Bruce Dickinson: Rock ‘n’ Roll Warmonger

I think the video clears up very much. Let me recap what has been happening here so far:

I found the article which I posted in the beginning on Facebook. I thought it was a provocative thing, I did not know what to make of it, so I thought it would be interesting to see it discussed here. The main reason why I did not know what to make of it was that it quoted one original source, and that source was an odd South African conference speakers company that lets you book Bruce. The basis for the article I originally linked to was a single line that was not sourced, in that conference speakers website. It did not mention any details, not even a company name that lets you find out more on the subject. I was away after posting it, so I could not do any further research on it, and let you guys do it instead. As it turns out, there was no other website providing any further information. The only piece of info on which every other website linked to in this thread was founded, was that single line.

Quite dubious indeed.

Nevertheless, I think Foro made one good point: If the conference speakers company advertises for Bruce, you'd think that it won't just write any crap about him. You would think that they use information provided by Bruce, and that they would show the blurb to him or anyone else in an authoritative position, to make sure they're not doing false advertising. I would have said this is a fairly strong point, but without any independent confirmation, it's not convincing. Fact is, a number of websites quoting that one information doesn't make it more convincing. I've seen many shreds of information from single sources repeated and repeated in professional, top-tier media, and it was always possible to trace it down to where it came from.

Now, Nat posted the video, and we have an official confirmation from the horse's mouth that this is real - and that the information got distorted. As bearfan said, it's not a drone, it's a cargo blimp. And here we see how incomplete information, combined with lazy research (if Natalie found the video, the guy who wrote the original article could and should have as well) and a good dose of prejudice, can lead to misinformation and misjudgement.

And that, Foro, to give you a late answer to a different discussion, is why I don't trust the media.
 
Yeah, the phrase "lighter than air drones" is not overly clear, if the word drone was removed .. it would be more accurate. But it does not excuse the jackass that wrote the article from doing at least some minimal research on the subject. But maybe he had his heart set on quoting 2MtM lyrics and a cargo blimp would not fit.
 
bearfan said:
Yeah, the phrase "lighter than air drones" is not overly clear, if the word drone was removed .. it would be more accurate.
Click to expand...

I finally get what caused the confusion. The website does not state anywhere that Bruce is building drones, or "lighter-than-air drones". What it says is,

Bruce the business man has been involved in manufacturing air ships lighter than air drones

Read this again carefully.

What it says is, they are manufacturing air ships that are lighter than air drones. While grammatically correct, this sentence may prove to be confusing to a careless reader.
 
Last edited:
The sentence makes perfect sense to me. The author apparently did not read the word "air ship".

I sent a message to the Dorset Eye website explaining the mistakes and sloppy research the author did, and asking them to post a rectification soon. I doubt they will, but I still think it is necessary.
 
Eh, they probably won't do anything, because I used a wrong email address. Oh well.
 
I used a correct email and sent them a comment as well ... but the whole site looks like a propaganda rag, so I doubt they care
 
The word drones got me confused indeed. In my first reaction I still expressed that I wanted to know what this "drone" exactly can do and what it will be used for. I admit that I positioned myself in a double way because I was already talking in a negative way, trying to imagine "what if". Still I feel glad on being right about sensing that these sources are valid. The word drone was the only confusing thing. But I felt right that the info was not totally bullshit.

The video has confirmed that. I am very curious about any reaction Per. I thought about doing the same. Let us know!
Also I really don't understand that nothing was done by the Bruce camp (an e-mail like yours). I can't imagine that no one in his camp checks any website of the organizations where he was presented. I felt the horse's mouth was involved and for some odd reason the communication went wrong in an early phase. That's why I am also curious about an answer because maybe they have some kind of (other) explanation.

I see what you mean Per, about the media. But I also trust on our own judgement and will to find out what's going on. If I thought this were totally idiotic then I don't think I would be so eager.

Better to believe something and eventually know than to believe nothing and know nothing.

There was a realistic edge to it and both you and me felt that. Because the discussion continued the answer came on page four. Within five and a half hours we (Natalie!) have managed to get this clear.

Natalie, how did you know that this was the video that would clear the matter! Did you already see it before?
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about sending this guy an email explaining, in short words and simple sentences, that nothing "lighter than air" isn't adequate for combat usage today.
However, it would only be a waste of time.

If these stupid presumptions go further, we have both logic and evidence to debunk these conspiracies about Bruce killing Afghan children.
 
Zare said:
"lighter than air drone"
Click to expand...

That's where the bulk of the confusion here comes from really isn't it. "Light than air drone" in the way it is originally written makes it sound like a drone called "Lighter than Air"... whereas the full intention is something lighter than AN air-drone. Those quote marks make such a difference.
 
Unmanned aerial vehicles aren't "drones" if they are remotely controlled by operator. They are drones if they fly on preprogrammed route and do preprogrammed stuff without human intervention.
Most of U(C)AV's are built for composite operation, meaning they're remotely controlled by real humans, and in case communication breaks down, their on-board computer can try to finish the mission by using it's preprogrammed logic.

I don't have time now to watch the video, but if Bruce's airship is unmanned, it's surely going to have a "drone functionality".
Drones are just computer controlled vehicles. 99.99999% of world's various drones are being used by civilians for peaceful purposes.
 
Forostar said:
Natalie, how did you know that this was the video that would clear the matter! Did you already see it before?
Click to expand...

As soon as I saw and read the article that Per posted the whole thing rang a bell. So I googled 'Bruce Dickinson business speech' and it was the first option on page 2. Now, the short answer to your question is 'yes' but the interesting thing is that I'd seen that video on the prompting of someone posting a video about Bruce being an entrepreneur in the regular Bruce thread and that was one of the suggested vids youtube came up with after I finished watching. So really, the 'research' was just a matter of watching related youtube videos and learning just a bit more about what Bruce does as a businessman. As Perun said, if I could find it (in about 60 seconds), then the guy who wrote the article definitely should have found it. Maybe his critique would have been less harsh. Bruce himself certainly seems to think that this blimp is a great idea that can be used for good things (i.e. food to Africa), not for warfare (although the U.S. military seems to have purchased the idea).

I'd like to add to Perun's list of 'things we can learn from this incident': giving in to watching related youtube video's and wasting half your day can come in handy sometimes. :p
 
Perun said:
And that, Foro, to give you a late answer to a different discussion, is why I don't trust the media.
Click to expand...

Good point. Always keep a critical mindset, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the point of an article.

Forostar said:
Better to believe something and eventually know than to believe nothing and know nothing.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I agree with this. To be more specific - I don't think you can equate believing and knowing. When presented with new knowledge, you can choose to just believe it. The other option is to evaluate the source, compare this new knowledge with previous knowledge, and wait with believing until you have verified the new knowledge.
If you choose to believe something (e.g. that Bruce's company manufactures military attack drones) you could end up defending a belief that you later abandon after checking the facts better. I wouldn't feel comfortable with doing that.
 
Last edited:
Forostar said:
The word drones got me confused indeed. In my first reaction I still expressed that I wanted to know what this "drone" exactly can do and what it will be used for. I admit that I positioned myself in a double way because I was already talking in a negative way, trying to imagine "what if". Still I feel glad on being right about sensing that these sources are valid. The word drone was the only confusing thing. But I felt right that the info was not totally bullshit.
Click to expand...

The author of the article evidently read the word "drones" and "US military" while skimming it, and thus did not bother to read it any more carefully.

I see what you mean Per, about the media. But I also trust on our own judgement and will to find out what's going on. If I thought this were totally idiotic then I don't think I would be so eager.
Click to expand...

But that's the grand problem, isn't it. We managed to debunk the article in a group effort, and all credit goes to Natalie because she knew the video. Hadn't she posted the video, I wouldn't have wondered just how the source website fit in and bothered to re-read it carefully. And the thread displays that none of us went by the information the source website said on its own, but went by the interpretation that was offered by the author of the article - a completely wrong interpretation that was based on false reading. We would still be running in circles.
Now imagine how somebody who is on their own will react to the article. Imagine it is posted on a different Maiden or metal website that doesn't have a bright spark as Natalie, and the information is taken to be true because everybody posting there is confident of their own judgement. This isn't over yet, it may only just have begun.

Better to believe something and eventually know than to believe nothing and know nothing.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but no. Why is it so bad to believe nothing and know nothing? If I know nothing, I'd rather not believe either, because I've got a big chance at being wrong. I'd rather try to find out everything I can, and if I can't, I'd rather let it rest than use "belief".

Or in other words, I can't trust my own judgement if I don't know that my judgement is based on correct facts. The article here proved that: It was based on wrong facts. We were lucky that the original source was accessible to us and we could debunk it, but in many cases the sources are not accessible, and we simply can't know if a report is based on correct or wrong facts. And as we see here, misreporting and misinformation can happen anywhere at any time.

Zare said:
I don't have time now to watch the video, but if Bruce's airship is unmanned, it's surely going to have a "drone functionality".
Drones are just computer controlled vehicles. 99.99999% of world's various drones are being used by civilians for peaceful purposes.
Click to expand...

We're already past this. It's an airship. Bruce describes how it's operated, and it's manned by two people. Also, there is nothing lighter than air, and most of all, there is no drone.
 
Also, it would be cool if everybody here could write them an email about this. The more protest there is, the more likely it will be heard.

Also, do it fast. The article is already spreading on the net.
 
Last edited:
I meant that I believed enough of the source (moreover the nature of the source seems reliable, as both Perun and I explained) to urge myself and investigate. Therefore continuing the discussion and searching for new knowlegde.
Natalie's find was vital. Without it, the only option that was left is communicating.

I never thought that 'Bruce Dickinson business speech' would lead so quick to the result because I thought there were quite some of them. There's no metadata with the YouTube video that leads to anything related on the subject apart from Bruce and business. So there's a certain luck involved. And of course this:
Natalie said:
As soon as I saw and read the article that Per posted the whole thing rang a bell.
Click to expand...
Still I am glad you did it Natalie.
 
Zare said:
Unmanned aerial vehicles aren't "drones" if they are remotely controlled by operator. They are drones if they fly on preprogrammed route and do preprogrammed stuff without human intervention.
Most of U(C)AV's are built for composite operation, meaning they're remotely controlled by real humans, and in case communication breaks down, their on-board computer can try to finish the mission by using it's preprogrammed logic.

I don't have time now to watch the video, but if Bruce's airship is unmanned, it's surely going to have a "drone functionality".
Drones are just computer controlled vehicles. 99.99999% of world's various drones are being used by civilians for peaceful purposes.
Click to expand...


The ships are blimps and they are manned by a two person crew. There is no way that qualifies as a drone
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top