The Local is not responsible for content posted by users.
17 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »    Reply to this topic

So Why Did Film Director Tony Scott Kill Himself?

Myths About The States In His Films Made Him Jump

skogsbo
post 21.Aug.2012, 10:16 AM
Post #16
Joined: 20.Sep.2011

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford @ 21.Aug.2012, 09:49 AM) *
As for waiting for the coroner to rule on a case where many persons saw Scott jump is pathetic. He obviously committed suicide - end of case -

It's a crazy idea I know, but you don't think the Coroner might find out exactly what was wrong with him (if anything) before he jumped, signs of cancer or anything else etc.. ?
Plus the coroner will speak to his doctor and review his medical history. It is also not unheard of for someone to not tell their family of their illness, to spare them the pain etc.

So there is every logical educated reason to wait, rather than jump to a conclusion, or are you really that unintelligent?
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 21.Aug.2012, 11:08 AM
Post #17


All the newspapers I have seen, except for the Daily Telegraph, have reported that he didn't have cancer, and this was from family members who have seen his last messages, so the cancer issue is dead except for any coroner who oversteps his mandate to determine why a suicide occurred.

Then his fishing trip could turn up anything convenient for you fellow securocrats.

This is how the Blair administration covered up the murder of Dr. Kelly with the Hutton Inquiry.

Still think that Buck Up is my sock! blink.gif

Now the BBC reports that the coroner has at least denied that Scott had cancer. So what drove him to kill himself!
Go to the top of the page
+
skogsbo
post 21.Aug.2012, 12:14 PM
Post #18
Joined: 20.Sep.2011

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford @ 21.Aug.2012, 11:08 AM) *
All the newspapers I have seen, except for the Daily Telegraph, have reported that he didn't have cancer, and this was from family members who have seen his last messages, ... (show full quote)

The coroner will not be over stepping his mandate. An autopsy is carried out in 99.9% of deaths that are not directly witnessed be a member of the healthcare profession. Even this has changed, since some doctors took over the role of mass murderers of penioners etc.

If you physically and visibly have a heart attack in front of your family, this will still be CONFIRMED medically first.

So given that there are more than 1 version of events, there will most certainly be an autopsy, the coroner has a legal obligations.

Just because the story is in several newspapers doesn't prove a thing. 1 News agency will have gained the information, then sold it on to EVERY newspaper etc. or one family member said he was healthy, then they all print it. Volume is no indication of truth.

Right now, there is probably only 1 person who knows if he was medically ill and why he jumped, that's himself.
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 21.Aug.2012, 12:39 PM
Post #19


You are one of the most stubborn persons on the planet. Just not willing to admit that you are wrong. rolleyes.gif

No wonder you have nothing to say about trashing Buck Up's complaint about how old people are being kept in retirement homes, and your totally false and mean claim that he was my sock.

And, of course, coroners conduct autopsies to help determine how people died because it might be most difficult to do. But once a coroner decides how a deceased died, that's the end of it.

And a person can commit suicide without knowing that he or she has a fatal illness too.

And it's ended in this case with the coroner deciding that Scott committed suicide while not suffering from any cancer, so his physical condition is not a cause.

So what was his mental condition, and why? smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
skogsbo
post 21.Aug.2012, 12:47 PM
Post #20
Joined: 20.Sep.2011

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford @ 21.Aug.2012, 12:39 PM) *
You are one of the most stubborn persons on the planet. Just not willing to admit that you are wrong. rolleyes.gif

The coroner, said it wasn't cancer, but the full report will be out in a few weeks.

Regardless of what is said, you will presume that George Clooney's party so bad he jumped for it? Is George that bad company? would George Micheal's or Boy George's have been better? Could have been worse though, if it was Micheal Barrymore's party, he would have had to jump in the pool, or be pushed in from behind with pork sausage wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 21.Aug.2012, 01:02 PM
Post #21


You just don't get it.

What I am claiming is no indictment of fundraising or fundraisers, especially George Clooney.

What he did, though, happened, and it must not be ignored.

It is an most serious indictment of President Obama and his security.

And the bottom line is that FBI Special Agent Steve Ivens is made into another Lee Harvey Oswald, though this time the sitting President escapes unscathed.
Go to the top of the page
+
Yorkshireman
post 21.Aug.2012, 01:22 PM
Post #22
Joined: 22.Nov.2011

QUOTE (Trowbridge H. Ford @ 21.Aug.2012, 01:02 PM) *
You just don't get it.

No, it is clear ONLY YOU don't get it.

A man jumped off a bridge, died, suicide?, coroner wants to complete testing before releasing final reports. Notes were left for family.
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 21.Aug.2012, 01:26 PM
Post #23
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

QUOTE
You are one of the most stubborn persons on the planet. Just not willing to admit that you are wrong.

Haha, did Fraudie really just say that... oh the irony!!

QUOTE
It is an most serious indictment of President Obama and his security.

Or is it yet another of your silly fantasies claimed in total ignorance of the facts in the case?

QUOTE
And the bottom line is that FBI Special Agent Steve Ivens is made into another Lee Harvey Oswald, though this time the sitting President escapes unscathed.

Once again you make a totally unsubstantiated claim which fails even the most cursory examination and make little or no sense... now there's a surprise!

Let's face it Fraudie, this dose of lunacy is just as contrived and obviously fabricated as all the rest of your fairy tales. Whilst I concede that the events you describe could in some altered reality conceivably have taken place, anyone with a brain realised they didn't, you just made them up! It is as totally busted as every single other one of your delusions...
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 21.Aug.2012, 01:38 PM
Post #24


Some posters and posts never change. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 21.Aug.2012, 01:42 PM
Post #25
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

Bang on Fraudie, I could not have put it better myself! You are still completely dishonest,bonkers and continue to make risible, vacuous claims even after all these years!

I don't suppose you will ever change...
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 21.Aug.2012, 02:16 PM
Post #26


I change all the time, as this thread demonstrates.

Started off thinking that it wa merely a case of US industrial-military sabotage conspiracy to reinforce their areospace and weapons advantage, then saw that it also involved a FBI Special Agent's independence in fact-finding. and threat of leaking, then saw that he was set-up and killed to stop the process, only to learn that it then involved using contrived threats at his expense to make it look like he was really involved in killing the President for Moscow's advantage, and then learned that it was based upon Obama fund-raising which got Tony Scott and Ivens involved, and then Scott up and jumped off that bridge.

Perhaps there is even more but this is becoming the making of a good-sized book, and the process is called research _ something you apparently have never engaged in because you think that the good ones burrow away until they come up with a hypothesis while the bad ones aka conspiracy theorists always start off with a full-blown theory, and then work way with their fancies and facts to make it seem like it makes sense.

biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 21.Aug.2012, 02:30 PM
Post #27
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

QUOTE
I change all the time, as this thread demonstrates.

You have changed the fictitious story you present, embellishing it, exaggerating and expanding it, but it's nature of being a wholly untrue and unfounded portrayal of reality remains unchanged. You yourself haven't changed in the slightest as you continue to knowingly and dishonestly present fabricated nonsense as the the truth. You never change, you can't!

QUOTE
Perhaps there is even more but this is becoming the making of a good-sized book, and the process is called research _ something you apparently have never engaged in because you think that the good ones burrow away until they come up with a hypothesis while the bad ones aka conspiracy theorists always start off with a full-blown theory, and then work way with their fancies and facts to make it seem like it makes sense.

Wrong! Research is the process of following evidence and reaching a conclusion based upon it. It is the exact opposite of what you do like all conspiracy fools having already made your mind up about what it is you want to conclude, then desperately trying to find evidence which could possibly be interpreted as backing it up or , failing that, completely making up a story as it suits. No better is this illustrated than in this case where you have made a series of silly assertions within hours of Mr Scott's demise and before anyone could have possibly assembled enough evidence to be informed enough as to make a serious hypothesis as to the reasons behind it. That is emphatically not research and explains why this as with every single one of your daft claims has been debunked. The mere fact that you try to redefine the concept shows you know this but continue nonetheless shows unequivocally that you are not, nor have you ever been, really interested in the truth as you fraudulently and dishonestly claim!

No doubt you could come up with enough nonsense to write a full length book. Your ability to create bullshit is, unlike any of your conjectures, proven and without question. It should be noted however that this book would reside unquestionably and permanently in the "Fiction" section of anyone's library!
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 21.Aug.2012, 02:45 PM
Post #28


Just more of your gobbledygook where you quote what I said you, an untested researcher, wrongly think about research, and then you deny it, only to repeat what I have claimed.

As for writing books about my research, I have written three - which are still in print and available for purchase - and they are found in the history section of libraries.

And all three of them are good examples of what I advocate, and engage in when I do research.

The biography of A. V. Dicey was intended to show that while an academic, he was much more important in UK politics than historians have claimed, and Brougham was a far more important politician than they ever imagined. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+
Jamtjim
post 21.Aug.2012, 02:56 PM
Post #29
Joined: 11.Sep.2006

QUOTE
Just more of your gobbledygook where you quote what I said you, an untested researcher, wrongly think about research, and then you deny it, only to repeat what I have claimed.

Research:

"diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc."

Notice the order here? Systematic inquiry (or following the evidence) THEN facts, theories applications (or drawing conclusions). So not the other way round as you incorrectly seem to think!

As for your assertion that my abilities as a researcher are "untested", once again you make a claim without knowing any of the salient facts. How could you possibly know? The fact is that you can't, again you have made a totally unsubstantiated claim about having the slightest idea as to what you are talking about, you have drawn a conclusion without having the information in front of you. Busted yet again!!!

QUOTE
As for writing books about my research, I have written three - which are still in print and available for purchase - and they are found in the history section of libraries.

Perhaps you have, but even if that shows that you once participated in proper research does nothing to indicate that you do so now. In fact judging by your posts, the opposite seems to be true for the reasons I indicated above.

As for your books being currently in print, when was the last issue of them? Which publisher currently prints them as, if they are in print, they should be available for purchase from there? I'm not doubting you, but I would be interested to know...

QUOTE
The biography of A. V. Dicey was intended to show that while an academic, he was much more important in UK politics than historians have claimed, and Brougham was a far more important politician than they ever imagined.

Ah yes, the infamous Dicey book. That was the one where you pretended to be a professor wasn't it Fraudie!!
Go to the top of the page
+
*Trowbridge H. Ford*
post 21.Aug.2012, 03:20 PM
Post #30


You certainly have shown that you are an untested researcher as you just constantly repeat your denials about anything while hiding as best you can who you are for fear that if your vapid nonsense was shown to be yours, you would become the laughing stock of everyone who knows or has heard about you.

At least I always use my own name with whatever I write, and am not the least concerned what ignorant posters like you think about it. I have come to realize that it comes with the territory if I ever want to improve people's understanding of anything.

The second volume of the Brougham biography was published in 2001 when I was well over 70 years of age, so I cannot have changed all that much.

And your trashing the Dicey biography because its editor, Barnaby Rogerson, thought that I must be a professor because of all my publications, and printed so, though wrongly, demonstrates you know nothing about the difficulties of getting a book published.

Signing off now for today because I have already given your nonsense more attention than it deserves. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
+

17 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members: