10 of 10
10
11. September 2001: Both Flight 77 and Flight 93 were shot down over the Atlantic Ocean ?
Posted: 12 June 2006 07:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2065
Joined  2005-12-05

I’m not a big fan of polls…..., but what did some of the other polls well known polling agencies conclude? 

I wasn’t impressed with these FAQs from the Zogby site.  A bit glib.

Why don’t you ever call me or my friends? None of my friends, or those in my circle agree with the polls!
JZ: “Phone numbers are chosen purely by random, ensuring that every household in the US (or wherever we are polling) have as much chance of being selected as any other. With tens of millions of adults in the US, it is still rather easy to be missed - but stay in there and maybe stay home more often. You probably have more of a chance of being called than having a visit by Ed McMahon.”


How can polls be so accurate when you only ask such a small number of people?

JZ: “It’s pure probability and statistics. The same theory is involved as when you take a blood test and the clinician draws only a small sample rather than draining all the blood out of your body.”

I read a lot of polls and yours is so different from the others - what makes your answers so different (and accurate)?

JZ: “We poll only likely voters who are different from just all adults. In addition, we poll all day long - 9am to 9pm local time (to the region we’re calling). Finally, we apply weighting for party identification to ensure that there is no built-in Democratic bias in our sampling.”   (What the hell is that supposed to mean?  No Democratic bias?  Why include that line?)

 Signature 

Space…..it seems to go on and on forever, but then you get to the end and the gorrilla starts throwing barrels at you. - Phlip J. Fry

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2006 10:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

Re:  Polls

Polls can help someone determine how the public in general feels about a certain issue or topic, such as whether we prefer pulp in our orange juice, or if we think Mick Jagger should call it a day, and be pretty darned accurate, within their given margins of error.  They are statistically valid when properly conducted.

However, polling the public on an issue such as, ‘Were the World Trade Centers a target of a conspiracy by some unknown force?’ one may learn how the public feels about the issue, but the public’s feelings certainly have no bearing on the reality of the situation.

In other words, the results of a poll regarding a conspiracy are meaningless if applied to whether or not the conspiracy is a reality.  The poll only has meaning in regards to how the public perceives same.  And what is the public using as a basis for its feelings?  A Michael Moore movie?  A book by Ann Coulter?  An internet posting by Dan Jr.?

Quoting a poll as a method to legitimize your own point of view is meaningless.

Dan the ‘Oh So Brilliant’ Analyst

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2006 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  8164
Joined  2005-02-06
Loose Nuke - 07 June 2006 12:27 AM

3) You’re right, it’s just a poll. However, this is America, it’s supposed to be government representative of the public will, so public opinion counts for something; if people feel the truth has not been told, and only 48% said the truth was told- 42% said coverup, 8% unsure, then both the official 9/11 story and this government are lacking in legitimacy.

...or rather, it might indicate that 52% of Americans simply do not have the necessary knowledge and/or intelligence to decide on such questions. Whether something is “true” or not is not decided by democratics, you know. Even when an uneducated 52% of the populace thinks otherwise, the “official 9/11 story could be (and probably is) completely legitimate. After all, what does the average American know about engineering, physics, and intelligence gathering? Very little.

 Signature 

———
The Kruger-Dunning effect is rampant on internet fora.
J. Kruger & D. Dunning (1999), Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77, 1121-1134

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2006 09:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2006-06-10

Well, I set myself up for that one.  Just goes to show that there are plenty of ways that information produces ironies upon being “articulated”.  A bit of recursion there.  It’s more important as a form of bait, to see who needs to pounce on it the most and to draw out their venom, so I can gain more information than I lose.  What the heck, I’ll admit it was intentional, since you were so wry about your seizing upon it.  I was actually curious as to whether a certain “someone” would go after it, and how viciously in that case.  Didn’t expect the mild reaction.  The restraint is admirable.  The “certain someone” passed up on it.  Which may or may not in itself present information of a certain sort.  Yes, I am very interested in “information.”  So were Sun Tsu and Boyle, and Duke Wen.  We all are, of course, but not usually qua information.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 June 2006 09:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  3
Joined  2006-06-10

I’m suprised there hasn’t been the simple solution put forward that the liklihood that certain “plot grids” like “Democrats vs. Republicans” are staged scripts, psuedo-conspiracy theories, designed to make people think that they’ve “thought deeply” about their daily rag, but within acceptable bounds of “reality”.  It’s too easy to be taken in by that sort of foul bait.  It blatantly insults the intelligence.  As if.  Let’s see, what are the chances that the ultra-rich have the same interests and know each other, and have the means to ensure mutually beneficial arrangements in secret.  Oh, I don’t know, good?  There are no real political parties, they are in fact smokescreens.  What passes for “corruption” is, in fact, a smokescreen.  It is corruption “lite” compared with the magnitude of actual corruption.  At least, this is one solid interpretation, and I feel it is far more stable in its correlation to human nature as we know it and the tendencies it exhibits in groups, especially elite and powerful groups.  But if it helps keep that “warm-fuzzy” alive, that feeling that helps keep you brain going and your tail wagging, go ahead and just assume that the newspapers, which present filtered and distorted information within finite frameworks of presentation packaged in rhetoric that has someones interests at heart (not yours), but is it likely?  I’m not sure that you have to have dramatic fantasies about lizards ala Icke in order to analyze a bit further than the “Democrats” (arrrrr) vs. “Republicans” (grrrrr) conflict script.  Icke has some useful notions aside from lizardry, such as the “opposames” concept.  Its really simple.  Just watch some WWF, or whatever it is they call it nowadays.  While doing so, take a good look at the audience.  Now shift on over to political rallies, debates, demonstrations, riots, etc.  Draw the inductive inference.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2006 01:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Theorist - 11 June 2006 03:50 AM

I wish that I had the time to research the details of these events without having to rely on indirect sources such as commision reports, experts, journalists, and conveyors and purveyors of these sources, such as those whose debates rage on sites such as this one.  I think that the best way for me to REALLY know what is going on “out there” is to be “in on it”.  There is simply no other ironclad way.  I would either have to be directly privy to the going-ons of those involved in such a way as to be effectively the same as them for purposes of what I know (like a mole would be), or I would have to actually be involved (perhaps with a mole looking over my shoulder).  Without recourse to either of these privileged sources of information, I must struggle to analyze and synthesize a wide array of information that must have gone through myriad distortions before reaching my experience, regardless of most interpretations I might take of it, many of which contain a sort of “distortion corrective” as part of their modus analyticus, if you will.

Yes, we can’t know first-hand what happened there.  Just like we can’t know first-hand most things in life.  Even for a person who was there on scene, there was too much going on.  We can, however, find out much second-hand.  By looking at the aftermath of events, we can often get a good idea of what did occur, as well as how to keep it from happening again.  Which is why we must put our faith in the findings of various experts, in the reports of various institutions and organisations, and in our own perception of what evidence is given.  That is what this whole debate here has been about:  which of these experts and reports and bits of evidence are valid?

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2006 02:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 106 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Bebelicious - 12 June 2006 11:16 AM

Why don’t you ever call me or my friends? None of my friends, or those in my circle agree with the polls!
JZ: “Phone numbers are chosen purely by random, ensuring that every household in the US (or wherever we are polling) have as much chance of being selected as any other. With tens of millions of adults in the US, it is still rather easy to be missed - but stay in there and maybe stay home more often. You probably have more of a chance of being called than having a visit by Ed McMahon.”

Random doesn’t mean that it has the most varied polling population, it just means that they didn’t have any set pattern in selecting who they polled.  You tend to get random clusters of various traits or beliefs that often have no relation to the actual overall trend.  If you polled 200 people in the US on what their ethnic background was, a random selection could quite possibly result in the polling of 140 people of Polynesian descent.  Then you’ll have a poll showing that 70% of Americans are descended from Polynesians.  And this sort of thing gets even worse the more topics you poll each person on.

The only sure way to get the most varied polling population is to go through and compare possible candidates.  This, of course, leads to the problem of the people conducting the poll choosing (consciously or not) candidates who will tend to bias the poll results one way or another.

The larger the percentage of the population you poll, of course, the more accurate the poll’s results will be.  Even if you poll 50%, though, you can still have a major error.  Really, unless you poll just about the entire population, you’re not guaranteed to get results that have any resemblance to reality.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2006 02:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 107 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  61098
Joined  2005-04-14
Theorist - 13 June 2006 01:51 AM

I’m suprised there hasn’t been the simple solution put forward that the liklihood that certain “plot grids” like “Democrats vs. Republicans” are staged scripts, psuedo-conspiracy theories, designed to make people think that they’ve “thought deeply” about their daily rag, but within acceptable bounds of “reality”.  It’s too easy to be taken in by that sort of foul bait.  It blatantly insults the intelligence.  As if.  Let’s see, what are the chances that the ultra-rich have the same interests and know each other, and have the means to ensure mutually beneficial arrangements in secret.  Oh, I don’t know, good?  There are no real political parties, they are in fact smokescreens.  What passes for “corruption” is, in fact, a smokescreen.  It is corruption “lite” compared with the magnitude of actual corruption.  At least, this is one solid interpretation, and I feel it is far more stable in its correlation to human nature as we know it and the tendencies it exhibits in groups, especially elite and powerful groups.  But if it helps keep that “warm-fuzzy” alive, that feeling that helps keep you brain going and your tail wagging, go ahead and just assume that the newspapers, which present filtered and distorted information within finite frameworks of presentation packaged in rhetoric that has someones interests at heart (not yours), but is it likely?  I’m not sure that you have to have dramatic fantasies about lizards ala Icke in order to analyze a bit further than the “Democrats” (arrrrr) vs. “Republicans” (grrrrr) conflict script.  Icke has some useful notions aside from lizardry, such as the “opposames” concept.  Its really simple.  Just watch some WWF, or whatever it is they call it nowadays.  While doing so, take a good look at the audience.  Now shift on over to political rallies, debates, demonstrations, riots, etc.  Draw the inductive inference.

That assumes that all the rich and powerful do get along, though, and have the same agenda.

 Signature 

“If any man wish to write in a clear style, let him be first clear in his thoughts.”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2006 11:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 108 ]
Five Star Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1313
Joined  2006-02-05

Re:  Accipiter above

The ‘rich and powerful’ are as busy trying to ace-out one another as they are trying to clean out the rest of us.  They operate on one principle (as do many people):  “What’s mine is mine, and what is yours is going to be.”  Like predators on the savannah in Africa, they seek out the easiest target.  (Example:  Tort lawyers going after the now-vulnerable tobacco industry, making literally Billions in fees.)

But gee, you know, from the perspective of history, us common folks have never had it better.  We eat better food than kings of just 100 years ago, (fresh produce in large variety, lots of meat and protein sources, unending treats, etc); mothers survive childbirth regularly now, we live in dry comfortable living quarters with computers and color TV’s and refrigerators, the likelihood of roving gangs of thugs invading our village and looting us and raping our women-folk are pretty darned slender, medical care, even minimal medical care, is better now than ever before, we are given the opportunity to educate ourselves at public expense, and lots of other benefits.

Not that life is perfect, it never will be, even for the ‘rich and powerful’.  (If their lives were perfect, how come they keep needing more?)

But on the overall, if there is a conspiracy to keep us ‘down’, the conspirators aren’t very good at it, you know?

Dan, Who sees the cup as more than half-full.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 November 2006 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 109 ]
New Member
Rank
Total Posts:  4
Joined  2006-11-07

[The answer is no they cannot there was a program to place a system calld Hijack Home run that allowed the pilot to hit a hijack button and shunt contol to FAA or NORAD so they could redirect and remotly land the plane. This was a propsal back in 1980 it was found out of the 600 test planes 15 had fatal accidents from errors in the system. The system was scrapped and replaced with an emergancy code transponder.

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 10
10