If the rocks NASA claims are moon rocks are from the moon, then give a couple out to independent researchers to examine, and not just some rice sized samples - some boulders. NASA claims it lost the original moon video. Um. Really? The most important technological moment in the history of its existence, and historically extremely important, and they lost it? Come on. If you want people to believe what you are saying, then you can't "lose" the best evidence that would kill what the conspiracy guys are saying; it raises the reasonable conclusion that the video tape would have provided evidence of a hoax. There are others that are eyebrow raising as well.

The problem with the moon landings and 911 is that people have such a huge vested interest in the outcome. Most people are born and raised to not question their own government's motives and behavior. It's been that way since the Sumerians, I'd guess. People therefore look for evidence to support their preconceived notions. Religion is a typical example of this behavior. Many people in my parents generation, for example, would never even consider that the moon landings were faked. Won't even look at any purported evidence. Just fold arm and look away, and, really, consider you a bad American for even considering it. Same with 911. One senator wanted to make it a crime to question the official story as treasonous. So when that is your perspective, are you going to weigh all evidence that is put in front of you? Or just the evidence that supports your patriotic position.

Because patriotism really is just one form of religious zealotry.

The reference to Mythbusters is a good example of how people approach this. The one guy on Mythbusters has a HS diploma and the other has a degree in Russian Linguistics. So they are by no means experts in anything lunar. But they produce a TV show and conclude such and such and people looking to support their opinion cite to that as a work of authority.


We got from Tony Stewart to the Moon Landings to Monotheism.
Well done boys.

 

[intlzncster]

One of the great tragedies of the Internet is the inherent propagation of this falsehood.

(this is not directed at Husky 25 in particular)

This always the case. Problem is, with the proliferation of the internet, we are now all patently aware of humanity's collective stupidity.

 

[intlzncster]

Still reading and you got me to laugh. As usual, I get your point and mostly agree. But not converted.
The style seems intended to offend and I believe that most of us are doing the best we can with what we have.
I appreciate your responding.

Man, the current incarnation of Strummer is waaaaaay more tame than his original moniker on TOB.

 

[intlzncster]

I used to work with a guy (a Syracuse grad, no less) who thinks the moon landing was faked.

I've me a LOT of people who think this. Amazing. I saw a video of Neil Armstrong (maybe Buzz A?) punching out a guy who was over-the-top harassing him about this. It was funny.

 

[intlzncster]

I'm aware that this is a widely held belief. I happen to think that it's a stupid and indefensible belief. I was hoping that the fact that this guy managed to attain a degree from Syracuse while believing that we faked the moon landing would draw more of a response.

Quite frankly, I thought that would be par for the course.

 

[Strummer]

Man, the current incarnation of Strummer is waaaaaay more tame than his original moniker on TOB.

Man, this is so right.
I'm not 1/2 the butt orifice I used to be.
What the hell happened to me?

 

[Geno-ista]

With his rear wheels?

Exactly what happened is a result of speeding up on the turn- whether it was to scare him or tap him or try to throw a ton of sand in his face. It's a known fact he would fish tail the back end in that direction if he gunned it coming out of the turn.

 

[jleves]

Exactly what happened is a result of speeding up on the turn- whether it was to scare him or tap him or try to throw a ton of sand in his face. It's a known fact he would fish tail the back end in that direction if he gunned it coming out of the turn.

Considering there is about 1/10th of second of video involving the car fishtailing, I can offer an equally reasonable solution: The kid came running down the track (which you can clearly see), slipped on the pretty banked turn of dirt, slid under the tire and caused the car to lose grip and fish tail out.

I'm no fan of Stewart but there is no more evidence that Stewart did anything than there is the kid sliding under the tire. Give it a rest.

Stewart is no angel, but racers are a very tight nit group and there is not one of them that would intentionally harm another with a car. Maybe with fists in the garage, but not with a car on the track.

I'm not sure what your agenda is regarding Stewart, but this is the second time you've decided people can do whatever they want with a car on a dirt track and you're simply wrong.

 

[mauconnfan]

Man, this is so right.
I'm not 1/2 the butt orifice I used to be.
What the hell happened to me?

Wow scary...

 

[uconnfan68]

Re: science - I live for science. My first great love (outside of females, baseball, and cracker jacks). I don't think the moon landing science is particularly overwhelming on either side. I also don't think that the psychology is particularly slam dunk on either side. There are plenty of holes in the official story, to be sure, but there are holes in the conspiracy story, as well.

I'd really love to be able to put a few folks on a lie detector on this one.

Some quick examples of eyebrow raisers in the official story - the story goes that hundreds of pounds of rocks were brought back from the moon. Only rice sized grains have ever been allowed to be examined, however. It is well known that moon rocks ended up in Antarctica after meteorite collisions on the moon. Von Braughn went to Antarctica prior to the moon missions. If the rocks NASA claims are moon rocks are from the moon, then give a couple out to independent researchers to examine, and not just some rice sized samples - some boulders. NASA claims it lost the original moon video. Um. Really? The most important technological moment in the history of its existence, and historically extremely important, and they lost it? Come on. If you want people to believe what you are saying, then you can't "lose" the best evidence that would kill what the conspiracy guys are saying; it raises the reasonable conclusion that the video tape would have provided evidence of a hoax. There are others that are eyebrow raising as well.

The problem with the moon landings and 911 is that people have such a huge vested interest in the outcome. Most people are born and raised to not question their own government's motives and behavior. It's been that way since the Sumerians, I'd guess. People therefore look for evidence to support their preconceived notions. Religion is a typical example of this behavior. Many people in my parents generation, for example, would never even consider that the moon landings were faked. Won't even look at any purported evidence. Just fold arm and look away, and, really, consider you a bad American for even considering it. Same with 911. One senator wanted to make it a crime to question the official story as treasonous. So when that is your perspective, are you going to weigh all evidence that is put in front of you? Or just the evidence that supports your patriotic position.

Because patriotism really is just one form of religious zealotry.

The reference to Mythbusters is a good example of how people approach this. The one guy on Mythbusters has a HS diploma and the other has a degree in Russian Linguistics. So they are by no means experts in anything lunar. But they produce a TV show and conclude such and such and people looking to support their opinion cite to that as a work of authority.


We got from Tony Stewart to the Moon Landings to Monotheism.
Well done boys.

I'm still waiting for Mythbusters to do the JFK assassination.

 

[David 76]

Wow scary...

I think this transition was a direct result of my awesome therapeutic skills!

 

[David 76]

Re Tony: yes, there is not conclusive evidence. But I don't know why most defenders keep responding like there has to be intent. Not true.

 

[Gurleyman]

Exactly what happened is a result of speeding up on the turn- whether it was to scare him or tap him or try to throw a ton of sand in his face. It's a known fact he would fish tail the back end in that direction if he gunned it coming out of the turn.

For cripe's sake, can't you stay on topic?

Oh wait...

 

[metsfan2323]

I'm still waiting for Mythbusters to do the JFK assassination.

They can't touch that one:

- First aimed shot misses the car, other two rushed shots are spot on
- every Parkland doctor reports massive head wound to back of head, that later disappears with autopsy photos
- first autopsy report is burned
- Oswald/assassination files locked away for 75 years
- 7 wounds from one bullet, two broken bones, bullet later found on gurney
- many reports of witnesses being threatened or having their statements altered
- a number of mysterious deaths


random fact that means nothing but is interesting:

Dan Rather is first reporter to see Zapruder film, goes on TV and reports that the head was thrown forward on impact of kill shot, Separately Bob Schieffer pick up Oswald's mother at her her house on day of assassination and brings her to the police station. Later one replaces the other as host of the nightly news. It means nothing but is just fascinating.

 

[Jimdish255]

Wait, they changed Article 125 of the New York Penal Code? Please send me the update, thanks

Depends on what you're charging him with. I would consider his past experience, knowledge of a racecar, previous incidents relevant when trying to establish whether he was aware of and consciously disregarded a specific risk such as gunning the motor on the turn of a slick track under caution passing a driver at an accident scene. Those facts would have to be established first. The average person may not appreciate the risk, my kid certainly wouldn't, but he would. 125.15 Yeah I looked it up since you were non-specific but maybe they changed that too.

I'd be shocked if anyone has the appetite to get to that point but please show me specifically where the statute disregards previous experience when assessing his awareness of risk. Throwing out a statute number means nothing to us non-experts.

 

[ZooCougar]

One of you evil geniuses need to find a way to get a Strummer and Spackler to argue with each other in a thread.

 

[Geno-ista]

Considering there is about 1/10th of second of video involving the car fishtailing, I can offer an equally reasonable solution: The kid came running down the track (which you can clearly see), slipped on the pretty banked turn of dirt, slid under the tire and caused the car to lose grip and fish tail out.

I'm no fan of Stewart but there is no more evidence that Stewart did anything than there is the kid sliding under the tire. Give it a rest.

Stewart is no angel, but racers are a very tight nit group and there is not one of them that would intentionally harm another with a car. Maybe with fists in the garage, but not with a car on the track.

I'm not sure what your agenda is regarding Stewart, but this is the second time you've decided people can do whatever they want with a car on a dirt track and you're simply wrong.

And they gun their engines under caution all the time on a turn. None of us will ever know for sure. I believe he wanted to send him a little message, and it went very bad. That's what I believe. No agenda.