Psychic Christine Holohan on TV Fri29Sep

King Mob · 07-04-2010 1:09am

Chriskavo wrote: »

explain the free fall collapse of WTC7?

Prove that it fell at free fall speed.
Why do we have to explain something that simply didn't happen?

Chriskavo · 07-04-2010 10:32am

So we are to believe some guy in India and a vague article on New York Times lol.

Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet24 and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.25

Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes.26 (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.

Furthermore why was TED Olsens phone call rejected by the FBI?

KenfromDublin · 07-04-2010 12:46pm

Chriskavo wrote: »

So we are to believe some guy in India and a vague article on New York Times lol.

Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet24 and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.25

Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes.26 (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.

Furthermore why was TED Olsens phone call rejected by the FBI?

That's so true Chris, Ryanair are only now pioneering air to ground mobile technology, almost ten years after the fictional calls that we were led to believe took place in 2001, when the technology was non-existent, just like [...personal invective deleted....]

Chriskavo · 07-04-2010 12:54pm

King Mob wrote: »

Prove that it fell at free fall speed.
Why do we have to explain something that simply didn't happen?

So you disagree with NIST who also agree that building 7 collapsed at fere fall speed?

NIST Admits Free Fall: NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]. “Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.

robindch · 07-04-2010 1:27pm

KenfromDublin wrote: »

[...personal invective deleted....]

Ken is currently on a week's holiday from the forum.

King Mob · 07-04-2010 1:53pm

Chriskavo wrote: »

So we are to believe some guy in India and a vague article on New York Times lol.

No more than you expect me to believe this drivel you keep copy pasting.
I back up my claims with actual sources,you do not.

Chriskavo wrote: »

Given the cell phone technology available in 2001, cell phone calls from airliners at altitudes of more than a few thousand feet, especially calls lasting more than a few seconds, were virtually – and perhaps completely – impossible. And yet many of the reported cell phone calls occurred when the planes were above 25,000 or even 40,000 feet24 and also lasted a minute or more – with Amy Sweeney’s reported call even lasting for 12 minutes.25

Three problems have been pointed out: (1) The cell phone in those days had to complete a “handshake” with a cellsite on the ground, which took several seconds, so a cell phone in a high-speed plane would have had trouble staying connected to a cellsite long enough to complete a call. (2) The signals were sent out horizontally, from cellsite to cellsite, not vertically. Although there was some leakage upward, the system was not designed to activate cell phones at high altitudes.26 (3) Receiving a signal was made even more difficult by the insulation provided by the large mass of an airliner.

So I take it then you didn't read any of the links I posted?

All this stuff just makes a cellphone call hard, not impossible.

Chriskavo wrote: »

Furthermore why was TED Olsens phone call rejected by the FBI?

I don't know. You haven't even show that it was rejected.
How does this prove a conspiracy?

Chriskavo wrote: »

So you disagree with NIST who also agree that building 7 collapsed at fere fall speed?

NIST Admits Free Fall: NIST did acknowledge free fall in its final report. It tried to disguise it, but the admission is there on page 607. Dividing the building’s descent into three stages, it describes the second phase as “a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]. “Gravitational acceleration” is a synonym for free fall acceleration.

Wow, you're really stretching there.
You do know what an out of context quote is right?
And you know why they are dishonest to use?

Tell us what the other two stages where.

robindch · 07-04-2010 2:10pm

King Mob wrote: »

All this stuff just makes a cellphone call hard, not impossible.

Ten days back, I was in an A380 at 40k feet trundling slowly from Singapore back to Heathrow. Some klutz had left his mobile on and from time to time, one could hear the beep-beep as messages or GSM provider welcome notes drifted in.

40k feet is 12km, while GSM has a nominal maximum range of 35km and can be extended to much more than that by suitably configuring the base stations.

Chriskavo · 07-04-2010 2:47pm

King Mob wrote: »

No more than you expect me to believe this drivel you keep copy pasting.
I back up my claims with actual sources,you do not.

So I take it then you didn't read any of the links I posted?

All this stuff just makes a cellphone call hard, not impossible.

I don't know. You haven't even show that it was rejected.
How does this prove a conspiracy?

Wow, you're really stretching there.
You do know what an out of context quote is right?
And you know why they are dishonest to use?

Tell us what the other two stages where.

The New York Times article indicated that it might be possible on take off and descent when the plane is at low altitudes. Not 40,000 feet - impossible. As the scientist who conducted his experiment proved, but you have proven yourself adept at ignoring empirical evidence. You would rather accept the views of some Indian from the Hindu Times that no one has ever heard of and not the views of a well respected and established scientist contrary to your claims to being a scientific skeptic.I have posted you the link to the Massasoui trial and if you looked properly which I doubt you will get your answer there. You also deny NISTs own report where they admit building sevens free fall speed which is on page 607 of their report.

King Mob · 07-04-2010 3:04pm

Chriskavo wrote: »

The New York Times article indicated that it might be possible on take off and descent when the plane is at low altitudes. Not 40,000 feet - impossible.

Again you've shown nothing substantial to prove that it's impossible to make such calls, I have shown plenty to suggest it is possible.

Chriskavo wrote: »

As the scientist who conducted his experiment proved,

You mean the non-reviewed, non-replicated experiment published only on a conspiracy theorist website and performed by a guy biased towards a conspiracy theorist explanation?

Very loose definitions of proof and scientist would have to apply.

Chriskavo wrote: »

but you have proven yourself adept at ignoring empirical evidence.

Oh the irony...

Chriskavo wrote: »

You would rather accept the views of some Indian from the Hindu Times that no one has ever heard of and not the views of a well respected and established scientist contrary to your claims to being a scientific skeptic.

And yet you have no problem disagreeing with the respected and well established scientist who worked on the 9/11 reports.
Do you know what an argument from authority is?
And why it's dishonest to use one?

And what's so wrong about using the Hindu times as a source exactly?
What about the other sources?
Did you just look at the headlines and stop?

Chriskavo wrote: »

I have posted you the link to the Massasoui trial and if you looked properly which I doubt you will get your answer there.

No you didn't. And you certainly didn't show that they rejected the evidence.

And can you explain what this is?
http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_calls.pdf

And can you finally explain why this would prove a conspiracy?
Or are you going to start ignoring tough questions again?

Chriskavo wrote: »

You also deny NISTs own report where they admit building sevens free fall speed which is on page 607 of their report.

Ok let's ignore reality for a second. Lets say the this does show the tower was demolished, why the **** is it in the freely available report on why the tower collapsed?

Are you going to answer the original question?
What where the other two stages it refers too?

But I know well you're not going to answer that question, because if you did so truthfully it would negate your point. Because you are taking it out of context and you know that you are.

Chriskavo · 07-04-2010 6:19pm

King Mob wrote: »

Again you've shown nothing substantial to prove that it's impossible to make such calls, I have shown plenty to suggest it is possible.

You mean the non-reviewed, non-replicated experiment published only on a conspiracy theorist website and performed by a guy biased towards a conspiracy theorist explanation?

Very loose definitions of proof and scientist would have to apply.

Oh the irony...

And yet you have no problem disagreeing with the respected and well established scientist who worked on the 9/11 reports.
Do you know what an argument from authority is?
And why it's dishonest to use one?

When 6 out of the 10 commissioners say that they were lied to and that it was tantamount to a criminal cover up then of course I have a problem.

And what's so wrong about using the Hindu times as a source exactly?
What about the other sources?
Did you just look at the headlines and stop?

No you didn't. And you certainly didn't show that they rejected the evidence.

Her you are - www.zimbio.com/Ted+Olson/.../Flight+77+United+States+v+Zacarias+Moussaoui

And can you explain what this is?

http://www.911myths.com/images/7/78/FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_calls.pdf

Yup - a contrived manufactured piece of fiction used to back up the official conspiracy theory.

And can you finally explain why this would prove a conspiracy?
Or are you going to start ignoring tough questions again?

Ok let's ignore reality for a second. Lets say the this does show the tower was demolished, why the **** is it in the freely available report on why the tower collapsed?

It took NIST a long time to try and explain WTC & collapse - eventually through sustained pressure from various groups they came out with their report. And as you have seen in the quote which was not taken out of context and which is totally unambiguous - they admit free fall collapse. One of the many reasons why over a thousand scientists want to see 911 re-investigated.

Are you going to answer the original question?
What where the other two stages it refers too?

But I know well you're not going to answer that question, because if you did so truthfully it would negate your point. Because you are taking it out of context and you know that you are.

Not true, read the NIST report and stop trying to obfuscate matters.

Chriskavo · 07-04-2010 6:25pm

robindch wrote: »

Ten days back, I was in an A380 at 40k feet trundling slowly from Singapore back to Heathrow. Some klutz had left his mobile on and from time to time, one could hear the beep-beep as messages or GSM provider welcome notes drifted in.

40k feet is 12km, while GSM has a nominal maximum range of 35km and can be extended to much more than that by suitably configuring the base stations.

I am talking about 2001 not 10 days ago. :rolleyes:

King Mob · 07-04-2010 7:27pm

Chriskavo wrote: »

When 6 out of the 10 commissioners say that they were lied to and that it was tantamount to a criminal cover up then of course I have a problem.

That's not what they said and it's not what they meant. you are taking quotes out of context.
And you know well that's what you are doing.

Chriskavo wrote: »

Her you are - http://www.zimbio.com/Ted+Olson/.../...rias+Moussaoui

Link not working.

Chriskavo wrote: »

Yup - a contrived manufactured piece of fiction used to back up the official conspiracy theory.

And I bet you have tons of evidence to prove it's fabricated.

But seeing as you have no problem introducing baseless claims to dismiss evidence against you, no reason you can complain if I dismiss both the "experiments" and the supposed FBI rejections as manufactured pieces of fiction used to back up the paranoid conspiracy theory, right?

Chriskavo wrote: »

It took NIST a long time to try and explain WTC & collapse - eventually through sustained pressure from various groups they came out with their report.

That's not what happened.
It's a very different world you live in.

Chriskavo wrote: »

And as you have seen in the quote which was not taken out of context and which is totally unambiguous - they admit free fall collapse.

Then please describe what the other two "stages of collapse" are.
And why would they admit it in a freely available document?

Chriskavo wrote: »

One of the many reasons why over a thousand scientists want to see 911 re-investigated.

And as we all know scientists are never to be questioned.

Chriskavo wrote: »

Not true, read the NIST report and stop trying to obfuscate matters.

I have and you have.
You have not read the links I posted from the NIST that explictly refute the "Free fall" nonsense.

And again we have the irony of you accusing me of obfuscating matters when you repeatedly refuse to answer very simple questions.

robindch · 08-04-2010 12:13am

Chriskavo wrote: »

robindch wrote:

Ten days back, I was in an A380 at 40k feet trundling slowly from Singapore back to Heathrow. Some klutz had left his mobile on and from time to time, one could hear the beep-beep as messages or GSM provider welcome notes drifted in.

40k feet is 12km, while GSM has a nominal maximum range of 35km and can be extended to much more than that by suitably configuring the base stations.

I am talking about 2001 not 10 days ago. :rolleyes:

GSM in the USA was four years old in 2001 :rolleyes:

Chriskavo · 08-04-2010 2:05pm

robindch wrote: »

GSM in the USA was four years old in 2001 :rolleyes:

It was impossible in 2001 and was duly proven by a renowned Canadian scientist. The transcript from the alleged phone call to Ted Olsen from his wife Barbara read 0.00 seconds i.e their was no phone call and has been rejected by American Airines lthe FBI and the Pentagon. The Barbara Olsen phone call is the one most cited by defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Only two possibilties remain here - either Ted Olsen lied or he was duped.

King Mob · 08-04-2010 2:14pm

Chriskavo wrote: »

It was impossible in 2001 and was duly proven by a renowned Canadian scientist. The transcript from the alleged phone call to Ted Olsen from his wife Barbara read 0.00 seconds i.e their was no phone call and has been rejected by American Airines lthe FBI and the Pentagon. The Barbara Olsen phone call is the one most cited by defenders of the official conspiracy theory. Only two possibilties remain here - either Ted Olsen lied or he was duped.

Can you explain these phone call then?

And again a non peer reviewed and non replicated experiment by a biased experimenter who uses bad math isn't proof of anything.

Chriskavo · 08-04-2010 2:50pm

King Mob wrote: »

Can you explain these phone call then?

And again a non peer reviewed and non replicated experiment by a biased experimenter who uses bad math isn't proof of anything.[/QUO

So, we learn, there were apparently only two sources of information: purely oral reports from people in the office (not backed up by any notes or logs), which provide the account of two calls from Barbara Olson; and "records available for the phone calls from American 77," which provide no proof that Barbara Olson made any calls whatsoever. The DOJ and the FBI merely "believe" that two, or perhaps all four, of the connected calls to unknown numbers had been made by her. Hmmmm

But what are we to suppose about the third call, which reportedly began at 9:25:48 and lasted for 2 minutes and 34 seconds, and the fourth call, which reportedly began at 9:30:56 and lasted for 4 minutes and 20 seconds? Are we to suppose that Keyton received these calls and transferred them to the solicitor general, but then both of them failed, while being interviewed by the FBI, to mention these two calls, which would have lasted a total of almost 7 minutes? The idea is too ludicrous to consider. How, then, are we to suppose that these final two calls could have been "from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office"? Can we imagine that someone else in that office - perhaps Ted Olson's personal secretary, Helen Voss, or someone else who took over telephone duty from Lori Keyton - received these two calls and then, instead of transferring them to Ted, stayed on the line with Barbara for almost seven minutes, and then never told him about these calls? Again, the idea is too absurd to entertain.

Again A highly respected and renowned scientist who has had many of his findings published in peer reviewed magazines like Scientific Journal. And why did the FBI change its position in 2004 and admit that cell phones calls could not be made in 2004..kinda puts a spanner in the works eh?:D

Chriskavo · 08-04-2010 2:56pm

King Mob wrote: »

Can you explain these phone call then?

And again a non peer reviewed and non replicated experiment by a biased experimenter who uses bad math isn't proof of anything.[/QUO

So, we learn, there were apparently only two sources of information: purely oral reports from people in the office (not backed up by any notes or logs), which provide the account of two calls from Barbara Olson; and "records available for the phone calls from American 77," which provide no proof that Barbara Olson made any calls whatsoever. The DOJ and the FBI merely "believe" that two, or perhaps all four, of the connected calls to unknown numbers had been made by her. Hmmmm

But what are we to suppose about the third call, which reportedly began at 9:25:48 and lasted for 2 minutes and 34 seconds, and the fourth call, which reportedly began at 9:30:56 and lasted for 4 minutes and 20 seconds? Are we to suppose that Keyton received these calls and transferred them to the solicitor general, but then both of them failed, while being interviewed by the FBI, to mention these two calls, which would have lasted a total of almost 7 minutes? The idea is too ludicrous to consider. How, then, are we to suppose that these final two calls could have been "from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office"? Can we imagine that someone else in that office - perhaps Ted Olson's personal secretary, Helen Voss, or someone else who took over telephone duty from Lori Keyton - received these two calls and then, instead of transferring them to Ted, stayed on the line with Barbara for almost seven minutes, and then never told him about these calls? Again, the idea is too absurd to entertain.

Again A highly respected and renowned scientist who has had many of his findings published in peer reviewed magazines like Scientific Journal. And why did the FBI change its position in 2004 and admit that cell phones calls could not be made in 2004..kinda puts a spanner in the works eh?:D

King Mob · 08-04-2010 3:05pm

Chriskavo wrote: »

So, we learn, there were apparently only two sources of information: purely oral reports from people in the office (not backed up by any notes or logs), which provide the account of two calls from Barbara Olson; and "records available for the phone calls from American 77," which provide no proof that Barbara Olson made any calls whatsoever. The DOJ and the FBI merely "believe" that two, or perhaps all four, of the connected calls to unknown numbers had been made by her. Hmmmm

But what are we to suppose about the third call, which reportedly began at 9:25:48 and lasted for 2 minutes and 34 seconds, and the fourth call, which reportedly began at 9:30:56 and lasted for 4 minutes and 20 seconds? Are we to suppose that Keyton received these calls and transferred them to the solicitor general, but then both of them failed, while being interviewed by the FBI, to mention these two calls, which would have lasted a total of almost 7 minutes? The idea is too ludicrous to consider. How, then, are we to suppose that these final two calls could have been "from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted's office"? Can we imagine that someone else in that office - perhaps Ted Olson's personal secretary, Helen Voss, or someone else who took over telephone duty from Lori Keyton - received these two calls and then, instead of transferring them to Ted, stayed on the line with Barbara for almost seven minutes, and then never told him about these calls? Again, the idea is too absurd to entertain.

And thus your entire argument is destoryed.
You had been arguing that it was impossible for the calls to be made, therefore they must be fake.

You now have to admit that they could have made, instead copy pasting some other silly argument that too many calls were made.

So answer one question, is it possible two of those connected calls could have been from Barbara Olson to her husband?

Chriskavo wrote: »

Again A highly respected and renowned scientist who has had many of his findings published in peer reviewed magazines like Scientific Journal.

1. there is no such magazine called Scientific Journal.
2. Magazines aren't the same as actual scientific journals.
3. Magazines don't peer review.
4. this experiment was not peer reviewed.

Just because you keep calling him "highly respected" doesn't make it so.
Just because he's published in actual scientific jounrals doesn't make him infallible.

Instead of just making silly arguments from authority, you can answer some of the criticisms I've posted about his experiment?
And maybe answer some of those other though questions you like to ignore.

Chriskavo wrote: »

And why did the FBI change its position in 2004 and admit that cell phones calls could not be made in 2004..kinda puts a spanner in the works eh?:D

They said no such thing.
You keep making these claims but never back them up with any source.

Chriskavo · 08-04-2010 3:17pm

King Mob wrote: »

And thus your entire argument is destoryed.
You had been arguing that it was impossible for the calls to be made, therefore they must be fake.

You now have to admit that they could have made, instead copy pasting some other silly argument that too many calls were made.

So answer one question, is it possible two of those connected calls could have been from Barbara Olson to her husband?

1. there is no such magazine called Scientific Journal.
2. Magazines aren't the same as actual scientific journals.
3. Magazines don't peer review.
4. this experiment was not peer reviewed.

Just because you keep calling him "highly respected" doesn't make it so.
Just because he's published in actual scientific jounrals doesn't make him infallible.

Instead of just making silly arguments from authority, you can answer some of the criticisms I've posted about his experiment?
And maybe answer some of those other though questions you like to ignore.

They said no such thing.
You keep making these claims but never back them up with any source.

Not at all what it says is that it provides no proof that these alleged calls were made by Barbara Olsen at all much less from flight 77. Can you provide me with proof that those alleged calls came from her?

King Mob · 08-04-2010 3:22pm

Chriskavo wrote: »

Not at all what it says is that it provides no proof that these alleged calls were made by Barbara Olsen at all much less from flight 77. Can you provide me with proof that those alleged calls came from her?

You see that's what you get when you copy and paste before reading the stuff, it tends to contradict yourself.

It shows, that calls of the same reported length and close to the report time where made.
You yourself had absolutely no problem what so ever using that exact source to "prove" that Barbara Olson's call only lasted 0 seconds.

Your entire argument was based on the premise that these (or any) calls where impossible.
So answer the question, are these calls possible? Yes or No?

Chriskavo · 08-04-2010 3:24pm

King Mob wrote: »

You see that's what you get when you copy and paste before reading the stuff, it tends to contradict yourself.

It shows, that calls of the same reported length and close to the report time where made.
You yourself had absolutely no problem what so ever using that exact source to "prove" that Barbara Olson's call only lasted 0 seconds.

Your entire argument was based on the premise that these (or any) calls where impossible.
So answer the question, are these calls possible? Yes or No?

Those calls were impossible, the FBI, the Pentagon and American Airlines have rejected Ted Olsen story.

Chriskavo · 08-04-2010 3:31pm

And provide me with proof that those calls came from Barbara Olsen please!

King Mob · 08-04-2010 3:31pm

Chriskavo wrote: »

Those calls were impossible, the FBI, the Pentagon and American Airlines have rejected Ted Olsen story.

Then why does a slide used by the FBI state that these phone calls where made?
Are you claiming that the slide you used yourself as a source is fabricated evidence?
Did you know then it was fabricated and ignored that to prove a point, or are you only now deciding it's fake when it's been used against you?

And again they said no such thing.
Unless you can actually provide a source.

Chriskavo wrote: »

And provide me with proof that those calls came from Barbara Olsen please!

And you see no hypocrisy in asking me this, yet refuse to prove that the FBI even rejects the story?
Wow.

Thing is I don't have to prove the calls came from her, all I have to do is show that they could have come from her, to refute you argument.
And if you open your closed mind for a second and impartially look over the evidence I have provided, you'll see I've already done that.

So I'll take it you're not going to answer any of the issues I raised about the crap experiment you're taking as gospel truth?

Chriskavo · 08-04-2010 3:36pm

King Mob wrote: »

Then why does a slide used by the FBI state that these phone calls where made?
Are you claiming that the slide you used yourself as a source is fabricated evidence?
Did you know then it was fabricated and ignored that to prove a point, or are you only now deciding it's fake when it's been used against you?

And again they said no such thing.
Unless you can actually provide a source.

And I'll take it you're not going to answer any of the issues I raised about the crap experiment you're taking as gospel truth?

A professor emeritus of Ontario university who is widely respected throughout the scientific community would not dare perform 'crap' experiments or risk his highly valued reputation. But as I said in an earlier post - you are quite adept at ignoring empirical scientific analysis not to mention the collapse of all 3 building that day which magically broke several laws of physics.

King Mob · 08-04-2010 3:44pm

Chriskavo wrote: »

A professor emeritus of Ontario university who is widely respected throughout the scientific community would not dare perform 'crap' experiments or risk his highly valued reputation. But as I said in an earlier post - you are quite adept at ignoring empirical scientific analysis

Dude seriously.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

He's just a man, he's fallible.
I have already shown how his experiment is flawed, particularly in the math.

And I have no doubt what so ever if I provided a scientist of equal standing you'd have no problem questioning him.

His experiment was not peer reviewed or replicated, therefore it cannot be empirical.
In fact all we have that he even did these experiments is his word.
And seeing as you rejected the testimony of Olson and co. cause that's all they had, I see no reason why you could complain if I do the same right?

Chriskavo wrote: »

not to mention the collapse of all 3 building that day which magically broke several laws of physics.

And when backed into a corner you can't get out of you pull a classic CTer move and start throwing you red herrings and non sequiters.
Bravo.

God says · 08-04-2010 11:12pm

Just been reading this entire thread, and this is all an eye opener for me.

I'd heard that a lot of people believe that 9/11 wasn't all that it seemed to be, but I don't understand why people are so afraid of simple scientific fact and eye witness testimony.

I have to say from reading this thread that I have learned a lot more about events from that day from all the scientific evidence that Chriskavo has presented rather than from all the denial and blanket unverified counter claims to his presentations of fact.

I'm still keeping an open mind about events from that day, but lads, maybe some research is in order on your part if you want to be taken seriously rather than all the denial, as I think Chris is the only one doing his homework here.

King Mob · 09-04-2010 12:37am

God says wrote: »

I have to say from reading this thread that I have learned a lot more about events from that day from all the scientific evidence that Chriskavo has presented rather than from all the denial and blanket unverified counter claims to his presentations of fact.

Could you perhaps point to a single claim the Chriskavo Has actually backed up with any kind of source?

Could you point out a single claim I've made that wasn't backed up with any kind of source?

Chriskavo · 09-04-2010 1:45am

King Mob wrote: »

Could you perhaps point to a single claim the Chriskavo Has actually backed up with any kind of source?

Could you point out a single claim I've made that wasn't backed up with any kind of source?

Prove to me that those calls were made by Barbara Olsen?

King Mob · 09-04-2010 1:58am

Chriskavo wrote: »

Prove to me that those calls were made by Barbara Olsen?

Would you like to stick you fingers in you hears and scream lalala too?

I have already explained how I don't have to prove beyond doubt that she made those calls, only that she could have.
And since now you've resorted to this childish tactic of yours it's clear that I've already shown that much.

So answer just one question: Is it possible that she made those calls?
Yes or no?
(Oh and if you ignore this question like the others you can't answer, I'll assume the answer is yes.)

And again I have to ask do you see no irony or hypocrisy in demanding something like that, yet continually ignore my points and questions and requests for sources?

God says · 09-04-2010 3:06am

King Mob wrote: »

Could you perhaps point to a single claim the Chriskavo Has actually backed up with any kind of source?

Could you point out a single claim I've made that wasn't backed up with any kind of source?

Yes, all of your claims so far, please provide us with a relevant URL sources whenever you post one of your very dubious and seemingly off-the-top-of-your-head analysis as opposed to the objective well researched reasoning we have come to expect - and admire - from Chriskavo.

Psychic Christine Holohan on TV Fri29Sep

Comments