Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

gerard holmgren -- Third request to Eric Salter

Expand Messages
  • Rosalee Grable
    gerard holmgren -- Third request to Eric Salter *Date: 2004/07/26 05:47 From: gerard holmgren * ... I
    Message 1 of 1 , Jul 27, 2004
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      gerard holmgren <mailto:holmgren@...> -- Third request to
      Eric Salter

      *Date: 2004/07/26 05:47
      From: "gerard holmgren" <holmgren@...>

      *

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      I notice that Eric is still avoiding stating his position. I realise that he
      was responding not to me but to Leonard, but nevertheless, my question is
      very simple, and there is no reason not answer it promptly, since he found
      time to address the more complex question of campaign strategy and "risk"
      management. How can we discuss these things if we don't first know exactly
      what the arguments are?

      He added further confusion to his position with this statement.

      [[. I see no need to decisively identify the plane as a 767, only to
      determine
      ** if there is a strong case to deny that identification. ** ]] (My
      emphasis)

      This seems to back away from what appeared to be his previously stated
      position in response to my original question.

      I will clarify the situation with a reminder of what that question was

      I asked Eric whether his position in relation to the Nth Tower is


      a) That the appearance of the object seen to be approaching the Nth Tower is
      unmistakeably a 767, can be clearly seen as such and cannot be anything
      else.

      b) That the appearance of the object, while unable to be identified down to
      the exact model, is unmistakeably a large passenger jet of similar size to a
      767, can be clearly seen as such and cannot be anything else.

      c) That the object is so indistinct, that it's very difficult to tell what
      it is, or its size, and that its plausible to speculate - amongst other
      possibilities - that it could be a large passenger jet.

      He gave an awswer which was somewhat rambling, but which I took to be a
      specific endorsement of the b) option. So from there I outlined confusion
      over his position in relation to whether we could actually see the wings or
      not.

      However, I'm going to now have to shelve the wings question for the moment
      to return to the question above, because Eric now seems to be backing away
      from his apparent endorsement of the b) option.

      He now seems to be arguing that he has no need to state any position of
      his own. That one can simply assume (on unspecified grounds) that the object
      is a 767 and that the onus is on critics to specifically provide strong
      disputation of this unsusbtantiated assumption.


      Very well. Because the case that it is not a 767 is so overwhelmingly
      proveable, I accept Salter's plea for the grounds of debate to be heavily
      skewed in his favour. It is up to me to provide strong grounds that its not
      a 767. Salter has only to demostrate that its possible that it *might * be a
      767.

      I accept the challenge.

      In order to counter Salter's argument, that it *might* be a 767 ,I need to
      know the basis of this argument.
      I'm sure that even Salter will agree that a simple repetitive statement of a
      concluding position does not count as argument.

      If I am to prove that the assumption of a 767 is wrong, I must be told the
      grounds on which the assumption is said to be based. We must examine these
      grounds clearly and methodically, one at a time. The first which I wish to
      examine is the alleged appearance of the object in flight appraoching the
      NTh Tower.


      There are three possible observations of this object from which one could
      build the argument that it *might * be a 767.

      I will state them again.

      a) That the appearance of the object seen to be approaching the Nth Tower is
      unmistakeably a 767, can be clearly seen as such and cannot be anything
      else.

      b) That the appearance of the object, while unable to be identified down to
      the exact model, is unmistakeably a large passenger jet of similar size to a
      767, can be clearly seen as such and cannot be anything else.

      c) That the object is so indistinct, that it's very difficult to tell what
      it is, or its size, and that its plausible to speculate - amongst other
      possibilities - that it *might* be a large passenger jet.

      If Eric will state which of these observations he endorses ,then I can
      proceed with the process of buidling the strong argument which he has
      challenged me to provide.





      -----Original Message-----
      From: Eric Salter <ericsalter@...>
      To: Leonard Spencer <leonardspencer3@...>; holmgren@...

      Date: Monday, July 26, 2004 2:12
      Subject: Re: [Fwd: Introducing the No Planes Theory]


      >>
      >>Salter falls into a big but avoidable trap. He appears to believe it
      >>legitimate to assume that the first plane was a 767 and think that
      >>the onus of proof therefore lies only with those who disagree with
      >>this assumption. This is of course quite wrong. The onus of proof
      >>lies equally with those who claim it was a 767. They must make their
      >>case, on the basis of the evidence, just like everyone else. I am
      >>still waiting for Mr Salter to do so.
      >>
      >
      >No, the burden of proof lies squarely with the 767 skeptics. I see
      >no need to decisively identify the plane as a 767, only to determine
      >if there is a strong case to deny that identification. We don't lose
      >any ground not questioning this aspect of the story as we have so
      >much other stronger evidence. However, we risk being debunked as
      >crackpots when going out on a limb with no-plane or substitute plane
      >theories. I've read Marcus Icke's article and I'm not at all
      >impressed. A response is coming soon, delayed for personal reasons
      >until the right time. At least we're to the point now where we are
      >no longer talking about holographic projections and whatzits floating
      >around in the compression artifacts. The skepticism about the
      >identity of the 767 at WTC1 are at least somewhat plausible, compared
      >to the other no-plane garbage. Remember that my original article was
      >aimed at theories of missiles and divebombing whatzits, and not the
      >finer point of one large airliner vs another. Anyhow, in several
      >weeks my responses to Icke will be posted and we can talk more then.
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.