Montauk Pt and the Philadelphia Project. Dogmatics need not read

[RainFall]

For those of you familiar with the Montauk "scenario" (if you will) , and the philadelphia project aka USS eldridge turning invisible and appearing in norfolk, VA. What are your thoughts on this. I have only read the claims by the "group"(if you will) of Preston Nichols, Peter Moon, Duncan Cameron, Alfred Bielek et al.
I read all 4 montauk books as i had received them for free through the wonderful magic of the hotdeals forum.

I found the books to have many possible truths, but as my hangup with many other things (a la various cults), it seemed to have SEVERE wholes and completely obvious contradictions which blows its credibilty out of the water(to me). These were obvious things too....

1 book they state that Himmler didn't hate jews and he only did what he had because he didn't want ot disobey Hitler and later in another book i believe they claim Haushofer(maybe not him but another guy) was freeing jews and they said Himmler would rat him out to Hitler. Now if himmler was so freeloving of jews as they claim,(which IS NOT THE ARGUMENT HERE, so let's NOT get into that please) why would he rat someone out for doing the work he wanted to do anyways. You'd THINK he'd turn a deaf ear.

Anyways, i'd love to hear what you think, unless you are a dogmatic like the entire politics forum, then i already know what you're going to say and it's not going to contribute anything to this discussion.

Thanks...

 

[Ski Bum]

Have you noticed who the moderators are in both forums?

Boy, you've had your buns toasted, and now you're just begging for more with your incendiary subject line.

LMAO,

Ski Bum

 

[RainFall]

Someone Can't read. it said DOGMATICS NEED NOT READ.

Skibum/proxy are exaples of dogmatics. You obviously know what that means yet you can't follow instructions.

Conviction are a greater enemy of the truth than lies - Nietzsche

 

[Ski Bum]

Someone Can't read. it said DOGMATICS NEED NOT READ.

And you, my young friend, may be able to read but you need someone to explain what the words mean to you.

From Websters's

dogmatic -- asserted a priori or without proof, stating opinion in a positive or arrogant manner

Is this what you mean:

There is no such thing as Objective reporting.

Or does this better fit the bill:

You can argue all you want but it will fall upon deaf ears.

Or how about this:

Is anyone else sick of this troll? Spewing right wing propaganda will never get you any respect from a non-former-confederate state.

Or possibly this:

Oh boy, Well i'm out of this forum because no individualism exists here just a repeat of BS propaganda i could find in any government report, while you guys preach to hate the government and the fact that they are "out to get you and watch you", you willfully quote their reported facts as you're source, which is, shall i say another contradiction... Oh well ttyl, i can't say it's fun.

Or possibly this:

US govt reported "facts", most of them heavily inaccurrate

Now I think those are some prime examples of what Webster's describes as dogmatic. I can most likely find several others by searching all the forums for Rainfall.

First of all, Pyroxy and proxy are two different nicks used on this board by two different people, please catch up.

Second of all, you have spewed YOUR UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINIONS all over this board, and when called upon it, you have only called names, referred to your opponent's statistics as BS without supporting your own UNSUBSTANIATED OPINIONS with any verifiable facts or statistics.

So this dogmatic comes along and bites you in the ****, and you just keep up the same foolish tactics that haven't worked yet. Hmmm, this doesn't speak well of your writing skills, your reading skills, you ability to convince others of the <laughing> righteousnes of your opinions, or your ability to learn from you past mistakes.

So, I have come to this point in my opinion of you:

You spew your enlightened opinion as fact.

You make pitiful, inadequate attempts to discredit other folks sources without corroborating evidence. (hint) Even citing theonion.com would be more substantial than what you've done so far.

You resort to name calling,

Skibum/proxy are exaples of dogmatics. You obviously know what that means yet you can't follow instructions.

You've not proven yourself to be a qualified giver of instructions to anyone.

You inferred that Pyroxy is homophobic:

homophobia... it's the worst disease... homophobia... you can't who you want to love in times like these...

Labeled a legitimate gun owners organization as a..., what was it? Oh yeah:

white trash kill em all

and to top it all off, you make racial innuendos when called upon to verify your sources.

but asking gunowners.org is like asking "whitepower.com" their opinion of a new law regarding blacks...

Evidently not knowing that one of the most vocal supporters of Gun Owners of America is a black publisher.

So, please Mr. Fall, or should I call you Brian, your style of presenting your views my work well for you on the left coast, but I can assure that it will not work near as well with the rest of the world.

Good ol' Brainfall, always good for a laugh.

HAND,

Ski Bum

(Aside to Pyroxy)

"Nah, no need for the net, Pyroxy. This one ain't big enough to keep. Prolly not even old enough to reproduce yet."