"Says the guy who says a few darkened pixels is "proof" that the official story is true -.-.."
LOLOLOL

Need I remind you? You agreed it was the plane's shadow before you denied it;

No, I agreed it was -possible- that it was the plane's shadow. I see such nuances such as the difference between possible and definitely are lost on you though -.-

Well when you thought it proved the plane approached from the north side of the Citgo you referred to it as the "shadow from the plane;" and since you realized it proved the plane was on the south side, you now refer to it as "darkened pixels."

Don't think this flip-flop, and its implication, of yours has gone unnoticed. :eusa_doh:

As mentioned in Post #270:
I said (and I quote): "I certainly agree with the 'shadow from the plane' bit." I thought you would understand the context within which I said it- that is, that I thought it was -possible- that there was video evidence of the Pentaplane passing the Citgo gas station. I never said that I believe that it proved that the Pentaplane flew north of the Citgo. Another point to consider- I was pretty much taking it on faith that there -was- evidence of a plane's shadow. As you may recall, you had to painstakingly point out a few darkened pixels to me, because prior to you doing so, I couldn't see anything that could even remotely be construed as a shadow of any kind.
No matter how you try and spin it, you agreed it was the plane's shadow when you thought it proved a north of Citgo approach. Once you realized it proved a south of Citgo approach, it became "darkened pixels."

:lmao:

And regardless, there's nothing else it can be. It's in the exact right location at the exact right time for the exact approach to hit the lamp posts and the generator and fly into the Pentagon at a 42° angle.

You're done. Your acceptance is not actually needed.
 
when you thought it bolstered your north side approach [theory]

I still think it might. I even pointed out a thread wherein CIT supporters suggested there was a recorded shadow that would support the North side approach.

What you posted was the Doubletree video, not the Citgo video.

That may well be true. CIT supporters were suggesting that a recorded shadow would support the North side approach. I didn't check to see if they were referring to the Citgo video or another video.

What you posted has absolutely nothing to do with the plane's shadow.

Just because -you- don't think what the CIT supporters saw may have been the Pentaplane's shadow doesn't mean it wasn't.

As far as not a single eyewitness reporting seeing the plane fly over the Pentagon.... that's absurd, even for you.

I don't really understand what you're talking about...

You tried to insinuate it's reasonable nobody reported seeing the plane fly over the building because no one was specifically asked that question.

Please quote the passage where you believe I "insinuated" this.
Well then show me where there's a shadow from the plane on the Doubletree video.....
 
, but just in case you missed it, CIT came up with a list of people whose testimony suggest that a plane flew over the Pentagon:
**
Flyover/away witnesses and connections:
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".

**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

Roosevelt Roberts'

Says he ran out about 10 seconds the explosion and saw a commercial jet approaching the Pentagon over one lane in the south parking lot. This cannot possibly be the plane flying over as you describe since what you describe has the plane flying over the Pentagon at the same time of the explosion in what you referred to as a distraction.

Roosevelt Roberts' testimony can be a bit confusing- both I and Craig Ranke believe that he got his cardinal directions confused. Below Craig Ranke explains his testimony. I think the most important detail to remember is that he refers to the plane as having come from the direction of the "first plane" that hit the Pentagon. The thing is, the only other plane to get even remotely close to the Pentagon (a C130) was so high that the pilot of said plane couldn't even make out what the Pentaplane had hit- if he couldn't make out the Pentagon, it's hard to believe that Roosevelt would have made out the C130.

**Your interpretation is not what he is describing. Yes he was confused regarding cardinal directions while relaying this over the phone during an off-the-cuff, surprise interview while he was driving. That is typical for any human and to be expected.

But when he used landmarks it tells a different story.

"coming from the 27 side heading east towards DC"

And then later:

It seemed like it came from, um. . . southwest-lookin- the same way it came in, or appeared that it came in, it seemed like it was southwe- (indistinguishable) came in. . . uh. . . almost like where that ne- that first plane had, um. . . flew into the, um, Pentagon right there. It- it- di- it looked like it came from that direction.


So the plane came from the alleged impact side where he thought the "first plane" "flew into the Pentagon". This is clear. Yet he called that "southwest" and the blast site is NOT southwest of him.

That's because he was confused when relaying cardinal directions during an off the cuff interview which is quite normal.


No big deal.

And then when asked about where it banked the LANDMARK he used was the Mall entrance side.


Aldo: -did it look like it went out over the river, and- and kind of turned around?

Roosevelt: Um, it looked like it went over on the mall entrance side and turned around


Again that is not southwest, it is north.

We have said from day one that Roosevelt's account is not 100% clear and we regret that he clammed up after he got scared and backed out of the on-camera interview he later promised.

But for YOU to parse his words and poke holes in what is admittedly not perfect testimony can be for no other purpose but to suggest he completely fabricated his account and is LYING even though he is corroborated by ALL the north side witnesses who prove with scientific fact that the plane did not hit.
**

Source: Roosevelt Roberts Interview - Pilots For 9/11 Truth Forum
No matter what direction you imagine he says the plane was flying, he was clear when he says no more than 10 seconds elapsed between the plane hitting the Pentagon to him running outside to see the plane approaching the Pentagon. According to you, the plane reached the Pentagon at about the same moment of the explosion. 10 seconds later, at 400+ MPH, the plane would have cleared the Pentagon by the time he saw it. Yet he describes it as approaching the Pentagon.
 
, but just in case you missed it, CIT came up with a list of people whose testimony suggest that a plane flew over the Pentagon:
**
Flyover/away witnesses and connections:
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".

**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

...
Dewitt Roseborough

Never said he saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. Says he looked up and saw the plane flying so low, he thought it would hit the highway. It obviously didn't. Next thing he saw was a fireball come from over the Pentagon -- but no plane.

Here's CIT's take on Dewitt Roseborough...

**
Thanks to the efforts of a poster at our forum who delivered the message, we were notified of an individual we believe is a genuine flyover witness found on the StevenWarren blogsite.

His name is Dewitt Roseborough.

His account was featured in an article by Craig Strawser, "Forever Changed."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBQ/is_/ai_93449441 [That link is now dead, but the article clearly exists, as can be seen here: FOREVER CHANGED ]

His account seems fairly cut and dry. He was leaving the Pentagon heading out to the South parking lot, when he head a roar "above his head" and he "looked up" , heard another roar and then saw "this plane". He said it was low and thought it was going to crash into the highway which we believe is 395 that he is referring to. Here are the excerpts from his interview...


QUOTE
It was as he was leaving the Pentagon that the world Roseborough knew changed forever. "I got out into the parking lot, just walking along, and all of a sudden, I hear what I would describe as a 'lion's roar' above my head," Roseborough said.

"It caught my attention, and as I looked up, I heard another roar and I saw this airplane flying low. I thought, 'Oh, my God, this thing is really low.' "I thought it was going to crash onto the highway," recalled Roseborough.


So we have him leaving the Pentagon and getting out into the (South) parking lot. He hears the "roar above his head" and "looks up". This logically, one would assume, means he heard the sound above his head and looked up above his head while in the parking lot. He see's "this airplane", not 'the airplane'. Again, if he is seeing a plane in the south parking lot right above his head he can only be referring to 395 or possibly even 110.

Walkways.jpg


QUOTE
"Just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, 'What just happened?'"

This is very key. Just as he thought this plane that was above his head while he was in south parking lot was low and was going to crash into the highway, he saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon.

Now if he saw the plane approach on the official low level skim into the building he would not be standing there dumbfounded thinking, "What just happened?" He would know a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

It is pretty obvious that he saw the plane after it's flyover/away from the building in the south parking, THEN saw the fireball rise which is what made him dumbfounded wondering what had happened.

QUOTE
As debris floated and flew his way, he realized he needed to take cover. "I ducked under a walkway for what seemed to be a long time, but actually was only about a minute," Roseborough said. "That's when I noticed this woman screaming out in the parking lot. It broke my 'shock state.'" He ran to her and helped calm her down.

Walkway2.jpg


QUOTE
[...]

"I've asked myself several times over, why, as a photographer, I didn't immediately turn around and start shooting photos when the plane hit? I guess my major concern at the time was with the people that were out there. That's one thing about being in the Navy for the last 20 years, seeing disasters and death; I've been prepared to react in the manner that I did," he said. "I just started making sure everyone was OK."

This is also very important, he asks himself why didn't he "immediately turn around". The plane he saw was above his head and he had to *look up*. He was clearly later deducing what he would have had to have done to see "THE plane"... "turn around". Turning around (to the approach) is a lot different than looking up above his head.

QUOTE
"The next day, I didn't go to work," he said. "I was still trying to process everything that had happened. I had just witnessed the worst disaster I'd ever seen, up close and personal. I was just trying to piece everything together for a while. It was just an unbelievable thing."

Roseborough summed up his feelings about Sept. 11, by saying that it was just a strange day. "It was like you were watching a movie, but you were the actor; you were in the movie. It was the most incredible thing I've ever witnessed" he said.

It is evident that Dewitt did not see an impact. This would explain why he was "still trying to process everything that had happened" and was "trying to piece everything together for a while."


He saw "this plane" above his head and then a fireball rise over the Pentagon. Our guess is he carefully parsed/edited his words so as to ambiguously let the truth out or process his feeling and what he saw that day or someone parsed/edited it for him or the author.

So we decided to contact Dewitt Roseborough. It took a while to get a hold of him but when we did Dewitt only revealed that he was a witness to the plane, is no longer active military, and that he has made it a policy to NOT talk about what he saw on 9/11.

Download our phone call here:

http://www.thepentacon.com/DewittRoseborough.mp3

[A brief excerpt from the call:
Craig: We think you were in a prime position to see something that frankly contradicts the official story, and that's really what we....

Dewitt: Right.....I understand what you're...and I appreciate what you are doing but no, no thank you. But thank you anyway for calling.
]

In light of the corroborating testimony from the first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr who was also in the south parking lot, we feel that the reason behind Dewitt's refusal to discuss what he saw on that day is not a mystery.

This underscores why it is so difficult to find flyover witnesses.

If they understand what it is that they saw, they keep their mouths shut.

Only when they don't understand the implications and were convinced it was a "2nd plane" as Roosevelt initially was are they ever willing to talk.

**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449
 
, but just in case you missed it, CIT came up with a list of people whose testimony suggest that a plane flew over the Pentagon:
**
Flyover/away witnesses and connections:
1. Officer Roosevelt Roberts
2. Dewitt Roseborough (person of interest)
3. Co-workers of Erik Dihle at ANC who said that "a bomb hit and a jet kept going"
4. Potentially witnesses interviewed by Dave Statter on 9/11. Witness(es) said "pilot tried to avert the building" and the plane "went to the side of the building not directly in"
5. Maria De La Cerda reports to the Center for Military History on Feb 6, 2002 that she thought it crashed on "the other side" and confirmed to us in 2008 that she did not think it was a side impact but rather that it was "on top".

**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82&st=0

...
Dewitt Roseborough

Never said he saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. Says he looked up and saw the plane flying so low, he thought it would hit the highway. It obviously didn't. Next thing he saw was a fireball come from over the Pentagon -- but no plane.

Here's CIT's take on Dewitt Roseborough...

**
Thanks to the efforts of a poster at our forum who delivered the message, we were notified of an individual we believe is a genuine flyover witness found on the StevenWarren blogsite.

His name is Dewitt Roseborough.

His account was featured in an article by Craig Strawser, "Forever Changed."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBQ/is_/ai_93449441 [That link is now dead, but the article clearly exists, as can be seen here: FOREVER CHANGED ]

His account seems fairly cut and dry. He was leaving the Pentagon heading out to the South parking lot, when he head a roar "above his head" and he "looked up" , heard another roar and then saw "this plane". He said it was low and thought it was going to crash into the highway which we believe is 395 that he is referring to. Here are the excerpts from his interview...


QUOTE
It was as he was leaving the Pentagon that the world Roseborough knew changed forever. "I got out into the parking lot, just walking along, and all of a sudden, I hear what I would describe as a 'lion's roar' above my head," Roseborough said.

"It caught my attention, and as I looked up, I heard another roar and I saw this airplane flying low. I thought, 'Oh, my God, this thing is really low.' "I thought it was going to crash onto the highway," recalled Roseborough.


So we have him leaving the Pentagon and getting out into the (South) parking lot. He hears the "roar above his head" and "looks up". This logically, one would assume, means he heard the sound above his head and looked up above his head while in the parking lot. He see's "this airplane", not 'the airplane'. Again, if he is seeing a plane in the south parking lot right above his head he can only be referring to 395 or possibly even 110.

Walkways.jpg


QUOTE
"Just as I thought that, I saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon. I was just standing there dumbfounded, thinking, 'What just happened?'"

This is very key. Just as he thought this plane that was above his head while he was in south parking lot was low and was going to crash into the highway, he saw a fireball come from over the Pentagon.

Now if he saw the plane approach on the official low level skim into the building he would not be standing there dumbfounded thinking, "What just happened?" He would know a plane crashed into the Pentagon.

It is pretty obvious that he saw the plane after it's flyover/away from the building in the south parking, THEN saw the fireball rise which is what made him dumbfounded wondering what had happened.

QUOTE
As debris floated and flew his way, he realized he needed to take cover. "I ducked under a walkway for what seemed to be a long time, but actually was only about a minute," Roseborough said. "That's when I noticed this woman screaming out in the parking lot. It broke my 'shock state.'" He ran to her and helped calm her down.

Walkway2.jpg


QUOTE
[...]

"I've asked myself several times over, why, as a photographer, I didn't immediately turn around and start shooting photos when the plane hit? I guess my major concern at the time was with the people that were out there. That's one thing about being in the Navy for the last 20 years, seeing disasters and death; I've been prepared to react in the manner that I did," he said. "I just started making sure everyone was OK."

This is also very important, he asks himself why didn't he "immediately turn around". The plane he saw was above his head and he had to *look up*. He was clearly later deducing what he would have had to have done to see "THE plane"... "turn around". Turning around (to the approach) is a lot different than looking up above his head.

QUOTE
"The next day, I didn't go to work," he said. "I was still trying to process everything that had happened. I had just witnessed the worst disaster I'd ever seen, up close and personal. I was just trying to piece everything together for a while. It was just an unbelievable thing."

Roseborough summed up his feelings about Sept. 11, by saying that it was just a strange day. "It was like you were watching a movie, but you were the actor; you were in the movie. It was the most incredible thing I've ever witnessed" he said.

It is evident that Dewitt did not see an impact. This would explain why he was "still trying to process everything that had happened" and was "trying to piece everything together for a while."


He saw "this plane" above his head and then a fireball rise over the Pentagon. Our guess is he carefully parsed/edited his words so as to ambiguously let the truth out or process his feeling and what he saw that day or someone parsed/edited it for him or the author.

So we decided to contact Dewitt Roseborough. It took a while to get a hold of him but when we did Dewitt only revealed that he was a witness to the plane, is no longer active military, and that he has made it a policy to NOT talk about what he saw on 9/11.

Download our phone call here:

http://www.thepentacon.com/DewittRoseborough.mp3

[A brief excerpt from the call:
Craig: We think you were in a prime position to see something that frankly contradicts the official story, and that's really what we....

Dewitt: Right.....I understand what you're...and I appreciate what you are doing but no, no thank you. But thank you anyway for calling.
]

In light of the corroborating testimony from the first critical flyover witness Roosevelt Roberts Jr who was also in the south parking lot, we feel that the reason behind Dewitt's refusal to discuss what he saw on that day is not a mystery.

This underscores why it is so difficult to find flyover witnesses.

If they understand what it is that they saw, they keep their mouths shut.

Only when they don't understand the implications and were convinced it was a "2nd plane" as Roosevelt initially was are they ever willing to talk.

**

Source: http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=449
Dewitt never said he saw a plane fly over the Pentagon. Says he looked up and saw the plane flying so low, he thought it would hit the highway. It obviously didn't. Next thing he saw was a fireball come from over the Pentagon -- but no plane.
 
Here's CIT's take on Dewitt Roseborough...

Here's a few "Truther" views on C.I.T. (there are too many to post here). They assert that C.I.T. is not only FoS but that Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (C.I.T.) may well be willfully spreading disinformation intended to discredit the entire 9/11 CT Movement. I, for one, believe they have and extremely successfully as confirmed by the rapid decline of that movement:

Victoria Ashley - Co-founder of 9/11TruthNews.com - To Con A Movement:
This essay examines the work of the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), a team of two people who claim to prove that a complicated "magic show" occurred during the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01, fooling all of the witnesses and surviving victims of the event into believing that American Airlines Flight 77 (AA77) hit the Pentagon, when instead, it flew just over the building, obscured by a simultaneous explosion, and then somehow flew away, unnoticed by anyone in the area (the "flyover" theory). CIT took their camcorders and went to Washington, DC, where they interviewed a select group of Pentagon attack eye witnesses whom they believe, indicate a different flight path from the accepted flight path (the one described by a trail of damage leading up to the building). These interviews, it is claimed, provide the primary "evidence" for the flyover theory.
Or so we are led to believe.

Dr. Frank Legge, PhD - (Scientists for 9/11 Truth) - The Pentagon Attack on 9/11: A Refutation of the Pentagon Flyover Hypothesis Based on Analysis of the Flight Path
Unfortunately the well presented videos and website of CIT have impressed a lot of people, so dissension has arisen, which is destructive to the 9/11 Truth movement. Michiel de Boer has suggested that the accumulated evidence that a large commercial aircraft hit and damaged the Pentagon is now so substantial that we should plainly assert that impact did occur. 16 The natural corollary to the proposition that impact occurred is that the claimed north path, and consequent flyover of the Pentagon, is false. The physical implausibility of the north path proposition will be demonstrated in this paper.

We do not assert that CIT is deliberately setting up false theories in order to expose the 9/11 Truth Movement to ridicule, but that is likely to be the ultimate effect of their efforts.

Richard Gage - A&E For 9/11 Truth - Richard Gage Completely Withdraws Support from CIT | 9/11 Truth News
I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.

I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

Peter Dale Scott - Peter Dale Scott Withdraws Endorsement of CIT | 9/11 Truth News
Like Richard Gage, I too was impressed by CIT’s assemblage of witnesses asserting an approach path of Flight 77 at odds with the official version, and said so. I have never believed that the 757 flew over the Pentagon, and have never stated that I did. In the light of what Gage has learned about CIT’s methods, I wish, like him, to withdraw my original endorsement of the CIT video.

Jim Hoffman - Founder, 9/11Research.wtc7.net - 9-11 Research: An Independent Investigation of the 9-11-2001 Attack
The Pentagon 'flyover theory' is the central premise of The PentaCon, despite the fact neither CIT nor any of its supporters has provided a detailed account of how the "magic trick" could have been accomplished. That theory isn't even remotely plausible when one considers the number of observers who would have had a clear view of the purported overflight, even if the maneuver were engineered to be as inconspicuous as possible. Given the topography of the Pentagon's immediate surroundings, with its vast parking lots, highways and access roads of at least six lanes on each of its sides, and highrise buildings starting 300 feet to the south, such an event would have been witnessed by hundreds at least, as an unmistakable sight of a commercial jetliner leaving a huge explosion, as if it had bombed the building. The thunderous sound of the explosion would have guaranteed that most of the people in a position to see the event would have turned their heads to see the explosion and the plane in close proximity. The same witnesses would have been riveted to the action as the plane departed from the scene, whether it made a spectacular banking turn to land at National Airport, or made an equally spectacular climb away from the Pentagon over the Potomac.

Had that happened, nothing could have silenced the hundreds of diverse witnesses who saw something so unmistakable and so utterly irreconcilable with the official story that the silver jetliner had hit the Pentagon. Had that happened, CIT would have more to work with than a few witnesses who recalled seeing the jetliner flying to the north instead of the south of the Citgo station.
 
Last edited:
How many blogs, forums , debates, articles have been devoted to discussing CIT and their flyover theory , for over a decade? How is it in all that discussion and endless arguments I have never seen anyone clearly point out that the conclusion that CIT present , that they say they proved beyond a reasonable doubt, was based on a piece of illogical deduction? This is not about this witness said this or that or whether their conclusion is far fetched and bizarre - which it obviously is - but the fact that they broke the most basic rules of logical deduction that apply to investigating evidence about anything. Their argument is not logical and therefore has no credibility. Why has no one pointed this out? Why have the people who criticise them and produce these long articles not recognised the simple fact that CIT did not follow the basic rules of logical deduction? As for the people who supported them, people with PhDs and academic qualifications , what their excuse is for not spotting a piece of illogical deduction I really can't imagine. They have been looking at it for long enough.
 
The whole dispute between CIT and their critics was caused by one group of people who used an illogical argument to arrive at a conclusion, thinking it was a logical conclusion, and another group who knew there was something wrong with the conclusion but didn't identify the simple fact that it was illogical. It wasn't about the details ,it was about the logical basis of the argument.
CIT were so convinced they had logically conclusively proven something that they were absolutely incensed that anyone would be disputing it, and trying to explain to themselves why they were being attacked for their indisputable conclusion. It must be because they are disinformation agents trying to hide CIT's simple but conclusive proof. Their critics meanwhile failed to recognise the flawed logic in CIT's reasoning and got bogged down in the details, a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees.
 
The whole dispute between CIT and their critics was caused by one group of people who used an illogical argument to arrive at a conclusion, thinking it was a logical conclusion, and another group who knew there was something wrong with the conclusion but didn't identify the simple fact that it was illogical. It wasn't about the details ,it was about the logical basis of the argument.
CIT were so convinced they had logically conclusively proven something that they were absolutely incensed that anyone would be disputing it, and trying to explain to themselves why they were being attacked for their indisputable conclusion. It must be because they are disinformation agents trying to hide CIT's simple but conclusive proof. Their critics meanwhile failed to recognise the flawed logic in CIT's reasoning and got bogged down in the details, a classic case of not seeing the wood for the trees.
I admire your efforts to bring this thread back to life like Frankenstein's monster -- but it's been thoroughly refuted. Even the OP had finally given up.
 
CIT's nonsense could have been refuted 10 years ago if people had correctly identified what the problem was with it. I have never seen anyone clearly identify the fact that CIT's conclusions were the result of a failure to follow the basic rules of logical deduction. They thought they had followed the rules but they hadn't making their conclusions invalid. The people who disputed their conclusions never clearly identify this but got bogged down in details about this or that witness or the scientific method etc.
 
CIT's nonsense could have been refuted 10 years ago if people had correctly identified what the problem was with it. I have never seen anyone clearly identify the fact that CIT's conclusions were the result of a failure to follow the basic rules of logical deduction. They thought they had followed the rules but they hadn't making their conclusions invalid. The people who disputed their conclusions never clearly identify this but got bogged down in details about this or that witness or the scientific method etc.
It's done. Move on.
 
CIT's nonsense could have been refuted 10 years ago if people had correctly identified what the problem was with it. I have never seen anyone clearly identify the fact that CIT's conclusions were the result of a failure to follow the basic rules of logical deduction. They thought they had followed the rules but they hadn't making their conclusions invalid. The people who disputed their conclusions never clearly identify this but got bogged down in details about this or that witness or the scientific method etc.
It's done. Move on.


Is the thread closed for comments? Other people may like to comment. The issue of how people should or shouldn't assess evidence , about anything, is always important and relevant - people on juries do it all the time.
 
CIT's nonsense could have been refuted 10 years ago if people had correctly identified what the problem was with it. I have never seen anyone clearly identify the fact that CIT's conclusions were the result of a failure to follow the basic rules of logical deduction. They thought they had followed the rules but they hadn't making their conclusions invalid. The people who disputed their conclusions never clearly identify this but got bogged down in details about this or that witness or the scientific method etc.
It's done. Move on.


Is the thread closed for comments? Other people may like to comment. The issue of how people should or shouldn't assess evidence , about anything, is always important and relevant - people on juries do it all the time.
Of course this thread is not closed for comment. How could we be posting here if it was? :dunno:

I'm merely pointing out you're beating a dead horse.
 
CIT's nonsense could have been refuted 10 years ago if people had correctly identified what the problem was with it. I have never seen anyone clearly identify the fact that CIT's conclusions were the result of a failure to follow the basic rules of logical deduction. They thought they had followed the rules but they hadn't making their conclusions invalid. The people who disputed their conclusions never clearly identify this but got bogged down in details about this or that witness or the scientific method etc.
It's done. Move on.


Is the thread closed for comments? Other people may like to comment. The issue of how people should or shouldn't assess evidence , about anything, is always important and relevant - people on juries do it all the time.
Of course this thread is not closed for comment. How could we be posting here if it was? :dunno:

I'm merely pointing out you're beating a dead horse.



I'm doing a post-mortem on a dead horse whose illness that was misdiagnosed.
 
CIT's nonsense could have been refuted 10 years ago if people had correctly identified what the problem was with it. I have never seen anyone clearly identify the fact that CIT's conclusions were the result of a failure to follow the basic rules of logical deduction. They thought they had followed the rules but they hadn't making their conclusions invalid. The people who disputed their conclusions never clearly identify this but got bogged down in details about this or that witness or the scientific method etc.
It's done. Move on.


Is the thread closed for comments? Other people may like to comment. The issue of how people should or shouldn't assess evidence , about anything, is always important and relevant - people on juries do it all the time.
Of course this thread is not closed for comment. How could we be posting here if it was? :dunno:

I'm merely pointing out you're beating a dead horse.



I'm doing a post-mortem on a dead horse whose illness was misdiagnosed.



It actually turned out to be a pantomime horse...
 

Forum List

Back
Top