06-04-2012, 11:32 PM
Ed Jewett Wrote:Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Ed - as usual, I see a lot of scattergun noise and a lack of any critical evaluation from you.
Once again, which of these hypotheses - the use of computer generated images (CGI), the use of video compositing (VC), or the use of holograms - do you consider credible in the WTC context?
Jan, the argument goes like this. Since these are the only three possibilities, and since real, live, non-hologram witnesses saw planes crash into the buildings, obviously, one is obliged to choose option three. What a crock.
You have their names, addresses, affidavits, testimony, links, attributed sources, and assurance/assistance to the fact that they are open to counter-inquiry and cross-examination, I assume.
Ed, I am referring to this quote by Jan, which I think is fair to Fetzter:
Quote:As Prof Fetzer acknowledges, the use of computer generated images (CGIs) and the use of video compositing (VC) is ruled out because of the numerous witnesses who saw planes hit the Twin Towers not on television, but with their own eyes in the streets of New York.If it fairly represents Fetzer, that kind of argument is fallacious.