OK Bombing BIZARRE!

1 view
Skip to first unread message

rn...@metronet.com.metronet.com

unread,
Apr 24, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/24/95
to

In article <D7K6...@midway.uchicago.edu>, <th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu> writes:
> Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,sci.skeptic
> Path: feenix.metronet.com!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!gatech!ncar!uchinews!kimbark!thf2
> From: th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
> Subject: Re: OK Bombing BIZARRE!
> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu
> Message-ID: <D7K6...@midway.uchicago.edu>
> Sender: ne...@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator)
> Reply-To: th...@midway.uchicago.edu
> Organization: The University of Chicago
> References: <3nh12u$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 21:42:11 GMT
> Lines: 11
> Xref: feenix.metronet.com alt.conspiracy:63606 sci.skeptic:68204
>
> In article <3nh12u$l...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> Rmplstlskn <rmpls...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Furthermore, why were TWO
> >distinct shocks recorded by seismologists in OK, both only 10 seconds
> >apart.
>
> Because shock-waves travel through different kinds of rock at different
> speeds?
> --
> ted frank "it's one thing to appear well read, Dave, but have you
even
> read Finian's Wake?" - db0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
>

Ted - one more rational outburst like that and you're outta here!

This newsgroup didn't get where it is today by putting forth logical
explanations for ordinary phenomena. For Pete's sake - couldn't you at
least throw in a sinister conspiracy, some UFOs, or maybe Big Foot (it's
been sooooooo long since I've heard anything about him).

Just remember what my great grandmother used to say, "If you can't say
something provocative, outragious and unprovable, don't say anything."

John DeLaughter

unread,
Apr 25, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/25/95
to
><th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu> writes:
>>
>> Rmplstlskn <rmpls...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >Furthermore, why were TWO
>> >distinct shocks recorded by seismologists in OK, both only 10 seconds
>> >apart.
>>
>> Because shock-waves travel through different kinds of rock at different
>> speeds?
>> --
>> ted frank "it's one thing to appear well read, Dave, but have you

Ted, that's a good first try, but I'm afraid that it isn't the correct
answer. You see, basically, what you are proposing is that the wave
created a multiple of itself as it traveled. While that does happen,
especially when a seismic wave encounters a change in stratum, the
only way to get a difference in travel time is for the new wave to take
a different path. Again, that does happen (in fact, it's the basis for
reflection seismology), but its not the simplest explanation for the
facts.

The simplest explanation is that the primary and secondary arrivals
due to P-waves and S-waves (waves that travel through the rock in
two distinct modes) were mis-read by someone unfamiliar with seismology.
Since each wave creates a spike on the record, someone could interpret
them as two seperate events, even though they were caused by the same
explosion. I've done a scoping calculation to see if this is a reasonable
interpretation.

Seismic velocities through rock are on the order of km/s, even for
relatively loose sediment. A typical value for sandstone (such as that
underlying OKC) is 4.3 km/s for the P-wave and 1.4 km/s for the S-wave.
At those velocities, the wave would have needed to travel 21 km to create a
10 second travel time difference - a not unreasonable distance. As I
recall, the nearest seismometer to the blast is located in Omniplex
Science Museum, which is about 19 km away from the blast site. So I feel
the more likely interpretation is that a non-seismologist misread the
record and interpreted the primary and secondary arrivals as two shocks.

John DeLaughter

rn...@metronet.com

unread,
Apr 25, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/25/95
to

In article <3niu54$4...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, <j...@nam.earth.nwu.edu>
writes:

John -

re. your clear, plausible, and insightful response to the suggestions
that a piece of paper knows better than people in the vicinity and people
who are currently investigating whether there were two explosions or not:

Thank you. Thank you. And, by the way, thanks again.

Thanks also to Ted - who may not have been accurate as to details, but
certainly accurate as to import.


Richard


Richard Cochran

unread,
Apr 25, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/25/95
to
John DeLaughter (j...@nam.earth.nwu.edu) wrote:

: ><th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu> writes:
: >>
: >> Rmplstlskn <rmpls...@aol.com> wrote:
: >> >Furthermore, why were TWO
: >> >distinct shocks recorded by seismologists in OK, both only 10 seconds
: >> >apart.
: >>
: >> Because shock-waves travel through different kinds of rock at different
: >> speeds?
: >> --
: >> ted frank "it's one thing to appear well read, Dave, but have you

: Ted, that's a good first try, but I'm afraid that it isn't the correct
: answer.
[Plausible explanation of P-wave & S-wave separation being interpreted
by non-seismologists as separate events deleted]

Another possibility which came to my mind is that one event was
the explosion itself, and a second event was when the collapsed building
hit the ground. Yes, I know that the building would not all hit
the ground at once, but there might be enough of a separate distinct
impact to register on a seismograph. This might also explain
nearby witnesses believing they heard two events.

I'm not so bold as to claim that this is the _correct_ explanation,
since news reports are my only source of facts, and they are
incomplete. But to my knowledge, this explanation has not yet been
contradicted by any facts that have been reliably reported in the
news.

--Rich

I Am Evil

unread,
Apr 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/26/95
to

>
>Another possibility which came to my mind is that one event was
>the explosion itself, and a second event was when the collapsed
building
>hit the ground. Yes, I know that the building would not all hit
>the ground at once, but there might be enough of a separate distinct
>impact to register on a seismograph. This might also explain
>nearby witnesses believing they heard two events.
>
>I'm not so bold as to claim that this is the _correct_ explanation,
>since news reports are my only source of facts, and they are
>incomplete. But to my knowledge, this explanation has not yet been
>contradicted by any facts that have been reliably reported in the
>news.

No, according to seismologists at the University of Oklahoma, they were
to very distince patterns that were of the same magnatude, the patterns
were almost the same in every way other than they were seconds apart. I
dont think an echo is a plausible theory.

John DeLaughter

unread,
Apr 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/26/95
to
rcoc...@netcom.com (Richard Cochran) writes:
>John DeLaughter (j...@nam.earth.nwu.edu) wrote:
>: ><th...@kimbark.uchicago.edu> writes:
>: >>
>: >> Rmplstlskn <rmpls...@aol.com> wrote:
>: >> >Furthermore, why were TWO
>: >> >distinct shocks recorded by seismologists in OK, both only 10 seconds
>: >> >apart.
>: >>
>: >> Because shock-waves travel through different kinds of rock at different
>: >> speeds?
>
>: Ted, that's a good first try, but I'm afraid that it isn't the correct
>: answer.
> [Plausible explanation of P-wave & S-wave separation being interpreted
> by non-seismologists as separate events deleted]
>
>Another possibility which came to my mind is that one event was
>the explosion itself, and a second event was when the collapsed building
>hit the ground. Yes, I know that the building would not all hit
>the ground at once, but there might be enough of a separate distinct
>impact to register on a seismograph. This might also explain
>nearby witnesses believing they heard two events.

I thought of that one also, and *should* have included it for the sake
of completeness. (Will you accept a million "Mea Culpa"s? (Cash value
.001$)) I do not believe that it is a likely explanation because the
collapse of the building probably took place over a long (~2-3 sec)
time period. On a seismograph, this would look like a slow upward
drift in the trace, rather than a distinct `blip'. However, I'm
fully prepared to be proven wrong by the investigators.

John DeLaughter


Jorn Barger

unread,
Apr 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/26/95
to
In article <3niu54$4...@news.acns.nwu.edu> on sci.skeptic,

John DeLaughter <j...@nam.earth.nwu.edu> wrote:
>The simplest explanation is that the primary and secondary arrivals
>due to P-waves and S-waves (waves that travel through the rock in
>two distinct modes) were mis-read by someone unfamiliar with seismology.

As the only poster so far who claims to have seen the printout on
tv, I find this marginally plausible. My impression was that the
guy showing the page was a seismologist, and thought it implied
two blasts.

>Since each wave creates a spike on the record, someone could interpret
>them as two seperate events, even though they were caused by the same
>explosion.

I remember what I saw as, approximately:

-----mmmmmMMMMMmmmmm-----------mmmmmMMMMMmmmmm-------------

I could be way off here, but would this match a P/S separation?

> I've done a scoping calculation to see if this is a reasonable
>interpretation.
>
>Seismic velocities through rock are on the order of km/s, even for
>relatively loose sediment. A typical value for sandstone (such as that
>underlying OKC) is 4.3 km/s for the P-wave and 1.4 km/s for the S-wave.
>At those velocities, the wave would have needed to travel 21 km to create a
>10 second travel time difference - a not unreasonable distance.

*29* ...right?

> As I
>recall, the nearest seismometer to the blast is located in Omniplex
>Science Museum, which is about 19 km away from the blast site. So I feel

oops. ;^/

>the more likely interpretation is that a non-seismologist misread the
>record and interpreted the primary and secondary arrivals as two shocks.

Geologists?

Note-- the gopher site mentioned in another message as:

> gopher://wealaka.okgeosurvey1.gov will get you in.
> Choose "Waveforms"
> "Dearchive"
> "Blast"

Is correct except "Blast" is something else altogether. They say
postscript traces are available, somewhere...

(Actually, they only go back a week, so look today!!!)


j
jo...@mcs.com


Jorn Barger

unread,
Apr 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/26/95
to
In article <NEWTNews.798842...@anybody.metronet.com.metronet.com>,

<rn...@metronet.com> wrote:
>
>Thanks also to Ted - who may not have been accurate as to details, but
>certainly accurate as to import.
>

Hmmm. Is sci.skeptic going to let this attitude stand unchallenged???


j
jo...@mcs.com


Jeff Gauvin

unread,
Apr 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/26/95
to
In article <3nl3kq$f...@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> evil...@ix.netcom.com (I Am Evil) writes:
>No, according to seismologists at the University of Oklahoma, they were
>to very distince patterns that were of the same magnatude, the patterns
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>were almost the same in every way other than they were seconds apart. I
>dont think an echo is a plausible theory.

Normally I ignore spelling, but your errors make interpreting your post
difficult! Were you trying to say "two very distinct patterns" or "two very
distant (distance?) patterns" or "too very distant" or ...?

And how can they be "distinct" yet "the same in every way" ?

And why don't you think an echo is a plausible theory? If the signals were the
same in every way, I would think an echo was the best explanation. Based on
the time separation of the signals and the propagation speed of said signals
through rock, one can figure the difference in path lengths (I think this was
done in another post). Then one can figure the expected signal attenuation due
to the additional distance traveled and compare against the actual signal. I
am not a seismologist so I cannot offer any guesses as to expected attenuation
or what such a comparison might reveal.

As far as the witnesses who heard two events - they may have heard an echo
too. Sonic echos are not unheard of (pun intended). This is not unlike a
single lightning strike creating multiple booms.

Like you, I have no "facts" other than what I've read. But with limited
knowledge of seismology and insufficient (& possibly erroneous) information, I
would not try to form any conclusions or reject any possible explanation.

------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gauvin, Design Engineer, Symbios Logic Inc.
jeff....@symbios.com
*** Opinions are my own ***

Carol

unread,
Apr 26, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/26/95
to
In article
<NEWTNews.79878...@anybody.metronet.com.metronet.com>,
rn...@metronet.com.metronet.com wrote:

>Ted - one more rational outburst like that and you're outta here!
>
>This newsgroup didn't get where it is today by putting forth logical
>explanations for ordinary phenomena. For Pete's sake - couldn't you at
>least throw in a sinister conspiracy, some UFOs, or maybe Big Foot (it's
>been sooooooo long since I've heard anything about him).
>


NASA did it!!!! They launched a secret CIA Shuttle flight two years
ago to divert an asteroid on a perfect path to impact in OK!

It was a huge plot! The whole moon landing thing was a cover up
to prepare for this attack on the militias!

;-)

A.C.

--
Andrew Carol "Could be worse. Could be raining."
ca...@alaska.net ca...@ctis.af.mil 71350...@compuserve.com

Horne Broward

unread,
Apr 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/27/95
to
Jorn Barger (jo...@MCS.COM) wrote:

: Note-- the gopher site mentioned in another message as:

: > gopher://wealaka.okgeosurvey1.gov will get you in.
: > Choose "Waveforms"
: > "Dearchive"
: > "Blast"

: Is correct except "Blast" is something else altogether. They say
: postscript traces are available, somewhere...


As the original poster ...

"blast" is correct. It's entry number 585.

.sac graphs have been added sometime today. Now
all I need is to be able to find WQBETA1.ZIP on
an ftp site I can reach.

John DeLaughter

unread,
Apr 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/27/95
to
>John DeLaughter <j...@nam.earth.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>The simplest explanation is that the primary and secondary arrivals
>>due to P-waves and S-waves (waves that travel through the rock in
>>two distinct modes) were mis-read by someone unfamiliar with seismology.
>
>>Seismic velocities through rock are on the order of km/s, even for
>>relatively loose sediment. A typical value for sandstone (such as that
>>underlying OKC) is 4.3 km/s for the P-wave and 1.4 km/s for the S-wave.
>>At those velocities, the wave would have needed to travel 21 km to create a
>>10 second travel time difference - a not unreasonable distance.

I thought a little more about my response last night, and I came to
the conclusion that, while correct in essence, my calculation may be
incorrect in detail. Specifically, the shear velocity for sandstone
that I used is too low; a better value would be 2.5 km/s. (Dobrin and
Savit, _Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting_, p. 48) Using
these numbers, I get a distance of about 60 km. The seismic station
for OU is located on the south side of Norman at about the right distance.

Now, lest anyone accuse me of fudging my numbers/making up station
locations, the location of every seismic station in Oklahoma except
the one at Omniplex is given in Luza and Lawson, _Seismicity and
Tectonic Relationships of the Nemaha Uplift in Oklahoma, Part Four_,
1981. (Omniplex isn't listed because they send their records directly
to Golden, CO.)


John DeLaughter


John DeLaughter

unread,
Apr 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/27/95
to
hl...@netcom.com (Hudson Luce) writes:
>jo...@MCS.COM (Jorn Barger) writes:
>
>>John DeLaughter <j...@nam.earth.nwu.edu> wrote:
<SNIP! My try at a scoping calculation>

>>> As I
>>>recall, the nearest seismometer to the blast is located in Omniplex
>>>Science Museum, which is about 19 km away from the blast site. So I feel
>
> Wrong. The Omniplex is about 7 km away. The sensors at the Omniplex did not
> show two sets of waves, simply because the first blast caused the sensor to
> overload ("clip") and stay overloaded long enough not to be able to differ-
> entiate the second event.

Hey, I just *worked* there, I never really paid any attention to how *far*
it was from various places. In other words, folks - believe Hudson's
distance before you believe mine. (Or go look it up on a map. Omniplex
is located at 2100 NE 51, OKC) The clipping is not unexpected, but
it does make it harder to determine if the two peaks correspond to separate
events or not, darn it!

> P-wave, at 4.3 km/s: 1.6 seconds
> S-wave, at 1.4 km/s: 5.0 seconds
>
> There is analog data only from this site, there were no digital recorders
> present there.
>
> Farther out, at 26 km from the blast site, an analog record was made; again,
> no digital equipment was present. This seismograph is the one that was faxed
> out all over the country, and whose patterns are indicated above (vide
> supra).

This is the one from the Norman site, right? (FWIW, it's housed on the
lot belonging to my thesis advisor. 8-) )

> P-wave, at 4.3 km/s: 6.1 seconds
> S-wave, at 1.4 km/s: 18.5 seconds
>
> giving a difference of about 12.4 seconds, which corresponds to the "10-
> second gap" mentioned earlier.

Cool. But I'm not happy about that S-wave velocity; I'd be happier if it
were closer to P-wave/(3^.5), per Poisson.

> What are the relative magnitudes of the P and S waves expected to be? Is
> it reasonable that the amplitude of the S wave is twice that of the P-wave?

Yes - that's fairly common. Fowler has several examples in chapter 4 of
_The Solid Earth_.

>
> Some vibrations can be seen before the amplitudes in each event reach their
> maxima, in the first event, this vibration last for about 5 seconds, and in
> the second event, about 2 seconds.

Possibly corresponding to building collapse?

I dunno; I haven't seen the things myself. Maybe I'll take a look when
I finish these darned posters I'm making for AGU...

John DeLaughter

Hudson Luce

unread,
Apr 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/27/95
to
jo...@MCS.COM (Jorn Barger) writes:

>In article <3niu54$4...@news.acns.nwu.edu> on sci.skeptic,

>John DeLaughter <j...@nam.earth.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>The simplest explanation is that the primary and secondary arrivals
>>due to P-waves and S-waves (waves that travel through the rock in
>>two distinct modes) were mis-read by someone unfamiliar with seismology.

>As the only poster so far who claims to have seen the printout on


>tv, I find this marginally plausible. My impression was that the
>guy showing the page was a seismologist, and thought it implied
>two blasts.

>>Since each wave creates a spike on the record, someone could interpret
>>them as two seperate events, even though they were caused by the same
>>explosion.

>I remember what I saw as, approximately:

>-----mmmmmMMMMMmmmmm-----------mmmmmMMMMMmmmmm-------------

It looks more like:
MMM
-----mmmmmmmMMMMMMMMm----------mmMMMmm---mm--mm--mm
MMM

>I could be way off here, but would this match a P/S separation?

>> I've done a scoping calculation to see if this is a reasonable
>>interpretation.
>>

>>Seismic velocities through rock are on the order of km/s, even for
>>relatively loose sediment. A typical value for sandstone (such as that
>>underlying OKC) is 4.3 km/s for the P-wave and 1.4 km/s for the S-wave.
>>At those velocities, the wave would have needed to travel 21 km to create a
>>10 second travel time difference - a not unreasonable distance.

>*29* ...right?

>> As I
>>recall, the nearest seismometer to the blast is located in Omniplex
>>Science Museum, which is about 19 km away from the blast site. So I feel

Wrong. The Omniplex is about 7 km away. The sensors at the Omniplex did not
show two sets of waves, simply because the first blast caused the sensor to
overload ("clip") and stay overloaded long enough not to be able to differ-
entiate the second event.

P-wave, at 4.3 km/s: 1.6 seconds


S-wave, at 1.4 km/s: 5.0 seconds

There is analog data only from this site, there were no digital recorders
present there.

Farther out, at 26 km from the blast site, an analog record was made; again,
no digital equipment was present. This seismograph is the one that was faxed
out all over the country, and whose patterns are indicated above (vide
supra).

P-wave, at 4.3 km/s: 6.1 seconds


S-wave, at 1.4 km/s: 18.5 seconds

giving a difference of about 12.4 seconds, which corresponds to the "10-
second gap" mentioned earlier.

What are the relative magnitudes of the P and S waves expected to be? Is


it reasonable that the amplitude of the S wave is twice that of the P-wave?

Some vibrations can be seen before the amplitudes in each event reach their


maxima, in the first event, this vibration last for about 5 seconds, and in
the second event, about 2 seconds.

>oops. ;^/

>>the more likely interpretation is that a non-seismologist misread the

>>record and interpreted the primary and secondary arrivals as two shocks.

>Geologists?

>Note-- the gopher site mentioned in another message as:

>> gopher://wealaka.okgeosurvey1.gov will get you in.
>> Choose "Waveforms"
>> "Dearchive"
>> "Blast"

>Is correct except "Blast" is something else altogether. They say
>postscript traces are available, somewhere...

The seismographic record obtained at this station, some 160 km from the
blast site, does not show any events which differentiate themselves from
background noise. Hence the data in "Blast" are not going to be useful for
finding out anything....

Jorn Barger

unread,
Apr 27, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/27/95
to

What I'm asking is this: Which is more important in a skeptic,
getting the facts right or getting the 'right' conclusions???


j


Hudson Luce

unread,
Apr 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/28/95
to
j...@nam.earth.nwu.edu (John DeLaughter) writes:

>>John DeLaughter <j...@nam.earth.nwu.edu> wrote:
>>>The simplest explanation is that the primary and secondary arrivals
>>>due to P-waves and S-waves (waves that travel through the rock in
>>>two distinct modes) were mis-read by someone unfamiliar with seismology.
>>

>>>Seismic velocities through rock are on the order of km/s, even for
>>>relatively loose sediment. A typical value for sandstone (such as that
>>>underlying OKC) is 4.3 km/s for the P-wave and 1.4 km/s for the S-wave.
>>>At those velocities, the wave would have needed to travel 21 km to create a
>>>10 second travel time difference - a not unreasonable distance.

>I thought a little more about my response last night, and I came to


>the conclusion that, while correct in essence, my calculation may be
>incorrect in detail. Specifically, the shear velocity for sandstone
>that I used is too low; a better value would be 2.5 km/s. (Dobrin and
>Savit, _Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting_, p. 48) Using
>these numbers, I get a distance of about 60 km. The seismic station
>for OU is located on the south side of Norman at about the right distance.

The seismographical record that everyone is referring to was produced
at a station 26 km from the blast site (FNO).

Carl J Lydick

unread,
Apr 28, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/28/95
to
In article <hluceD7...@netcom.com>, hl...@netcom.com (Hudson Luce) writes:
= What are the relative magnitudes of the P and S waves expected to be? Is
= it reasonable that the amplitude of the S wave is twice that of the P-wave?

Er, amplitude of which components of the waves? The P wave is a compressional
wave; the S wave is a shear wave. It's easily possible for a component of the
S wave orthogonal to the direction of the event from the sensor to have a
much larger magnitude than that of the corresponding component of the P wave.
And any particular seismograph typically records only one of three orthogonal
components (typically, vertical, east/west, or north/south).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.

James Collins

unread,
Apr 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/29/95
to
In article <kjnD7p...@netcom.com>, k...@netcom.com (Ken Navarre) wrote:

>Horne Broward says:
>
>" As the original poster ...
>
>" "blast" is correct. It's entry number 585.
>
>I think that was 582 rather than 585 but it's a LONG way down the list...

Hmm, I think it was 583, I dunno. There is a buncha stuff there like you
said. Now, the only problem for me is, I have this file, now what do I
use to view it? I haven't seen anything for viewing waveforms. Hopefully
someone has seen something for PC's? BTW, for those of you lurking, and
possibly interested in getting it, the file I got was something around
1.7 megs. Something they don't bother telling you in the listing... :)
Sure took a long time to get... :) :) :)

>" .sac graphs have been added sometime today. Now
>" all I need is to be able to find WQBETA1.ZIP on
>" an ftp site I can reach.
>

>If you can't reach andreas.wr.usgs.gov/pub/psn/main
>
>you can reach the same location via the USGS/PSN BBS at (415) 327-1517 or
>toll free if you're calling from No. Cal. at (800) 328-1517. WQBETA1.zip
>is in file area 3 (MAIN).

I assume that WQBETA1.ZIP is for viewing *.sac files, and not the *.w
waveform file that is at the gopher site, right? Does anyone know where
the *.sav graphs are on the gopher site?

>PS> The digital "blast" seismograms only show random background noise due to
>the fact that they were obtained from 160 km from OKC. Nothing shows up
>at that distance. Analog recordings were obtained from 7 km and 26 km but
>those are not available on the net.

Hmm, oh well, at least we can look. Thanks for the info.

James

Dwight Elvey

unread,
Apr 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/29/95
to
Hi
This is kind of a cross message. I have noticed that I seem to be
able to feel what I beleave is the difference in time between
the P-waves and the S-wave that I felt during the Pinnicles 1:41 PST
earth quake ( and others ). I was wondering is there some kind of
rule of thumb that tells me how far away the quake is by counting
the time difference ( something like counting second for lightning ).
Also is the durration of the quake more related to the energy
released or the area of slip.
Dwight

Allen Lazaroff

unread,
Apr 29, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/29/95
to
j...@juand.earth.nwu.edu (John DeLaughter) wrote:

[...snip...]


>
> Possibly corresponding to building collapse?
>
> I dunno; I haven't seen the things myself. Maybe I'll take a look when
> I finish these darned posters I'm making for AGU...

By way of supporting the notion that there really were 2 seismic signals
(and they're not all crazy at the OU seismic station), I am reposting this
from the alt.conspiracy group from a retired FBI Chief Inspector. It
explains how there could have been one bomb and two seismic signals.

(OK, OK, I hear all you folks out there alternatively laughing & screaming.
;-) Just be thankful I didn't post the stuff about there really being 2
bombs, planted by the Govt! <LOL> )

---------------------------
(posted to alt.conspiracy by Brian Redman 4/28/95
Subject: "Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 4 No. 72")

JOHN STADTMILLER:
Okay. Mr. Gunderson, I'm sitting here and I'm reading
what you've been involved in -- what you've been doing
since you retired from the F.B.I. You have quite a record
of service, sir:

senior special agent for Los Angeles from 1977 to 1979;

special agent-in-charge of Memphis, Tennessee
from 1973 to 1977;

in Dallas, in 1973, chief inspector;

from 1965 to 1973, you were assistant special agent-
in-charge of New Haven, Connecticut and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

KEN GUNDERSON:
I retired in 1979. I was in the F.B.I. from 1950 to 1979.
And I was in Washington, D.C. in the `60s, as a supervisor.
And then I became a chief inspector in the early `70s.
And from there I went to Memphis, Dallas and Los Angeles,
where I headed up those three offices.

JOHN STADTMILLER:
Okay. Very good.
Now, I understand that you can shed some light on the
incident [bombing] that happened in Oklahoma City.

KEN GUNDERSON:
Well, several days ago, I received a copy of the seismogram,
which is from the University of Oklahoma Geological
Department, Norman, Oklahoma. This seismogram shows that
there were two surface waves in the seismogram that was
being monitored by the University of Oklahoma. Of course,
they normally monitor for earthquakes.

But I called this morning and talked to Dr. Ken Luza.
I asked him to read and interpret this seismogram for me.
He told me that there were two surface waves on the morning
of April the 19th. One was at 9:02 A.M. and 13 seconds,
and the other was at 9:02 A.M. and 23 seconds, ten
milliseconds apart.
[JD: Actually, ten seconds apart.]
I asked him what that means, and he said that this indicates
that there were two detonations of a bomb, not one, as our
Government would like to have you believe.

So, with that, I did a more little research, through some of
my sources and contacts, and I came up with what I think is
probably the bomb that was used. At least it appears to have
been the bomb, based on my research and my contacts.

It was not a fertilizer bomb [as the U.S. Government states].
There are too many reasons why it was not a fertilizer bomb.
The [actual] bomb is called an "electro-hydrodynamic gaseous fuel
device" -- a barometric bomb. Now what that does ... it's
similar to the Army Blue-82 bomb, which is called the
"Daisy Cutter". The primary detonation sets up a cold [coal?]
cloud, a chemical cloud, which is energized with the electrostatic
voltage, and the second detonation produces an enhanced
explosion due to electrostatic microfronts.

I called the person (whom I happen to know) who developed this
bomb, and I relayed the information from the seismogram to him,
and pointed out to him that there were ten milliseconds [or is it
"seconds"? between explosions]. And he says that he is confident
that that is the bomb that he invented, or that he developed.

Now, the bomb has a signature [such] that barometric pressure
increases so rapidly and dramatically that it blows out the
windows in buildings within a two-to-three-block radius.
And, believe it or not, the bomb is the size of a pineapple.

Now, the reason that I do not believe, nor do my two
technicians believe (and I talked to two individuals on this)
that this was a fertilizer bomb is because there is not
enough "breisance" in an explosion of fertilizer to cause
the shock wave that destroyed that building.

JOHN STADTMILLER:
From what I understand, with these blasts that we're talking
about, we're actually talking about frequencies. And with
the [Government-declared] fertilizer bomb [story], they
[the Government] keep increasing the size of the bomb.
It started out being a thousand to fifteen hundred pounds.
And now they're up to two tons of it.
But, even still, that type of blasting device is a low-yield,
low-frequency [device], not capable of doing the type of
damage that was witnessed upon that Federal Building.

KEN GUNDERSON:
You said it before I did, and that's exactly what I was
going to say next. And that is exactly what was said by
the technicians whom I had talked to.

(this narrative is to be continued in a forthcoming issue)
---------------------------------------------------

Bernd P.F. Kassler

unread,
Apr 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/30/95
to
Hello James
(hun...@kaiwan.com)
on 29 Apr 95 you wrote in sci.skeptic
in topic : Re: OKC: Two tremors???

>>
>>the fact that they were obtained from 160 km from OKC. Nothing shows up
>>at that distance. Analog recordings were obtained from 7 km and 26 km but
>>those are not available on the net.
>
>Hmm, oh well, at least we can look. Thanks for the info.
>
well.... this thread is somewhat ridiculous in its way to ask questions.
Some people here beleive to see a multiple tremors and thus think there
have been more than one (i.e. at least two) blasts....

Now let us look at it in a more scientific way.

You have a system (which is a layered sediment/rock mixture)
======
You have a Dirac Impulse (Which is the explosion)....
=============
Noe what do you believe you will get ???

The Impulse Response of the system ! (and nothing else)...
================

and if the systems consist of a multiple layered structure you will have a
multipath propagation and thus *Ghost_Echoes*.... To read the Impulse
Response and to know the layer-structure you may be able to calculate the
location of the blast... this is done e.g. by Sonar Operators day by day
all over the warld.

Or take it the Geophysicist way: You know the locations and then you may
calculate the Layer-Structure ....

No theory for extraterrestrian attack on OKC needed. BTW: Now you have
your Neo-Nazis too - and not we Germans alone :-((

min...@toppoint.de..............................(Bernd P.F. Kassler)
- erratic othography is intended to contribute to common amusement -

Ken Navarre

unread,
Apr 30, 1995, 3:00:00 AM4/30/95
to
Bernd P.F. Kassler says:
" >Hmm, oh well, at least we can look. Thanks for the info.

" well.... this thread is somewhat ridiculous in its way to ask questions.
" Some people here beleive to see a multiple tremors and thus think there
" have been more than one (i.e. at least two) blasts....

" No theory for extraterrestrian attack on OKC needed. BTW: Now you have

" your Neo-Nazis too - and not we Germans alone :-((

And you call the previous stuff obtuse???

Sheesh!

Ken:)
--

Charles Bishop

unread,
May 1, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/1/95
to

Lighten up Ken. Mr. (or Herr) Kassler's post is possibly the English of
one for whom it is not the first languare. Not surprising then that it
may seem a tad stilted.

It was undrstandable though.

Charles

Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/2/95
to
In article <3nouai$b...@Venus.mcs.com>, jo...@MCS.COM (Jorn Barger) writes:
=In article <3nm4i0$8...@venus.mcs.com>, Jorn Barger <jo...@MCS.COM> wrote:
=>In article <NEWTNews.798842...@anybody.metronet.com.metronet.com>,
=> <rn...@metronet.com> wrote:
=>>Thanks also to Ted - who may not have been accurate as to details, but
=>>certainly accurate as to import.
=>>
=>
=>Hmmm. Is sci.skeptic going to let this attitude stand unchallenged???
=>
=
=What I'm asking is this: Which is more important in a skeptic,
=getting the facts right or getting the 'right' conclusions???

Neither is, in itself, sufficient. However, either can, in some circumstances,
be useful. Perhaps if you'd actually take trouble to explain, in detail, and
with reference to the particulars of this case, rather than posting vague
gibberish, you might get a discussion going.

Jorn Barger

unread,
May 2, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/2/95
to
In article <3o428v$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote, quoting me:

>=What I'm asking is this: Which is more important in a skeptic,
>=getting the facts right or getting the 'right' conclusions???
>
>Neither is, in itself, sufficient. However, either can, in some circumstances,
>be useful. Perhaps if you'd actually take trouble to explain, in detail, and
>with reference to the particulars of this case, rather than posting vague
>gibberish, you might get a discussion going.

Thanks, that's very thoughtful...

To explain, for those who don't know how to retrace a thread in their
newsreader:

On alt.conspiracy and many other groups, a new conspiracy theory is being
born that claims there was a second bomb in OKC, based mostly on early
media coverage of a seismogram that seems to show a second explosion
ten seconds after the first.

Ted Frank, in his Ted-like way, leapt in without knowing what he was
talking about and suggested that the difference was due to different
shock-wave speeds thru different sorts of ground. He was corrected
by someone better informed, but then there was this reply from
rn...@metronet.com:


=>>Thanks also to Ted - who may not have been accurate as to details, but
=>>certainly accurate as to import.

I found this to be a particularly vivid example of what I've begun to
term "Skeptical Correctness" (SkC) after the metaphor of PC/Political-
Correctness.

All to often in skeptics debate, there's a clearcut pattern of the
skeptics coming to a conclusion *beforehand* about what the 'skeptically
correct' answer needs to be, and running roughshod over good scientific
practice to make sure that conclusion comes out the victor...

What good are skeptics who don't have any detached standards of argument???


j
jo...@mcs.com

Ed Bogart

unread,
May 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/3/95
to
Charles Bishop (cbi...@netcom.com) wrote:
<snip>
: Lighten up Ken. Mr. (or Herr) Kassler's post is possibly the English of

: one for whom it is not the first languare. Not surprising then that it
: may seem a tad stilted.

: It was undrstandable though.

: Charles

I have been reading this thread and it seems to me that it all comes down to
the question of SO WHAT!? Other than trading insults and making what look
like totally uninformed quesses about a very abstruse science, so what? It
all reminds me of the endless debate over the number of holes in JFK's head.


--
-------------------------=================---------------------------------
Remember; life is too short to drink cheap wine! [or beer!]
-------------------------=================---------------------------------

Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/3/95
to
In article <3o5erh$k...@Mercury.mcs.com>, jo...@MCS.COM (Jorn Barger) writes:
=In article <3o428v$e...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>,
=Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> wrote, quoting me:
=>=What I'm asking is this: Which is more important in a skeptic,
=>=getting the facts right or getting the 'right' conclusions???
=>
=>Neither is, in itself, sufficient. However, either can, in some circumstances,
=>be useful. Perhaps if you'd actually take trouble to explain, in detail, and
=>with reference to the particulars of this case, rather than posting vague
=>gibberish, you might get a discussion going.
=
=Thanks, that's very thoughtful...
=
=To explain, for those who don't know how to retrace a thread in their
=newsreader:
=
=On alt.conspiracy and many other groups, a new conspiracy theory is being
=born that claims there was a second bomb in OKC, based mostly on early
=media coverage of a seismogram that seems to show a second explosion
=ten seconds after the first.
=
=Ted Frank, in his Ted-like way, leapt in without knowing what he was
=talking about and suggested that the difference was due to different
=shock-wave speeds thru different sorts of ground. He was corrected
=by someone better informed, but then there was this reply from
=rn...@metronet.com:
==>>Thanks also to Ted - who may not have been accurate as to details, but
==>>certainly accurate as to import.
=
=I found this to be a particularly vivid example of what I've begun to
=term "Skeptical Correctness" (SkC) after the metaphor of PC/Political-
=Correctness.

Well, basically, Ted suggested, amidst all the conspiracy theories, that
perhaps the cause was geological/seismological in nature. He posted one way in
which such considerations could, in some cases, produce what would appear to be
two separate shocks. I'm not sure if I saw his original post (the thread may
not yet have been crossposted to sci.skeptic at that point, for example). Now,
at that point in the discussion, few folks had enough details to provide a
detailed explanation of the particular event in question. To do so requires a
fairly detailed knowledge of the geology of the area in question. Though Ted's
example doesn't work for that particular case, it IS an important factor in
some similar cases, and it DID get some folks who know about geology/seismology
in general, including at least one who's familiar with the geology in the
region in question, involved in the discussion.

So what the hell is your objection? Are you one of those morons who believes
that any idea, to be valid, must spring full-blown from the brow of the person
originating it, and that therefore an idea which simply opens a particular area
of inquiry is inherently useless?

=All to often in skeptics debate, there's a clearcut pattern of the
=skeptics coming to a conclusion *beforehand* about what the 'skeptically
=correct' answer needs to be, and running roughshod over good scientific
=practice to make sure that conclusion comes out the victor...

OK, so you ARE such a moron.

Billy Beck

unread,
May 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/3/95
to
bog...@infi.net (Ed Bogart) wrote:

>I have been reading this thread and it seems to me that it all comes down to
>the question of SO WHAT!? Other than trading insults and making what look
>like totally uninformed quesses about a very abstruse science, so what? It
>all reminds me of the endless debate over the number of holes in JFK's head.

And the holes in JFK's head have ghosted this land ever since,
because there are questions which have never been answered.

It is important because, the flagrant rubbish of post-modern
philosophy notwithstanding, there is a *truth* to be found. One way
or another, something big happened here. Whatever it was, has its own
implications which directly bear on politics in America.

If you disagree, then zoom by to the next article.

"The worst event of this day, though it may deject, shall not
break or subdue me. The call upon us is authoritative. Let those who
will shrink back. I shall be found at my post."

(Edmund Burke - 1785)


Billy

Jorn Barger

unread,
May 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/3/95
to
Carl's reply to me:

>=rn...@metronet.com:
>==>>Thanks also to Ted - who may not have been accurate as to details, but
>==>>certainly accurate as to import.
>=
>=I found this to be a particularly vivid example of what I've begun to
>=term "Skeptical Correctness" (SkC) after the metaphor of PC/Political-
>=Correctness.

>
>Well, basically, Ted suggested, amidst all the conspiracy theories,
>that perhaps the cause was geological/seismological in nature. He
>posted one way in which such considerations could, in some cases,
>produce what would appear to be two separate shocks. I'm not sure if
>I saw his original post (the thread may not yet have been crossposted
>to sci.skeptic at that point, for example). Now, at that point in the
>discussion, few folks had enough details to provide a detailed
>explanation of the particular event in question. To do so requires a
>fairly detailed knowledge of the geology of the area in question.
>Though Ted's example doesn't work for that particular case, it IS an
>important factor in some similar cases, and it DID get some folks who
>know about geology/seismology in general, including at least one who's
>familiar with the geology in the region in question, involved in the
>discussion.

[Carl, I've had to reformat the above because you used 79-char lines.
70-75 is a wiser range.]

To paraphrase, you choose to give Ted an E-for-effort, for:
- looking for a seismological rather than conspiratorial hypothesis
- suggesting something semi-plausible
- inspiring others to give better answers

>So what the hell is your objection?

The key to understanding my objection lies in noticing that it refers to the
lines by rnimz that I've quoted immediately before my comment, not to the
lines by TedFrank one level earlier.

>Are you one of those morons who believes
>that any idea, to be valid, must spring full-blown from the brow of the person
>originating it, and that therefore an idea which simply opens a particular
>area of inquiry is inherently useless?

No, not at all. And I hope you'll print out your question on a small card and
tape it to your monitor, to remind yourself that you don't want to be that,
either...

>=All too often in skeptics debate, there's a clearcut pattern of the


>=skeptics coming to a conclusion *beforehand* about what the 'skeptically
>=correct' answer needs to be, and running roughshod over good scientific
>=practice to make sure that conclusion comes out the victor...
>
>OK, so you ARE such a moron.

Try again. You aren't even close, yet... (Hint: My posting consisted of
English words arranged into sentences. If the meaning was not clear when
you *didn't* read them, an alternative strategy would be to *read* them...)


j
jo...@mcs.com


Lawrence Foard

unread,
May 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/3/95
to
In article <3o5erh$k...@mercury.mcs.com>, Jorn Barger <jo...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>I found this to be a particularly vivid example of what I've begun to
>term "Skeptical Correctness" (SkC) after the metaphor of PC/Political-
>Correctness.
>
>All to often in skeptics debate, there's a clearcut pattern of the

>skeptics coming to a conclusion *beforehand* about what the 'skeptically
>correct' answer needs to be, and running roughshod over good scientific
>practice to make sure that conclusion comes out the victor...

Being skeptical means questioning things. If the government tells us
there was only one bomb, we have to question that, if a conspiracy
theorist tells us that it was some fancy new top secret military
weapon we have to question that, if someone says its two bombs
we have to question that to...

Lets assume there was only one bomb. Lets say the conspiracy theories
about two bombs go unanswered, finally getting converted into yet another
reason for some jerk to go blow something up, kind of like the faked
flame thrower video from Waco...

Lets assume there where two bombs, then skeptical questioning should
harm nothing, since facts can stand up to inspection.
--
------ Call the skeptic hotline 1-900-666-5555 talk to your own personal .
\ / skeptic 24 hours/day. >> http://www.worcester.com << . .
\ / Exonize- 1. To censor. 2. To crap on civil rights as a lame duck . . .
\/ 3. To trade liberty for security from bad words. . . . .

Ed Bogart

unread,
May 3, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/3/95
to
Billy Beck (bill...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: bog...@infi.net (Ed Bogart) wrote:

: >I have been reading this thread and it seems to me that it all comes down to
: >the question of SO WHAT!? Other than trading insults and making what look
: >like totally uninformed quesses about a very abstruse science, so what? It
: >all reminds me of the endless debate over the number of holes in JFK's head.

: And the holes in JFK's head have ghosted this land ever since,
: because there are questions which have never been answered.

: It is important because, the flagrant rubbish of post-modern
: philosophy notwithstanding, there is a *truth* to be found. One way
: or another, something big happened here. Whatever it was, has its own
: implications which directly bear on politics in America.

: If you disagree, then zoom by to the next article


So ther is A TRUTH out there somwhere, is there? Do you think we can
*prove* that there was a second bomber on the grassy median strip? All this
talk is no more relevant than the endless talk about JFK.

Just remeber what the merry pranksters always said, "Just say fuck it and
walk away."

Bernd P.F. Kassler

unread,
May 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/4/95
to
>
>the question of SO WHAT!? Other than trading insults and making what look
>like totally uninformed quesses about a very abstruse science, so what? It

You are the first one that I meet, who believes that System Theory and its
application to Geophysics is an abstruse science .... :-((

The result (System Output) of an explosion (Dirac Function) on the surface
of a layered medium (Input of a System) is the System Response (or the
Transfer Function) of the Medium (the geological formation around OKC).

If a result of the OKC blast is a seismic signal, that consists of several
peaks, scientific guesses should be done on multipath propagation....
because this is the most propable source - and *not* multiple explosions.

If this problem (multiple tremors) is not solved properly *NOW*, there
will be a *MYTH* raising the next years: abstruse conspiration theories
will sprout over the country (like the many theories about the Dallas FJK-
incident)... and in the end some idiots will believe that is was the
federal governement itself that destroyed the building, and thus killed
its inhabitants.

-----
BTW: If you have difficulties to understand me: please ask me directly.
English is only my 3rd language and its long (4yrs) since I spoke directly
with anglophone people (i.e. no practice in speaking) :-(

Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/4/95
to
In article <3o8cda$4...@Mercury.mcs.com>, jo...@MCS.COM (Jorn Barger) writes:
=Carl's reply to me:
=>=rn...@metronet.com:
=>==>>Thanks also to Ted - who may not have been accurate as to details, but
=>==>>certainly accurate as to import.
=>=
=>=I found this to be a particularly vivid example of what I've begun to
=>=term "Skeptical Correctness" (SkC) after the metaphor of PC/Political-
=>=Correctness.
=
=>
=>Well, basically, Ted suggested, amidst all the conspiracy theories,
=>that perhaps the cause was geological/seismological in nature. He
=>posted one way in which such considerations could, in some cases,
=>produce what would appear to be two separate shocks. I'm not sure if
=>I saw his original post (the thread may not yet have been crossposted
=>to sci.skeptic at that point, for example). Now, at that point in the
=>discussion, few folks had enough details to provide a detailed
=>explanation of the particular event in question. To do so requires a
=>fairly detailed knowledge of the geology of the area in question.
=>Though Ted's example doesn't work for that particular case, it IS an
=>important factor in some similar cases, and it DID get some folks who
=>know about geology/seismology in general, including at least one who's
=>familiar with the geology in the region in question, involved in the
=>discussion.
=
=[Carl, I've had to reformat the above because you used 79-char lines.
=70-75 is a wiser range.]
=
=To paraphrase, you choose to give Ted an E-for-effort, for:
=- looking for a seismological rather than conspiratorial hypothesis
=- suggesting something semi-plausible
=- inspiring others to give better answers
=
=>So what the hell is your objection?
=
=The key to understanding my objection lies in noticing that it refers to the
=lines by rnimz that I've quoted immediately before my comment, not to the
=lines by TedFrank one level earlier.

rnimz said essentially the same thing I did above, albeit more tersely.
Perhaps if you'd cut your usual vague bullshit and point out SPECIFICALLY what
your complaint is, someone would have some way of figuring out what you think
you're objecting to.

-Anderson,M.E.

unread,
May 4, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/4/95
to
In article Ed Bogart <bog...@infi.net> wrote:

>So ther is A TRUTH out there somwhere, is there? Do you think we can
>*prove* that there was a second bomber on the grassy median strip? All this
>talk is no more relevant than the endless talk about JFK.

The difference between the OK and JFK conspiracies is that the latter
happened over 30 years ago and all the culprits are either dead or
Presidential candidates and the former just happened. If we get enough
evidence, we (collectively on the net) will be able to find the culprits
this time. The OK bombing is another riddle wrapped in a mystery and
that's what alt.conspiracy is about; to unravel and expose. If you have
nothing to add other than insults, unsubscribe and move along. We
have business to do here.

>Just remeber what the merry pranksters always said, "Just say fuck it and
>walk away."

Perhaps we could say that about the recent White House shooting but this
bombing in OK has changed the whole political landscape in the US. Unless
we find the truth about this, we're in for some hard times -- unless you
happen to be a gut German.

Mark Anderson
m...@intgp1.att.com


Jorn Barger

unread,
May 5, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/5/95
to
Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> froths:

>Perhaps if you'd cut your usual vague bullshit and point out SPECIFICALLY what
>your complaint is, someone would have some way of figuring out what you think
>you're objecting to.

(How can you know what's usual for me? "Vague" I'm not...)

Try this, then: what does "politically correct" mean to you? What might it
imply, amended to "skeptically correct"?

>rnimz said essentially the same thing I did above, albeit more tersely.

>=>=rn...@metronet.com:


>=>==>>Thanks also to Ted - who may not have been accurate as to details, but
>=>==>>certainly accurate as to import.

My paraphrase of Carl:


>=To paraphrase, you choose to give Ted an E-for-effort, for:
>=- looking for a seismological rather than conspiratorial hypothesis
>=- suggesting something semi-plausible
>=- inspiring others to give better answers

So, Carl, does this paraphrase of your words capture, for you, the meaning
of "accurate as to import"?

My primary objection is to this phrase, which seems to imply that
rnimz imagines that excluding-conspiratorial-hypotheses is more
important than scientific accuracy...


j
http://www.mcs.net/~jorn/


Carl J Lydick

unread,
May 6, 1995, 3:00:00 AM5/6/95
to
In article <3oe0us$r...@Mars.mcs.com>, jo...@MCS.COM (Jorn Barger) writes:
=Carl J Lydick <ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU> froths:
=>Perhaps if you'd cut your usual vague bullshit and point out SPECIFICALLY what
=>your complaint is, someone would have some way of figuring out what you think
=>you're objecting to.
=
=(How can you know what's usual for me? "Vague" I'm not...)

In that case, your postings in this thread are highly unusual for you.

=Try this, then: what does "politically correct" mean to you? What might it
=imply, amended to "skeptically correct"?
=
=>rnimz said essentially the same thing I did above, albeit more tersely.
=
=>=>=rn...@metronet.com:
=>=>==>>Thanks also to Ted - who may not have been accurate as to details, but
=>=>==>>certainly accurate as to import.
=
=My paraphrase of Carl:
=>=To paraphrase, you choose to give Ted an E-for-effort, for:
=>=- looking for a seismological rather than conspiratorial hypothesis
=>=- suggesting something semi-plausible
=>=- inspiring others to give better answers
=
=So, Carl, does this paraphrase of your words capture, for you, the meaning
=of "accurate as to import"?
=
=My primary objection is to this phrase, which seems to imply that
=rnimz imagines that excluding-conspiratorial-hypotheses is more
=important than scientific accuracy...

Seems to me that that conclusion is based more on your own biases than on what
rnimz wrote.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages