Mars and the Bomb

[Decker]

As Chris O'Brien just pointed out, Fox News picked up Dr. John Brandenburg's hypothesis that a rather (and I do mean rather) large nuclear device exploded on Mars quite some time ago. In a story carried on Fox News Was There a Natural Nuclear Blast on Mars? - FoxNews.com Brandenburg received some criticism from a Dr. Lars Borg and will respond to it on Dark Matters Radio on Monday April 4th. Hope to see you there.

Decker

 

[jpw.in.wi]

ABrandenburg received some criticism from a Dr. Lars Borg and will respond to it on Dark Matters Radio on Monday April 4th.

Excellent! His last visit to the Paracast was a real 2x4-to-the-head for me! You could feel a sort of momentum in this whole story as that program unfolded, and now FOX has picked it up for a mainstream audience. It will be exciting to see what sort of political/cultural shifts this might force. He needs to be testifying on Capitol Hill! Can't wait to hear him speak again Monday! Thanks for providing him with the opportunity!

Also, I've been downloading a bunch of DM programs over this last week, finally trying to get caught up on what you've been doing for so long now, and I've got to tell you your broadcast of the interview you did with Michael Ruppert was another one that spun me around and made me see stars! I could have listened all day!!! DM and the Paracast: what a sensational combination of powers in the fight to cut through the crap and bring truth to light! Thanks so much!

 

[Decker]

As an aside, on this episode of DMR there will be a very large announcement concerning an attempt by the Obama White House to suppress some upcoming news concerning proof of the discovery that there was life on Mars. In an upcoming issue of the "Journal of Cosmology", according to Brandenburg, the White House put tremendous pressure on NASA to suppress some findings of one of their scientists, trying to get him to withdraw an article he sent to the Journal announcing his finding proof of life in a Mars remnant. Believe me when I say this episode is one you want to hear.

Decker

 

[Decker]

Wow. Journal of Cosmology!

From Wikipedia:

Journal of Cosmology is accused of promoting fringe viewpoints on astrobiology, astrophysics, and quantum physics. Skeptical blogger and biologist PZ Myers said of the journal "... it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth".
The journal's editor, Rudolph Schild, also published several papers on "Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects" (MECOs), a fringe alternative to black holes, in the journal.

On 11 March, in an open letter to the editors of Science and Nature, Schild proposed to establish a commission to investigate the validity of the Hoover paper, which would be led by three experts appointed by Journal of Cosmology, Science and Nature.[14] The journal said it would interpret "any refusal to cooperate, no matter what the excuse" from Nature or Science as "vindication for the Journal of Cosmology and the Hoover paper, and an acknowledgment that the editorial policies of the Journal of Cosmology are beyond reproach".

Thank God we have Lance Moody to save us from publications that have been accused of promoting fringe viewpoints.

Tell ya what there Lance ol' buddy, why don't you simply listen to the broadcast first before you start shooting from the lip? You know Lance, if somebody who didn't know ya read something like this, they might get the opinion you are a generally unlikeable fellow, you know .. kind of sour like ol' owl shit or sumpin. Chill Dude, and if you object to my show or my little ol' site here, feel free to not frequent it.

Decker

 

[exo_doc]

Hey Don! Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to listen, sounds like an interesting and mind blowing show!

exo

 

[Decker]

It's nice to know that if I used the same kind of adjectives to describe you, I might find that spirit of free speech is not really much of a two way street.

But you may be right about that, Don and I know how warmly you always greet any opinion that wavers from the paranormal crackpot science one.

I'm sure you must be busy trying to get the counterpoint of Lars Borg also on the show?

Lance

Okay Lance, you found me on a really bad day. I am giving you this warning ... if you object to something you heard on DMR or read, fine .. give it your best shot. But, the next time you come in here swinging cause you think ... you know something ... then I will prove to you what a prick I am. I will bounce you.

And by the way, I will bet had you been around when Copernicus or Galileo were having their spat with the Church, you would have been leading the way to their house while carrying your torch, right?

You have been warned.

Decker

 

[Decker]

I am not sure what this means, Don.

I will spell it out for you, you show appallingly bad manners. You come across smug, smarmy and generally a pain in the ass. Everything is a negative with you. I hope that is clear enough for you. And I still think you would have led the mob to hang or burn Copernicus and Galileo at the stake.

Decker

 

[mike]

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. ~Noam Chomsky


If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

The test of democracy is freedom of criticism. ~David Ben-Gurion

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. ~Voltaire

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. ~John F. Kennedy

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Glad to see free speech but also respect and manners. Lance chill man.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Lance is just pointing out that the opinions of Brandenburg are bypassing the scientific method and going through a somewhat dubious "scientific journal." But then again, the reason is that the ones considered true journals are part of the cover up!
With regards to manners an what has been said in this thread, Lance was a lot more polite than Don, or do I think so because I'm Canadian. However, since Lance is a skeptic, a different set of rules applies.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Hey Angelo, Don is Vietnam Vet that's all I am saying is show respect and manners. Lance buddy I know you are skeptic which is cool man and maybe start up your own skeptic show.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Lance is just pointing out that the opinions of Brandenburg are bypassing the scientific method and going through a somewhat dubious "scientific journal." But then again, the reason is that the ones considered true journals are part of the cover up!
With regards to manners an what has been said in this thread, Lance was a lot more polite than Don, or do I think so because I'm Canadian. However, since Lance is a skeptic, a different set of rules applies.

Unfortunately for Lance, he has a history of writing inflammatory and uneccessarily smarmy posts. The one he posted in regards to Don's was yet another example. If he is going to do that then it is open season on him i'm afraid. I think Don's response to him was less about him being a skeptic and more about him purposely picking a fight.

However, since Lance is a skeptic, a different set of rules applies.

Is he a skeptic? He says he is yet he continually shows that he is more like a debunker in some of his posts. As far as i have seen people like Lance only get treated to the good old Ad Hominem when they are rude and bad mannered. Apparently Don thought he was.
You can still be skeptical without being rude. It just takes some forethought before posting. Lance, it seems, posts first and asks why later.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Phil, in a not at all smarmy post said:

Unfortunately for Lance, he has a history of writing inflammatory and uneccessarily smarmy posts. The one he posted in regards to Don's was yet another example. If he is going to do that then it is open season on him i'm afraid.

It's open season with the double standard that I can't respond in kind. Considering the modest abilities of the other side, I suppose that is a fair fight.
Notice how Don uses and Phil above endorses ad hominem attacks, something that I have been warned not to use by Ron and Chris.
Do you guys need me to tie my hands behind my back, too?
Lance

I am glad that you could see no smarm in my post. It was indeed a smarmless one, at that. In fact it was honest and, I believe, correct. At times you have worded your posts towards certain people, such as Christopher O'Brien and now Don, in a way that is designed to bait them. I'm sorry that you pretend to not see it.
Lately you have shown some restraint in your dealings with others and in different posts. Such as the WTC 7 thread. That was/is a reasonably entertaining and for the most part civil debate.
But please don't ask us to ignore the evidence that is right before our eyes!
You might not use outright ad hominem attacks but you use a condescending and provocative writing style in some threads which leads one to think they are designed to encourage conflict rather than civil debate.
Most people , here, are happy to debate and discuss things with you Lance. but when you frame your posts in a manner that is oviously inflammatory, you get the response that you want. It seems that you would really like to come out and attack people, ad hominem style, but you have been fettered in that regard. So you bait and inflame so as to create a situation that allows you to respond with your own ad hominems without censor from the mods. How am i doing so far?
As far as endorsing the ad hominem. If a person is trying to bait me into that kind of response, I will use it without fear or favor. If their debate with me is civil and intelligent, so will my responses be. I'm sure Don, Christopher and others who have had dealings with you could say the same.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I love that you see that post as rude, baiting, and deserving an open season of ad hominem.

The trouble is Lance that if your remarks regarding Brandenburg were just confined to that one post and this thread, then it would appear somewhat inoffensive. But when one travels over to other brandenburg related threads one finds a rather different story.
This taken from a thread started by you Titled "Brandenburg":

"Dr. Brandenburg pontificated at will, thrilling us with his encyclopedic knowledge of history of known and unknown civilizations.
It was amusing to hear Brandenburg and the co-host relate the tale of Napoleon shooting off the nose of the Sphinx as one of the many "facts" dispensed in his dizzyingly undocumented style.
This "fact" has the unfortunate problem of not being true. It is a story that is often repeated by those who know nothing about the history of the Sphinx. Simply put, it never happened.
I am sure that the rest of his scholarship is top notch and we should all agree to change our world view on his say so.
Excelsior!
Lance"

On his quotes i believe you are quite correct. But it is the begining of a tirade against Brandenburg and our esteemed co-host and indeed the show in general.
It's clear to anyone who has been following the related threads regarding Dr Brandenburg especially the hosts and co-hosts that have presented him that you have little or no regard for the good Doctor. Now that on its own is no problem. You are entitled to your opinion of him as is anyone else. Later in that thread you seem to turn your attention to baiting Chris O'Brien:

"I thought he (Brandenburg) was horrible last time and this time he was atrocious but the co-host (Chris O'Brien) seemed quite eager to have back on to talk about his other new new book. This is where the Paracast is headed unfortunately."

Then there was this classic put down of the Paracast in general:

"Hey as long as everyone agrees that most of the ideas discussed on the Paracast are totally entertaining bullshit, I am cool with that.
I think that is what I have been saying for a long time (except the entertaining part).
I always found it entertaining to think that people's critical thinking skills were so low that they actually believed the stuff the guests were selling. I had no idea that everyone has been laughing at the guests all along."

To be fair you weren't the only one to bag Dr Brandenburg. And once again you are entitled to your opinion.

And take a look at my first post in this thread and tell me about the rage you felt due to my abject rudeness.

Personally I dismiss your rudeness as a quaint idiosyncrasy.
So by the time we get to your "innoffensive first post which, lets face it, could have been written by you as it fits your perceived biases and opinions of the paranormal :

Wow. Journal of Cosmology!
From Wikipedia:
Journal of Cosmology is accused of promoting fringe viewpoints on astrobiology, astrophysics, and quantum physics. Skeptical blogger and biologist PZ Myers said of the journal "... it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics obsessed with the idea of Hoyle and Wickramasinghe that life originated in outer space and simply rained down on Earth".
The journal's editor, Rudolph Schild, also published several papers on "Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects" (MECOs), a fringe alternative to black holes, in the journal.
On 11 March, in an open letter to the editors of Science and Nature, Schild proposed to establish a commission to investigate the validity of the Hoover paper, which would be led by three experts appointed by Journal of Cosmology, Science and Nature.[14] The journal said it would interpret "any refusal to cooperate, no matter what the excuse" from Nature or Science as "vindication for the Journal of Cosmology and the Hoover paper, and an acknowledgment that the editorial policies of the Journal of Cosmology are beyond reproach".

It's no wonder that some here are ready to unleash a barrage of ad hominems. Your writing style seems to have a culmulative effect on people. It seems that Don and others may remember your vitriolic style from you previous remarks to them or their guests.

What amuses me is that you think that you can post back handed insults and purely provocative posts and then cry foul when someone tells you what THEY think of YOU when, in the case of Dr Brandenburg you haven't been backwards in coming forward when telling US exactly what YOU think of him. Like provokes like.
C'mon Lance admit it, you just love a good verbal stoush. If you hadn't been hobbled by the mods you would be out there ad homining your heart out every chance you got. Indeed some of those posts are bordering on that anyway.

I pity anyone so lacking in even a basic sense of fairness. But don't worry you fit right in here.

It seems that there is less fun when the rabbit's got the gun.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Hey Angelo, Don is Vietnam Vet that's all I am saying is show respect and manners. Lance buddy I know you are skeptic which is cool man and maybe start up your own skeptic show.

I never said I did not respect Don's service to his country. My comments were based solely on this thread.

 

[tyder001]

I do enjoy much of what Lance says. I don't agree with him on his worldview and he is absolutely not a skeptic. He is a true believer in his world view. I don't have a big problem with that. I don't expect Richard Dawkins to explain the comfort of faith in Christ or the wisom of the Buddha. I don't expect Pat Robertson to explain the age of the earth or the legacy of Ghadi or being Hindu. I do think Lance should tone it down when it comes to Chris and Don. In all honesty if I went to a skeptical forum and started calling a "host" of a show the "co-host" instead of using their name and being disrepectful I would expect to be booted. I have never had my faith or my worldview shaken by anybody on here. Skeptic or believer. But, then again I've had 54 years to develop my world view. On a final note I have to laugh at some of the "free speech" comments. I remember this dude that came on when Paul K. was a mod. He (not because he was right or wrong) kicked some ass emotionally when he dared to question Darwinism. He was called a creationist and the G.D.'s and M.F'ers flew. All of a sudden the "free thinkers" were yelling for LINK, LINK, LNK and then PAUL BAN THIS S.O.B. I had the audacity to mention free speech then and was told how stupid the guy was and how this was a forum and not a "right" to speak. To his credit Lance (if I remember correctly) did not call for a ban. He was yelling g.d. and m.fer to high heaven but he wasn't calling for a ban. Anyway, Humans.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

I do enjoy much of what Lance says. I don't agree with him on his worldview and he is absolutely not a skeptic. He is a true believer in his world view. I don't have a big problem with that. I don't expect Richard Dawkins to explain the comfort of faith in Christ or the wisom of the Buddha. I don't expect Pat Robertson to explain the age of the earth or the legacy of Ghadi or being Hindu. I do think Lance should tone it down when it comes to Chris and Don. In all honesty if I went to a skeptical forum and started calling a "host" of a show the "co-host" instead of using their name and being disrepectful I would expect to be booted. I have never had my faith or my worldview shaken by anybody on here. Skeptic or believer. But, then again I've had 54 years to develop my world view. On a final note I have to laugh at some of the "free speech" comments. I remember this dude that came on when Paul K. was a mod. He (not because he was right or wrong) kicked some ass emotionally when he dared to question Darwinism. He was called a creationist and the G.D.'s and M.F'ers flew. All of a sudden the "free thinkers" were yelling for LINK, LINK, LNK and then PAUL BAN THIS S.O.B. I had the audacity to mention free speech then and was told how stupid the guy was and how this was a forum and not a "right" to speak. To his credit Lance (if I remember correctly) did not call for a ban. He was yelling g.d. and m.fer to high heaven but he wasn't calling for a ban. Anyway, Humans.

Kudos to tyder0001 it your choice to have faith or not ,
Free speech comes from blood and tears. It can easily be taken away when people stop asking questions !
Angelo and Lance give Don a break

 

[tyder001]

That doesn't sound like me, do you have a link?

Or is asking for proof of something offensive to you?

I am major leauge offended. Isn't inuendo enough for you today? Anyway, I feel snarky and am not gonna go back for you. Serioulsy, I will have to look another time cause I'm a little tied up at work right now. That damn "false" pop up only works once on my supervisor. She is college educated ya know. But, I will try to go back later and find it if it's still up. But, you don't think cursing and getting angry and smarmy sounds like you? C'mon man! That could be any of us on a given day. 8)

 

[tyder001]

Just the cursing at someone part--I am not saying that I never have done it, I just don't remember it.

Everytime I think I'm out, they pull me back in. I will try to check later. If memory serves you didn't actually "curse" at the person. Others were doing that. You cursed in general. But, hell we all do that from time to time. I just remember all the Ban him Paul (not from you) from certain "free thinkers" out there. 8) I really gotta go this time.

Lata!
Steve. 8)

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Okay, this thread is turning into how much of an asshole Lance can be. I'm sure Don would appreciate it if we brought it back to the topic.

Speaking of the show, I really wish it was on iTunes... Hopefully that'll happen one day.