Saturday, February 16, 2008

$1000 Ryan Mackey Challenge

Ryan Mackey is a rocket scientist. He's a NASA engineer and staunch supporter of the official 9/11 story. He is "RMackey" on the JREF forum and has recently claimed victory for his side of the argument, supposedly based on the notion that nothing "new" has emerged from the truth movement in some time. In a recent JREF poll, Mackey spews:
In my experience, the other side hasn't contributed anything useful for a long, long time, essentially forfeiting the contest.

-Ryan Mackey

Plenty of new 9/11 research is coming out, especially in the area of video fakery, so Mackey's premise is false. Even accepting the notion that no new 9/11 truth claims have emerged recently, it's a complete fallacy to think this means the argument is over. How ridiculous! Copernicus, Galileo and Newton haven't contributed anything useful for a long, long time. Have they essentially forfeited the contest to the astrologers, the alchemists, and the Flat Earth Society? Please.

This is the same Ryan Mackey who claimed that my Chopper 5 velocity study did not make falsifiable predictions. Of course it does. My method predicts that in legitimate airplane videos, stabilizing the footage will stabilize the motion of the airplane. Further, my paper presents control cases to test the predictions.

In trying to discredit my analysis, and no-planes theory in general, Mackey offers this:

The [no-planes, video compositing] theory presented is not complete, because it does not describe how the attacks really were carried out (and leaves no readily apparent candidate), who did this, or why. We must treat this as an Anomaly or Artifact, and assign an initial plausibility score of 0.25.

The evidence presented in support of this theory is disputable on its face, and the theory makes no predictions, testable or otherwise. Methods of calculation are ad hoc and nonstandard, permitting no easy review. There are no positive adjustments. There are, however, several negative adjustments:

* The unsupported and exceptional assumption that video editing capabilities of this sophistication exist
* The assumption that all major news organizations are complicit in this plot
* The repeated refusal to address those who witnessed the impacts, rather than finding out about them through news organizations
* Repeated arguments from personal incredulity regarding the phenomenology of the collapses that eventually followed

Ryan Mackey is a NASA engineer, for crying out loud. He holds two patents. Is he really trying to convince us that video compositing doesn't exist? It not only exists, in my town, children learn video compositing at video camp. Mackey calls the existence of video compositing technology an "unsupported and exceptional assumption" ? Huh?

Mackey knows perfectly well that video compositing exists, and he knows perfectly well that my velocity study yields falsifiable predictions. When I began pointing this out to Mackey, right around the time I spoke at the Madison Scholars conference, I was immediately and permanently banned from the JREF forum.

All this came long after I had repeatedly challenged the esteemed rocket scientist to a debate. I repeat the challenge. Ryan Mackey, if you will debate me on 9/11 planes, I will pay you $1000. You can keep the money, donate it to your favorite charity, or whatever. Mackey lives in the greater Los Angeles area, as do I.

My only stipulations are that the debate be video taped, and that I be allowed to present photo and video evidence. I'm not holding my breath. I think what I've always thought. Mackey is scared to death of a one on one debate. He knows he's lying and defending mass-murderers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

No comments: