Nick Pope Show May 23 2010

[cottonzway]

No. Not because I disagree with him, even though I do. I said he's a liar - that's what makes him dangerous. He makes outlandish claims and has nothing to back it up and people buy into his lies.

Still doesn't make him dangerous IMO. I don't agree with much of the "Loose Change" documentaries to be honest, but that does not make it dangerous. He did make a documentary called "Fabled Enimies" that talked NOTHING about bombs or fake planes that I thought was really interesting. I would suggest it to you, but he's a dangerous liar so that's OK.

 

[Kieran]

Anyway we have gone of topic here Cotton. Well i have looked at both sides of the argument about 9/11 over the years and I certainly not a skeptic with other issues we have discussed here previously. I really don't see this as false-flag operation Cotton and i see no conclusive evidence were US agencies could've prevented these attack's either. But that is not to say i don't leave room to be wrong.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Still doesn't make him dangerous IMO. I don't agree with much of the "Loose Change" documentaries to be honest, but that does not make it dangerous. He did make a documentary called "Fabled Enimies" that talked NOTHING about bombs or fake planes that I thought was really interesting. I would suggest it to you, but he's a dangerous liar so that's OK.

It's fine. I guess I shouldn't say he's dangerous because that would mean that he'd actually be able to achieve something. Most people see right through his antics as a cry for attention. So you're right, he's not dangerous, he's just an idiot. I'd urge you to watch him debate the guys from Popular Mechanics - it was so funny to watch him get so frustrated by people that were able to easily refute his claims.

Back to the episode: I have to say, I can't understand why you would turn off this Paracast episode - it's great to hear guys like Nick Pope talk. Is it because he's more of a skeptic than a "believer?"

 

[cottonzway]

Anyway we have gone of topic here Cotton. Well i have looked at both sides of the argument about 9/11 over the years and I certainly not a skeptic with other issues we have discussed here previously. I really don't see this as false-flag operation Cotton and i see no conclusive evidence were US agencies could've prevented these attack's either. But that is not to say i don't leave room to be wrong.

We have gone off topic and it really wasn't my intention to be honest. I just wanted to address what Paul and Nick said. The discussions are civil at least so no harm.

I don't know about a "false flag" either. It's a very loaded term just as the "Inside job" term is as well. I just want an actual investigation done on this as it is important to me. This set up our current foreign policy now and changed a lot of domestic policies in America.

---------- Post added at 08:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 PM ----------

Back to the episode: I have to say, I can't understand why you would turn off this Paracast episode - it's great to hear guys like Nick Pope talk. Is it because he's more of a skeptic than a "believer?"

It had strickly to do with my previous comments. I'm pretty damn skeptical on much of this topic so no it had nothing to do with that. I've liked a lot of what Nick shared before.

 

[pixelsmith]

Back to the episode: I have to say, I can't understand why you would turn off this Paracast episode - it's great to hear guys like Nick Pope talk. Is it because he's more of a skeptic than a "believer?"

Nick was great. It was Paul that sucked big time.

---------- Post added at 09:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 PM ----------

Anyway we have gone of topic here Cotton. Well i have looked at both sides of the argument about 9/11 over the years and I certainly not a skeptic with other issues we have discussed here previously. I really don't see this as false-flag operation Cotton and i see no conclusive evidence were US agencies could've prevented these attack's either. But that is not to say i don't leave room to be wrong.

I do not feel think this thread has gone off topic at all. It was Paul who brought up 9/11 on this episode of The Paracast. That makes it very much ON TOPIC. If Paul had in fact read the 9/11 Commission Report and events leading up to and including picking the members of the commission, he would know it was a joke and a stacked deck from the beginning.

 

[pixelsmith]

After reading what Nick said on his website about his research into the events on 9/11 I will have to admit I was wrong about him in regards to certain topics.

I am surprised that anyone would admit that reading PM, The 9/11 cOmission Report and material on the State Department website would satisfy their search for truth. Nick is now in my grey basket... along with Paul.

Paul and Nick should be ashamed for injecting their twisted view of an actual conspiracy into an otherwise great episode of The Paracast.

I think I just vomited in my mouth a little more...

I have been here as a member since day one. I believe Gene is the only one left here that has been here longer than myself. In regards to this podcast, the only time I heard more BS was from ... Well... That isn't something that I can discuss.

 

[cottonzway]

I checked out Nick's page and yes I disagree with him on much of that. That's fine though. You are right though, Pixel, as they did bring it up in the episode so I don't feel as bad now reconsidering that fact.

Side note......

http://www.news1130.com/news/nation...rnment-monitoring-online-chats-about-politics

Hmmmm....

 

[Angel of Ioren]

What exactly was so bad about what they said? That they agree with the official report on what happened that day? It's sad that you guys have to find a cover up conspiracy in everything. Stop trying to find alternate explanations into something that has been explained in a plausible way.

 

[cottonzway]

What exactly was so bad about what they said? That they agree with the official report on what happened that day? It's sad that you guys have to find a cover up conspiracy in everything. Stop trying to find alternate explanations into something that has been explained in a plausible way.

I've already said what my primary beef was in the implication of anti-semitism being so rampent with those who speak out against globalizaztion (i.e. "New World Order or "International Bankers).

The irony of someone on a UFO website telling me to stop looking for alternate explanations is almost too rich. Plausible? Not to me and not to a lot of other people as well.

 

[pixelsmith]

I've already said what my primary beef was in the implication of anti-semitism being so rampent with those who speak out against globalizaztion (i.e. "New World Order or "International Bankers).

The irony of someone on a UFO website telling me to stop looking for alternate explanations is almost too rich. Plausible? Not to me and not to a lot of other people as well.

Irony barely covers it. Pathetic comes to mind.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I've already said what my primary beef was in the implication of anti-semitism being so rampent with those who speak out against globalizaztion (i.e. "New World Order or "International Bankers).

The irony of someone on a UFO website telling me to stop looking for alternate explanations is almost too rich. Plausible? Not to me and not to a lot of other people as well.

What's the irony in accepting something that has been clearly outlined and explained? Just because this is a paranormal site doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to be a skeptic, or even what some of you might call a debunker. In the same way I listen to this podcast, I also listen to (and am a big fan of) Skepticality, For Good Reason, and The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. That's why I like the Paracast forums, not everyone is like-minded, but it's well managed so that the conversations don't normally devolve into a flame war.
As for the UFO thing, I'm in Nick's camp for the most part. I don't like someone being crapped on just because he's skeptical about tin-foil hat NWO and 9/11 theories. I think he and Paul made it quite clear where they stand and they backed it up.

---------- Post added at 08:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 AM ----------

Irony barely covers it. Pathetic comes to mind.

I spoke too soon. Thanks for the insult. There really is no need for that, is there?

 

[Paul Kimball]

Let's keep it civil, folks.

 

[cottonzway]

What's the irony in accepting something that has been clearly outlined and explained? Just because this is a paranormal site doesn't mean that I'm not allowed to be a skeptic, or even what some of you might call a debunker. In the same way I listen to this podcast, I also listen to (and am a big fan of) Skepticality, For Good Reason, and The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe. That's why I like the Paracast forums, not everyone is like-minded, but it's well managed so that the conversations don't normally devolve into a flame war.
As for the UFO thing, I'm in Nick's camp for the most part. I don't like someone being crapped on just because he's skeptical about tin-foil hat NWO and 9/11 theories. I think he and Paul made it quite clear where they stand and they backed it up.

*adjusts tin-foil hat*

It's not clearly outlined or explained or we would not be having this discussion. That's fine, you are a debunker, I get it. Just don't be so filled with hubris that you think you KNOW how everything works. Clearly you are projecting this on these topics. I don't know how everything works, but I do know that I don't go into looking at topics with the mentality of a "debunker" or a "believer" prior to looking at a topic.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

*adjusts tin-foil hat*

It's not clearly outlined or explained or we would not be having this discussion. That's fine, you are a debunker, I get it. Just don't be so filled with hubris that you think you KNOW how everything works. Clearly you are projecting this on these topics. I don't know how everything works, but I do know that I don't go into looking at topics with the mentality of a "debunker" or a "believer" prior to looking at a topic.

I beg to differ. It is clearly outlined and defined, and it's accepted as well, yet here we are. you're looking for alternate explanation to something that doesn't need one.
I wish I was the one doing the debunking of these conspiracy theories, but they've already been debunked by actual experts. I didn't say I KNOW anything - it's that there's a lot more evidence to support what Nick Pope said (remember, we're discussing this week's guest) than the theories that you support. Obviously, you're not going to come around to my line of thinking, and that's fine. Also, let's not kid ourselves here; you have a definite opinion when it comes to this topic, otherwise you would not have stopped listening when they started discussing it. No one comes into a topic completely devoid of opinion.

 

[cottonzway]

I beg to differ. It is clearly outlined and defined, and it's accepted as well, yet here we are. you're looking for alternate explanation to something that doesn't need one.
I wish I was the one doing the debunking of these conspiracy theories, but they've already been debunked by actual experts. I didn't say I KNOW anything - it's that there's a lot more evidence to support what Nick Pope said (remember, we're discussing this week's guest) than the theories that you support. Obviously, you're not going to come around to my line of thinking, and that's fine. Also, let's not kid ourselves here; you have a definite opinion when it comes to this topic, otherwise you would not have stopped listening when they started discussing it. No one comes into a topic completely devoid of opinion.

You have literally no clue what my views are and why I am bringing them up. What "experts" have debunked what Robert Wright and Anthony Shaffer had to say? You are stuck in this false reality where you think we are having a debate about bombs in the building on 9/11. Have you not been following what I have been saying at all? How can it be defined if you don't even know what you are actually replying to?

 

[Angel of Ioren]

You have literally no clue what my views are and why I am bringing them up. What "experts" have debunked what Robert Wright and Anthony Shaffer had to say? You are stuck in this false reality where you think we are having a debate about bombs in the building on 9/11. Have you not been following what I have been saying at all? How can it be defined if you don't even know what you are actually replying to?

You can go to this link: Able Danger -Debunk 9/11 Myths - but you'll just say that they're a bunch of debunkers, it's even in their URL!!!!
There's no way we'll agree on this, so let's just stick to discussing the episode.

I liked Paul's off topic questions to Nick at the end of the show - that was a lot of fun.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I liked Paul's off topic questions to Nick at the end of the show - that was a lot of fun.

It reminds me of something that James Lipton does on his "Inside the Actors' Studio" TV show. Maybe we'll do more of that in the future.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

It reminds me of something that James Lipton does on his "Inside the Actors' Studio" TV show. Maybe we'll do more of that in the future.

It provides a nice insight on the guest. Although it may not be appropriate with all guests. Nick seemed to actually be having fun during the interview, so that helped.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It provides a nice insight on the guest. Although it may not be appropriate with all guests. Nick seemed to actually be having fun during the interview, so that helped.

Yes, it's a possibility on a case-by-case basis. Someone with a long history in the paranormal field, with a major public presence, would be an ideal candidate.

I'd love to see Paul do this with his Uncle, Stanton Friedman.

 

[cottonzway]

You can go to this link: Able Danger -Debunk 9/11 Myths - but you'll just say that they're a bunch of debunkers, it's even in their URL!!!!
There's no way we'll agree on this, so let's just stick to discussing the episode.

I liked Paul's off topic questions to Nick at the end of the show - that was a lot of fun.

Ah, that site.

Could you tell me who owns/funds that website?