Editor’s note: I cut and pasted this long essay by Prufrock about the infamous wing shot. In the interest of fairness, I will protect the “Daffy Duck” name from sockpuppeting in the comments of this post and Planes, Trains, and Automobiles Part 1. Also in the interest of fairness, I will add a response by Daffy Duck to the body of this post if Daffy cares to write one. Post it in the comments and I will paste it to the end of this post.
So . . . . . daphne:
Loved this: >>Realistically, that picture is really all I should need to post, as it’s all there – but that would make for a boring article.<<
N-a- a-a-a-a-w daffeee, (But, hey, nice try.)
The picture just can’t stand on it’s own and you know it. It doesn’t sell the message you want to sell and your “implication that we cannot see the forest for the trees” is a gross oversimplification.
You need your usual sell-job “embroidery” to make it even appear to stick. Unless you’re talking to the closely-knit and well-censored crew who so lovingly and adoringly post over on your site, you’ll need to cover your tracks with the usual heaps of bullshit you use when confronted with reality.
Moving on: daffy has met the challenge I lay before him by rewriting this story to suit the information available.
While there are similarities between what he posts on his site and what he actually recounted to me, the fundamental motives for his whopper (to impress rather than inform, and to embroider rather than clarify), were so pronounced that I was embarrassed for him
Although the loops and holes of this latest version have been papered over by daffy’s claims of influential contacts and the work of others, his story remains just that.
A story for the movies.
Nice shot of the wing taken from Summers’ site but that was NOT the shot you said you analyzed, was it? You seriously pumped that one. But apparently that is the shot you wish to discuss.
Where have we seen this tactic before ;-?
For another thing, apparently we are now dealing with Keith Summers’s website (and among other shots) including a restaurant receipt (date? time of that praytell ??) the picture of a wing Summers posted on it. This is all new to me but it is critical to what I see as daffy’s motivation for the fantastic account he shared with me.
Daffy’s original Landmark tale had Summers sitting in the plane with his face in the photo. . . and that now famous starboard wing, complete with numbers was visible in the background. The wing info (and *shadow-data cast from vertical hardware “findings”* were a real BIG part of that shadow info) daffy also claimed during our meeting that he had been in contact with Summers and that Summers had sent the 3-point shot to him. i.e. Summers, the window and the wing.
To be clear: According to daffy’s original account, one could see, over Summers’ shoulder or in the background, the plane’s window. Through this window, according to daffy, the plane’s wing complete with its Nok Air registration numbers were clearly visible. Summers was stoopid, and daffy was going to catch him. (Not a bad idea but yur telling of it was more than a little self-serving)
So according to daffy, there were three key elements in the shot. There was (1) Summers, there was (2) the plane’s 11” by 16” window and there was 3) the full view of the wing with its registration numbers on the *Nok Air* flight.
>>And my challenge to daffy repeated gawd knows how many times was for him to produce THAT SHOT.<< Go back and read that if it has slipped your mind
But daffy true to form blithely posts another shot. A similar shot but one from which he simply gleaned the EXIF data he shows to cover himself. EXIF: No mystery there, right?
In fact we’d already had a chat that nite about EXIF as it related to the famous view from daffy’s “Pratunam digs” Remember daffy? Fuji-color etc? How did I know?
Suffice it to say so much for daffy’s self-serving version of “just what was said.”
daffy’s pompous declaration that “there are only two issues”, a) the plane wing numbers and b) my initial denial of them . . . . (before I issued this challenge that these numbers existed) daffy seeks to restrict the discussion to his version of events and limit it only to the “evidence” he has been able to assemble.
He has to.
My whole reason for bringing this thing up was to demonstrate just how desperate this guy is to impress and seat himself above everyone else he comes in contact with.
A trait which others may feel is too tedious to contest but which I have seen him exhibit on many other sites and a trait which I and many others find particularly odious, toxic to open discussion and generally unfriendly and anti-social.
* * * * * * PART 2 “it’s not rocket science”
Perhaps not . . . . but that’s not automatic permission to oversimplify your argument and try an end run.
daffy’s falsely premised declaration of a “closed case”, deteriorates and deconstructs into its inevitable collapse if one examines the totality of the evidence and daffy’s claims.
Upon examination of all the facts we can easily see that “the case” is far from closed. The suggestion that”it’s not rocket science” is to imply that only an idiot would seek more information, would doubt daffy’s claims and would question daffy’s declarations.
In fact, what I’ll call the actual “Landmark Reality” (LR) only barely resembles daffy’s factually reduced more conveniently marketable version: the one he has painstakingly redacted and shopped on his website.
Firstly, rather than deal with the worrisome reality of the 3-point digital shot from which he triangulated Summers’ whereabouts, daffy falls back his old allies in debate: the smearing of his opponent and the disqualification of his credentials. It comes as no surprise to anyone on all the other websites where he is so proud of causing trouble, that he accuses his adversary in this contest of being a liar.
Inmy initial encounters with daffy he sought to smear me as ill-educated (while physhing my Uni info and to disqualify me as impecunious . . . . a false metric of merit of there ever was one. When “people” set him straight on the first two, daffy started calling me a liar. As an apparently firm believer in Goebbels propagandics he’s never let up. In fact, this smear has subsequently been picked up by two or three of the most imbecilic fools on the internet and parlayed into the most disgusting accusations one can ever make.
daffy’s pre-emptive “Liar” smear:
daffy’s preemptive defensive-attack stance (smearing me as a liar) telegraphs his acute awareness of the greatest weaknesses in his now infamous (sorry) “whopper.”
For example, to smoke over his original *Nok Air* recollection, (the planes had always been Nok Air . . see daffy’s prancing fool Nok Air registration # photos) daffy provides the convincing but utterly irrelevant footnote that an outfit called PBAir has gone out of business.
In our Landmark Reality (“LR”) conversation daffy repeatedly identified Nok Air as the carrier, even to the point of suggesting he gone to the Nok Air website as part of his investigation after which he’d telephoned them and had some of his details confirmed by actual people.
Some of you may remember that all of daffy’s photos of numerical plane-wing registration posts of last year were Nok Air craft. They even had Nok-names And, boy as he was getting himself set up for this did he prance aroundabout those Nok Air registrations or what ;-?
His PB Air data while for many reasons more applicable to daffy’s most recent version of his yarn is, of course, currently unverifiable. (I can’t be bothered to check and see if Nok Air conducted flights to Nakhon Phanom OR of they’d ever agree to release passenger lists (IATTA definitely has something to say about that stuff if the airline flies internationally)
Hey, wait a minute, what am I thinking? . . . . daffy?
Why of course. You used your “highly placed connections” to sniff this out, dincha ;-?. . . . cause if ya didn’t, at the moment you would seem to have selected evidence that looks more than a tad self-serving. . . . . . (?cooked?) But then again, that’s the way you like your data : COOKED.
So anyway, that’s the first “selective” change.
There are more.
Never one to miss golden opportunities to embroider a self-aggrandizing claim with “fact” (albeit *irrelevant* fact) daffy’s further seeks to shore up his credence and bona fides by appropriating the correct aviation terms “starboard” and “dorsal” in lieu of his original “right” and “top” without suggesting he’d actually upgraded his aeronautical nomenclature by grace of his adversary when I responded to one of his many prancing-prat posts.
Mere details to be sure . . . . these correct terms, but since we are investigating the fanciful, fact-filled, painstakingly wrought tale of a bullshitter we must take this into account to some degree. (In all fairness, however, I’m sure daffy second-guessed these terms through one of his highly placed contacts in aviation circles.
Moving on: During the original version of the story of our meeting on the Landmark Terrace, daffy broached the topic of EXIF determination when questioning me as to how I knew he’d taken that Royal Polo Club shot with his iPhone
He “presented” as extremely keen to know just how much X-Box wizardry I knew.
I openly said that it was more the iPhone’s Fuji-scale colorization (Knew a little about it from, ah, “film work”) than any intimate familiarity with the ins and outs of EXIF. Although he seemed relieved with this admission, he went on to embroider “his edge” with an interesting but irrelevant account of why Apple had “gone Fuji”. ( It was interesting for the tech aspect but I was also learning more about this person than about digi-tech.)
That’s why I was there.
Later on however, when the subject of internet stalkers and Summers came up, I got daffy’s now infamous airplane-wing story. daffy recounted how he’d received this shot from Summers (I expressed incredulity as to why he’d ever consider corresponding with a nutcase like Summers. He replied that he had had motives more forensic than idle curiosity.
“Hmmm, Do tell” I must have indicated because rather than elaborate on some interesting ancillary application of EXIF data, daffy opted instead to impress me with his shadow-reading skills.
To this end, daffy launched himself into a cogent but somewhat contrived sounding account of the wing-shadow protrusion information: shadow lengths, their angles relative to the sun, the sun’s intensity and so forth. Interesting but “No, I thought. Surely he‘s not going there.
Shadows cast by various projections, *vertical to the wing’s surface* (even tho’, unlike a sundial’s face ???it’s curved??? as well, and the plane could easily have been climbing or descending) were critical to these shadowy determinations as were the horizontal shadows on the ailerons that we see in Summers website shot.
Ignoring EXIF entirely, daffy declared that it was his interpretation of this shadow data that had conclusively determined Summers flight path and ultimate destination. (Well, ok, maybe that works in the movies but hey, “if you say so”, I was beginning to think but I let him finish his story) I didn’t want to “call” a guy who felt this acute a need to “embroider” his myth. Anyway it was unnecessary.
**BTW . . . I do remember daffy’s “warship skins” in the movies. As we all remember, they were breathtaking. For years to come his or facsimiles of his truly stunning visual work were to become synonymous with “Big-Mother-of-a space-craft-that-sleeps-239647-people-and-didn’t-need-to worry-about-“drag” , had loads of protrusions and resultant shadows. The feeling of awe with these “skins”were a major component of the films in which they appeared and if they were the baby of daphne redux . . . . . I sincerely hope he was fairly compensated.**
But on a domestic puddle-jumper from a hop-skip-jump airline . . . . . . well, meh, I had my doubts. (And at this time I had not yet party to daffy’s body of professional work.
Anyway, I knew I was hearing a fascinating story but this was likely also the point where I started to suspend my belief that I was in any major way hearing a TRUE story. Maybe parts of one. . . .
I have been asking for this 3-point in-focus shot for months now. This was indeed the shot daffy described during that meeting. He swears it wasn;t and supports his claim by (yu guessed it) calling me a liar ;- ) . . . . Gee, where have we seen this tactic before??
At the time, I raised no objections or signaled no doubt to daffy’s claims. But, as you can see from this photograph there is NO picture of Summers, and scientifically speaking, there is really only the EXIF data to work with.
ALL THE REST (the shadow angles and the fascinating highly placed information people (pssst, IT’S BULLSHIT DAFFY AND YOU KNOW IT IS
I was somewhat flabbergasted as daffy innocently but somewhat insulted as once he thought he had his platform (or was more likely committed) he just boasted away. (After all, I felt that I had demonstrated an appropriate level of awe and respect . . . . so yeah, I was genuinely taken aback.
I felt he wanted more . . . he was after something more . . . like awe, fealty, fear? respect to the nth magnitude? . . . as he sketched himself out to be a person of even more gravitas than was already apparent. Fuck it, it was interesting, you don’t often get conversational matrices of any depth or much merit here, I just let him finish his story.
So yep, he’d done it all with the shadows which had incontrovertibly provided him with the sun’s exact position) and an accurate fix on the aircraft at that moment. And then he made his visits to about five websites and “Summers’ fate was sealed.” daffy’d unmasked Summers lair. Nobody’s be safe . . .
ok, I reasoned. Summers is certainly a fabulous asshole and truly deserved unmasking but wasn’t that actually done by others? You want credit for it, daffy ? Well, ok, if you must, I guess. No skin off my nose.
Am I marginalizing these flight path websites and these meteorological websites? No. What I marginalized and caricature-ized was daffy’s whiz-bang clikity-clack shadow weather flight path sleuthing. His genial facility with these resources was highly in doubt.
I called bullshit but as we often do . . . only on the inside
As well, I do not (as he claims) doubt that these websites exist but some of the meteorological data, this exact time of day fix and his other claims were just too pat and too way over the top. It was the “pat”-ness of the yarn and the overage of convincing detail that pulled the trigger.
Precise metrics, such as the ones daffy claimed he had at his disposal several years ago, are not readily available to the public (those shadowy friends again nor outside of the movies and “M”‘s workshop are there any shadow metrics to measure to the last nanosecond (within an hour) available. And don’t forget the curved face and climbing aspects of this “sundial”
But just in case someone had the temerity to raise that point daffy could always raise the specter of shadowy friends of friends in high places.
They’re great aren’t they? Always there when you need them to cover a hole in your story. . . . . . Lucky daffy.
Anyway, by that point I was just listening politely but I wasn’t buying it and a few days later neither were my PhD students at “the science center of that University”
As well, many months later over drinks and dinner, my friends . . .some actual X-Boxers weren’t buying it, non plus.
And really neither should you.
But what I do buy are these Klingon(?) warship skins.
Truly awesome, they were. . . . . he can be proud enough of that, can’t he?
Thank you for your attention. Part 3 will wrap up daffy’s presentation of information and my contestation of them.
* * * PART 3 * * *
Even now even in his present version of events we see clear examples of the gratuitous and unassailable credence daffy seeks as his right any time he finds himself in a conversational corner.
First? . . . a wee thematic digression playing with fire daffy and William Mahanakhorn to adopt Keith Summers‘ tactics? (not to say that daffy hasn’t already)
daffy’s history of slash/paste skullduggery on nearly ALL the Bangkok blogs have earned his several bannings, several “mutually agreed departures”, and a whole lot of “what the fuck are we gonna do with this asshole? he posts all the time with direct questions and proposals . . . . . do we need him tattooed to this blog? do we need his blog tattooed to ours? (Apparently daffy is welcome on Saphan Loy’s blog where their burgeoning relationship based on snapping photos and subsequent outs of expat bar patrons is being rewarded by cash payments of as much as 20.000 THB.
Bangkok Buddy the first to be approached, turned down this disgusting offer. Now daffy’s new friend William Mahanakhorn is trying his best to weasel-word his way out of having proposed this evil crap but daffy’s generous offer to finance this shit has kept it in play.
One does begin to wonder which bars these guys will consider fair game for taking these candid shots? One also begins to wonder in just what venues one’s personal data and one’s recreational activities will become daffy’s web content.
These two motherfuckers would be just “soooooo (;-) ‘there’” (to use daffy’s favorite trademark ‘yeah, bro’ -ism) on a daffy-cruise wouldn’t they? share a stateroom, perhaps?, in the um, “front” of the “boat” ;- )
Notwithstanding daffy’s daring use of strong language (“damn?”) this first non-starter claim fall flat as in:
daffy’s claim that the “position and angle of picture establishes a damn good approximation of the seat position on the plane (to within 1 row);” is just so much unscientific window dressing (not to mention it is just another of daffy’s opinions. Garden variety bullshitters lace their yarns with these kind of faux declaratives to lead their listeners into”the sad corner”) . (“Read my lips . . . ?)
Isn’t this just daffy standing on his warm pile of BS whistling in the dark . . . to see who whistles back? This opinion dressed up as fact likely comes from daffy’s top secret “ready-Eddy” battalion of influential friends in high places.
But hell, really; when a bullshitter’s story gets this desperate we are definitely in an (“Oh Yeah???? My dad says so . . . and he knows everything” state of mind) so what is there left to say?
To be clear, daffy’s “closed case” yarn as to how he gleaned all this precise positional data from shadows and secret friends doesn’t stand up under even a sparrow fart of a modicum of scrutiny. Neither does daffy’s “closed case”in any way shape or form emerge as valid scientific conclusion from any of the empirical data he claims to have presented.
My own not so secret friends and associates swore (with wry smiles and in some cases the dreaded collective eye-roll) that this type of “shadow-box to light-source” GPS determination is “possible” only in the movies. Or as one woman suggested, in the imagination of someone craving gravitas and seeking to impress or convince. . . . . but maybe a bit too lazy to have researched the veracity of such a claim.
(“Hmmm, . . . . You mean a Google-faced X-box commando”, I queried?)
I declare that daffy’s specious “shadow claims” are pieces of a puzzle easily derived from the EXIF data alone. Several of my PhD trainees asked me why I had even bothered spending time with such a person. I responded then as I do now, that it was an interesting conversational episode and at the time I thought it rather benign.
A far more probable explanation, they offered, was that the flight time was simply gathered from the EXIF data and perhaps schedules currently available in brochures, the booking sites etc. Where is the provenance that it was gathered by this guy at all? To be sure, “shadows and sun positioning would have had no part in this determination”. In real life anyway.
Again, daffy overlays his self-serving *appearance* of facts notwithstanding their questionable provenance and their irrelevance to the shot.
As an aside, just look at the SUMMERS, KEITH MR (just to be clear, daffy “fonted” and formatted this . . . it wasn’t copy/pasted from any passenger list. . . .but the when strategically fitted into other “sourced” data such as the plane’s seat plan it looks official.
Just like downtown
Why do guys like daffy do this ?
In his somewhat indelicate, and at times boorish drive for gravitas the insecure (bullshitter) easily confuses congeniality and politesse for acquiescence.
Channel, if you will, that pushy car salesman, that (“trust me”) realtor. Next, he’ll plunge right in to hijack status and “overbearing” any way he can. . . . . . Then the bullshitter will stretch the truth and lay as much “convincing detail” onto an obvious cock-and-bull story as he can. He’ll escalate outright lies, attachment of argument and “provenance” to family members (and there challenging his listener to risk conversational civility if he were to directly question “sources”.)
And last but not least, when and if he’s convinced himself that he’s got a believer or (forum) room full of believers, he’ll launch “the big lie” or as many of them as he can. Really, just look at all the prancing and the taunts and the nonsense and the lies and the smears and the filth he’s posted in preemptive defense of this minor porkie.
And then he’ll try to close.
I was talking about salesmen. A little product knowledge here, some anecdote there, some familarisms, some emotional leverage, (you aren’t gonna call me a liar are you? I’ll just leave
Look at daffy’s propagandic gambits in play.
First he’ll try for dismissal on the grounds that of his opponent’s worth: education, personal assets, diction, (potty-mouth, word usage, manners, decorum, shoe-size?) spelling and grammar) (who edits?) If he’s confronted with solid flattening argument daffy will copy/paste an example out of the rebut of some extraneous inconsequential detail, focus on that, call you a liar and ignore the main thrust of the argument.
When all else falls flat, daffy will set to work smearing his adversary and /or anyone who doesn’t see things daffy’s way or who concedes that the counter-argument is definitely worth examining . . . . he’ll smear them as uninformed (“it’s not rocket science”) dishonest endless and repeated scurrilous attacks on the morals (early on, I remember an attack from daffy because I had a partner but still went to bars no shit.
For ages he went on about my visits to his site. I do not go there. Maybe now he accepts that but he doesn’t comment.
And while we’re on the subject of “early on” there daffy’s embarrassing admission of US government 9/11 complicity, by omission of commission.
(I know you’re tired of this but wouldja like to see it?)
Arrogance is daffy’s stock in trade. He tries to beat you down with it.
daffy’s dismissive tone and his desperate vanity play well to the little coven captive fools over on his thinly visited “daffyville” website but the vast numbers of readers here on this site and in the Greater Kokosphere soon weary of the type of boring witless stream one-liner posts these tapped out by these nitwits.
If you can answer critically daffy monitors yu and censors you. I am not referring to a blanket BLOCK of idiots who would post unsubstantiated photo shopped filth or blocking stoopid URL’s, the setting of tracking cookies, trojans and malwear.
I am talking about fair comment. Evidenced, annotated, substantiated fair comment.This is blocked and censored on daffy’s little site. That’s why he’s NEVER come here to debate me on 9/11.
daffy needs control of the environment . He must filter ALL input or it doesn’t get posted. That’s what you get on the daffyville site.
If you can’t answer the questions below, you’re perfect for daffyville
A train of thought? what’s that? Reasoned argument? huh? Respect for scientific methodology? What’s that mean? and what’s respect as long as I can sneer at somebody? What’s methodology as long as I can always scurry back and smear someone as a liar and a fool and get away with it on my own (albeit, embarrassingly thinly read ) blog? Principles? what are they?
“Wow, you’re perfect. . . .gushes daffy. All the while thinking “Just the kind of imbecile i’m looking for”.
daffy’s claims that a) he’d been in correspondence with Summers and b) that Summers had sent him the shot was the basis for daffy’s original version (Landmark Reality) of this incident. . . . the claim that he’s triangulated Summers on this shadow data bullshit.
daffy’s original version had Summers flying Nok Air (you can see this claim repeated ad nauseam as he pranced around crowing about his registration numbers and the “front” of the plane and the “back” of the plane and the “top” of the wing and the “right side”and presented us all (what was it? last year?) with those lovely shots of the Nok planes complete with their registration numbers.
And the implied claim that if he was “right” about this so that from then on everything he says had to be taken at his word.
a blowhard internet bully
If this is not the gross braying of an an internet bully that he feels confident that he’s baffled brains with bullshit and, more importantly, that he feels secure in the miasma of imbecility and ignorance I can’t imagine what it is.
Sorry daffy,your Noklock looks good on you.
Incidentally that Noklock moment is precisely when khun daffy got himself hooked into “owning” this elaborate shadow data lie of his. . . . . . Like all really masterful liars and fantasists, daffy had included just enough believability to encourage credulity. I never bought that. But, for sure, he blows it out his ass on the faux *Nok Air* detail.
And he locks in.
daffy’s next claim (to have determined the time of day and the plane’s flight path from shadows on the wings cast from vertically projected loops, handling rigging) was the core of his fantastic tale. I was to accept that daffy’s “three-banked” this data from shadows and from his shadowy frinds in high places.
He stressed the shadow-lore every bit as offhandedly as in his present short preamble to yet another “it’s not rocket science” bray-fest he’d have people believe he has loads of influential friends who happen to be experts in any field under discussion. More shadowy references I assume?
And hey, WTF, . . . . . need and airline pilot? (forget any of those real military and commercial pilots for 9/11 truth. Anyway daffy knows several.
Need engineers? (forget any engineers for 9/11 truth) daffy has intimate contact with just the engineer in just the field under current discussion.
Need serious scholarship on 9/11? (Forget about all the physicists, chemists, pilots, engineers, building professionals as well as the painstakingly recorded testimony, and VIDEO . . . . daffy know people who know better.
In brief, we are to accept all his claims and we are to dismiss all others. And as a source for the tedious details of a fictitious provenance daffy is really the go-to guy.
If you don’t go along with daffy as Oracle he’ll censor you.
If you contest what he says he’ll smear you.
Who needs to expose themselves to this kind of nonsense? Who needs their personal data put at risk?
That’s right. When you allow this guy your data you are looking at hard core stalking and besetting by a seasoned internet pest.
Part 4 or Why I even bothered with this goof . . . . .
This has been only a partial rebuttal of only some of the tedious smearings of virulent internet pest “daffy duck” . . . . . . . . a person whose incessant penchant for smearing and bullying and pestering and hassling and ridiculing and libeling and lying about anyone he pleased, long ago had breached the limits of civility and more importantly, my tolerance.
I have shown daffy duck to be just a common barstool bullshitter whose desperate pretensions to credence, gravitas and innate credulity (in this one of many episodes) have strained the limits of civil discourse far beyond those which anyone can legitimately be entitled.
Some of us as “foreign citizen” pre-internet expats can remember enduring earlier incarnations of daffy’s type . . . . . the, ah, faux Viet Vet, or CIA man, the “retired millionaire” who leaves you with the check, and to a lessor extent to the “person of influence” who’d have you believe he could always for your betterment or your detriment (wink) “speak to someone he knew”. . . . . to name a few.
Our meeting and the parts of our conversation in which daffy dropped his customary tight-wrapped pretenses definitely had its enjoyable and entertaining moments. Perhaps with a course of therapy and some of the more up-to-date SSRI medications, daffy might actually overcome his insecurities to a point where he’d be able to understand the need for decorum and two-way tolerance when in conversation.
Sadly, however, as one can readily determine after enduring a few moments with this fellow, daffy’s journey to conversational civility and politesse will be a long and painful one. Contact with daffy demands superhuman forbearance.
The poor man’s drive to blackmail, threaten and “embroider the record”, misstate what has actually been communicated, his incessant ad hominen slights, smears and personal attacks.
daffy’s copy/paste one-liners have destroyed the atmosphere of light-hearted exchange, the otherwise helpful brotherly environment and the general conversational; milieu on at least three local blogs.
You should ask yourself why he is shunned on every other local blog but his own.
In fact after he had created a blog for the sole purpose of attacking those who didn’t please him and for smearing all those with whom he disagrees he is by his own hand effectively restricted to commenting on his own blog. Even the causticly and bizarrely disdainful and derivative Millie Handlemanhorn handles daffy and his “joint-venture” pal-isms with latex gloves. And Bangkok Buddy has (accurately so) rejected their toxic, extortionate, libelous Keith Summers-like offer to pay candid shots of us all as evil. Buddy is right . . . . . . these guys are definitely sick.
Ultimately, after our couple-or-so hours of conversation I came away thinking that, more important than anything else, daffy had sought to be perceived as an uber-ingenious person, a man of gravitas whose attention to any project (including quietly living one’s own life) would be of tremendous value and assistance. If one rejected that concept, then daffy was one to be feared and respected for his ability to wring facts and information out of common events and everyday phenomena everyday and the commonplace. A modern Merlin.
While not particularly worrying, I found this personality neurosis of daffy’s somewhat disquieting. This type of mythoman . . . . . the compulsive bullshitter, Walter Mitty-esque figure . . . . is everywhere. Especially in Bangkok and more relevant to this blog, on the internet.
I left our Landmark Terrace meeting scratching my head and simply wondering “???why on earth???” would an otherwise competent and credible conversationalist of some background and no small talent feel the need to impress me with such obvious embroidery and re-fabrication of something he’d found on Summers’ pathetic website? At the same time why would he refuse even one iota or scintilla of credence to the vast and growing body of evidence that demonstrates that the US government was to a greater or lesser degree in some way complicit in 9/11 and the imaginary war on terror. What appears as something of an aside becomes relevant when we understand that both penchants have their basis in fear.
If attainment of faux prestige had indeed been daffy’s intent in goading me into this meeting with taunts of cowardice and frailty, the outcome of our meeting had the opposite effect . . . . . . due in part to this one unfortunate self-serving shadow-fabrication but cumulatively to a host of nearly hysterical reactions to almost any other conversational tangents.
At this point in a long account I see no purpose served by going into them except to say that “science” to daffy is only applicable on his terms and in support his positions. . . . . and so is any other method of inquiry. The extent to which he’ll stop a conversational exchange to rudely reject factual input betrays his desperate need to “prevail” rather than communicate.
All evidence must be examined . . . not just the stuff that props up one’s scientific prejudices . . . not ridiculed, not ignored, not smeared, not “ad hominem-ed, not welded to labels, not welded to myth and proven nonsense tales and not rejected in a craven cowardly embrace of what’s politically correct.
In his grossly adjusted and over-simplified account of what he actually said, daffy wished and still wishes to redact the incident down to two defensible issues:
– He now claims that the photo of the plane’s wing that I specified never existed and that I invested the parameters I claim he described. (This is a lie, I have claimed all along that while the photo daffy described to me at the Landmark does not exist. . . . that this is the photo that daffy took great pains to lead me to believe did exist.
This was going to be the photo with Summers’ and the plane wing’s registration numbers clearly visible behind Summers’ through the photo’s background window. . . . all in focus . . . . and from which daffy had sleuthed Summers’ location.
This was the bullshit claim I politely (but with some embarrassment for anyone trying dross like this on) ignored.
Sure, Summers website legacy exists but the NokAir photo that daffy so painstakingly described in detail at our meeting the Landmark . . . . the photo I have specified and I repeatedly demanded existed only as a prop for his sad bullshit claim.
Look daffy, I think that this is as good a time as any to get over the idea that you are the smartest guy in the room.
You are not.
In my long and varied work-lives, I have had to deal with all kinds liars, cheats, obfuscaters, prevaricators, tin men, four-flushers, con-artists, story-tellers and compulsive self-agrindizers . . . . . off and on in work and in play . . . . So my major concern was that you would deny the incident in its entirely and I couldn’t have that.
So it was “Game on ”
I guess it never occurred to you just why I didn’t just challenge your whole story right out of the box back in the day. Did you think as you so often sang and danced about it that I had been out smarted by your Nokpost???
The only issue for ME back then was just to get you to confirm in text that you had really popped that bullshit plane-wing tale. Yeah you . . . . . . you who are constantly demanding screen shots and who are incessantly demanding links to this and that and, oh yes fatuously and gratuitously demanding in a two-bit blog that you be supplied “proof” a criminally contrived conspiratorial event that has shaped the history of the last decade . . . . . . you had to be “handled”
Sorry if you (and others didn’t get that you had to be handled but you were being handled and effectievle locked up.
Loved the way you pranced around though, you simpering ninny.
It wasn’t really that hard, but I had to bate the trap with your favorite morsel . . . . . the chance to ridicule.
To get you into the box, I first needed you to commit to your unfortunate Nok Air play. Thanks for doing that. The question for me was NOT whether the numbers appeared on that wing.
So got it?? This was the only way I could guarantee you’d cop to this precipitously unbelievable tale to begin with. And yes I and others can still recall that I held my fire as you pranced around the blogosphere like a dancing disco fool when you posted those Nok Air photos back.
Summers PBAir shot ??? Like who were they man? You mentioned nothing whatsoever about PB Air in your story and your follow up provenance. It was all Nok Air this and Nok Air that . . . . and you’d called Nok Air scheduling and you’d verified this and that with your high placed friends.
You have been hoisted on your own petard.
hohohohohohohohhohoheeheeheeheeheheheheheheh . . . bwahahahahahahah hoohooohooohoo (sigh) snicker bwahahahahahahahahaha . . . . Um, sorry if this wee “guffaw” in which I finally partake appears a “smidge” long or as they say LONGEST but well, you know the story.
You who make a fucking career of smearing the credibility and the intelligence, the lives, the education, the language, indeed the background and the life-style decisions of everyone else on the web as liars and as fools and as incompetents. . . . .
daffy? This looks real good on you.
Case closed? . . . . . . . hardly, you have demonstrated to me and the two or three hundred people who actually care about all this that you are at best an exceptionally talented, but nonetheless commonplace barstool bullshitter
Nobody’s perfect, daffy.
All that you have smeared is now on you, daffy.
I finally just took a few moments to explain to you and your fans just how clearly you deserve a good dollop of this ridicule you have so sadistically smeared on others for years. Many of these folks had done nothing to you, many were defenseless against the savagery and the vicious nature of your attacks and countless others must have decided that you were one to avoid at all costs.
Oh yes and please do revive your sarcastic and puerile bowdlerization of Childe Rolande . . . . you steaming discharge-dripping trichomoniasis infected cunt of a human being.