Let me start by acknowledging George Carlin; “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
With that said, here goes anyway....
What I said was rubbish was the following statement from allthecoolnamesarego. The statement is such a gross exaggeration that it should be considered rubbish. You seem to have difficulty with reading, so I will bold the words that indicate gross exaggeration:
Quote:
I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media.
Mate, and yes that is meant as a put down in case your handle on sarcasm, is as poor as that of the English language. Despite the bolding, I refer to the first point in my previous post. Your ability to highlight parts of my sentence, don't make it less valid or true. I will state it again clearly. (I would bold it, but don't know how) "I could find a dozen professional pilots tomorrow, who could do a better job than GT in every area of the media."
Thanks for those examples, allthecoolnamesarego, but you appear to be blissfully ignorant of the constraints GT has to work to.
Quote:
"This is what happened"
"We are in a spin"
I went to this link, but the first thing I saw on the page was the statement "This is what may have happened". Note the word may. The presence of that word means that everything following is opinion. There was no need for me to actually watch the video. GT would have just been doing exactly what his media masters were paying him for.
There was no need for me to actually watch the video.
Really? I supplied a video showing not only GT's poor understanding of heavy jet operations, his stating as FACT things that we may never know even happened, and his atrociously presented and written 'script'. Watch the first 30 seconds and see what an amateur job he does, even by that point. Has he not heard heard of 'cut, let's try that bit again'?
Yet, you didn't even watch it to find out for yourself? Have you taken tips from GT? Don't even study the video, yet feel superior enough to comment on it with authority.
GT is just the messenger. People here don't seem to understand that, and want to shoot him.
A messenger doesn't instinctively mean they have to be wrong. A messenger can in fact be knowledgable on the subject. He isn't forced to deliver the message, he CHOOSES to! He therefore has no reason to be under-prepared.
Quote:
"Debris is ABSOLUTELY aircraft wreckage"
I did look at that video. Remember those constraints I keep referring to? One of them is that you must get information from other sources, and there can be big variations in the accuracy and consistency of that information. GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.
Remember those constraints I keep referring to?
Oh the ones that YOU THINK mean that facts don't count, as long as he only speaks for a few seconds? Mate (yes, again) the presenters aren't even listening half the time, they are thinking of their next question. GT has to fill a certain time, FACTS don't take any longer than misinformation to spruke. The presenters might actually learn something if he spoke about FACTS.
Try this at home: "I can not breath underwater without breathing apparatus."
"People have been known to breath underwater regularly."
About the same time for each would you say?? One is true, one isn't. (Hint, the first one is wrong).
GT would not have been in the ocean himself, personally inspecting those wreckage pieces.
Exactly, therefore he would be very well aware that he had no justification to say 'Absolutely!'
Remember that he is speaking to the camera, and answers must be instantaneous and brief. When doing his research, he may have heard a range of views on that wreckage, but there is no time, on camera, to go over that. He must distil hours of phone calls and discussion down into one 5 second answer.
I call BS on this. A media trained person will control the interview and own the message. If in fact he was an expert with expert knowledge, he wouldn't have to grapple with info he didn't really understand. He would know what was true or not, and what he needed to say to convey the message.
To have said "absolutely" suggests to me that this was the consensus view of those he questioned about it. Keep in mind that nobody has yet proven him wrong on this. Some of that debris may actually have been from MH370. The fact that the recovered debris was not from MH370 does not mean that *some* of the sighted debris was not from the accident!
Keep in mind that nobody has yet proven him wrong on this.
Really, then where is the EVIDENCE? I'm pretty sure that when that debris was classified as general Flotsam, he was proven wrong.
Quote:
The Daily - 2SER - Real Radio 107.3 FM
"Planes can not fly though the middle of a thunderstorm"
He used the word can't when he should have used the word shouldn't. Is that your gripe on this one?
Partly, because words matter. Facts matter.
"There was movement at the satiation for the word had passed around, that the colt from Old Regret had got away".
"There was movement at the satiation for the word had got around, that the colt from Old Regret had passed away".
One or two words poorly used, change the ENTIRE meaning. (The first one is the correct one, just in case you were wondering).
What he said was a half truth that could easily have been rectified, or if he actually was fully on top of the subject, not used at all.
The other thing that irks me about this is that you see nothing wrong with describing things incorrectly...
Quote:
Reporter: "Did the pilot make the right decision to climb.?
GT: "Oh absolutely, he would have been trying to get over this Thunder cell"
Not the answer I would have given, but you must remember that GT must give instant and brief answers if he wants to keep his job. After such interviews, he probably goes back over some of his statements and answers and wishes he said things differently. If you were in his shoes, you too would probably say things that, on reflection, you wished you had said differently.
Mate (sorry, I can't help myself), I have done many many interviews, ranging from extended segments for TV shows, to newspaper articles, to TV news interviews, to extended (>30 minute) live radio interviews. On EVERY one, I was prepared because I knew what I was talking about. People make mistakes, but a FUNDAMENTAL one like saying that 'out climbing a TS' was 'absolutely the right thing to do' is reprehensible. This is my point. If GT was in fact an expert, such a basic mistake would not have been made, no matter what 'pressure' he was under. Another example why I don't believe GT is up to the job.
One answer that GT must be very careful about giving is the "we just don't know ... we must wait for the completion of the investigation and publication of the final report". For us in the aviation fraternity, that would be the correct answer most of the time, but for GT, that answer is poison. He must avoid it if he wants to continue being asked to make media appearances!
So you are advocating making stuff up, just to stay on the Telly? Have you heard of credibility? This is another reason that many in the 'aviation fraternity' are so annoyed by this guy. He purports to speak on 'our behalf' but everyone of us would tell the the TRUTH "we just don't know ... we must wait for the completion of the investigation and publication of the final report" seems like a pretty good response to me.
I am not convinced by those examples. There was nothing there that I would not have expected to see or hear from somebody in his position.
Unfortunately, if you don't bother to even watch or read the examples I have provided, and look at them with an open mind, then nothing will convince you.
George Carlin, please forgive me.