Jack White Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 Exactly, Charles. I did not include many other "official accidents" because having studied the facts, I believe NONE OF THEM COULD POSSIBLY BE ACCIDENTS. I might concede a few suspicious "accidents" when there is zero evidence to the contrary. It is a given to me that virtually all official stories of accidents are suspect until proved otherwise. I know of no prominent case where an accidental cause has been proved, just declared. A few are suspicious, but nothing can be proved either way. For instance I have no proof that some highly suspicious plane crashes are not accidents, so I have to concede some such as Tower, Heinz, and Boggs may be accidents, in the absence of evidence. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted December 18, 2007 Author Share Posted December 18, 2007 I know of no prominent case where an accidental cause has been proved, just declared. Jack That poses a problem because some people will simply disregard the proof! It might be proof that stands up in a court of law, proof that is agreed upon by all the experts in the world, proof that nothing else could possibly have happened.... but there are in some cases who simply will not accept ANY proof, no matter the standard. They have their opinion, and they are sticking to it no matter what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 (edited) I know of no prominent case where an accidental cause has been proved, just declared. Jack That poses a problem because some people will simply disregard the proof! It might be proof that stands up in a court of law, proof that is agreed upon by all the experts in the world, proof that nothing else could possibly have happened.... but there are in some cases who simply will not accept ANY proof, no matter the standard. They have their opinion, and they are sticking to it no matter what. Of course. But intelligence operations, by their very nature, provide "proof" for alternative, innocent scenarios that is supported only by that classic fallacy, the argument from false authority. Example: The "government" has provided "proof" that JFK was the victim of a lone nut. And so it must be true. That "argument" was unsustainable from literally day one because its officially manufactured "proof" was and is demonstrably (through rigorous, unbiased applications of the scientific method) invalid, and because evidence for conspiracy in the death of JFK was and is demonstrably (through rigorous, unbiased applications of the scientific method) valid. Which poses a problem, because some people will simply accept any officially sanctioned "proof." It might be "proof" that cannot stand up in a court of law, "proof" that is decried by all the unbiased experts in the world. Yes, there are in some cases people who will accept ANY "proof" that is manufactured and presented by the parent state, no matter the standard. They have their blind allegiance to false authority, and they will maintain it no matter what. Charles Edited December 18, 2007 by Charles Drago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted December 18, 2007 Share Posted December 18, 2007 I know of no prominent case where an accidental cause has been proved, just declared. Jack That poses a problem because some people will simply disregard the proof! It might be proof that stands up in a court of law, proof that is agreed upon by all the experts in the world, proof that nothing else could possibly have happened.... but there are in some cases who simply will not accept ANY proof, no matter the standard. They have their opinion, and they are sticking to it no matter what. Of course. But intelligence operations, by their very nature, provide "proof" for alternative, innocent scenarios that is supported only by that classic fallacy, the argument from false authority. Example: The "government" has provided "proof" that JFK was the victim of a lone nut. And so it must be true. That "argument" was unsustainable from literally day one because its officially manufactured "proof" was and is demonstrably (through rigorous, unbiased applications of the scientific method) invalid, and because evidence for conspiracy in the death of JFK was and is demonstrably (through rigorous, unbiased applications of the scientific method) valid. Which poses a problem, because some people will simply accept any officially sanctioned "proof." It might be "proof" that cannot stand up in a court of law, "proof" that is decried by all the unbiased experts in the world. Yes, there are in some cases people who will accept ANY "proof" that is manufactured and presented by the parent state, no matter the standard. They have their blind allegiance to false authority, and they will maintain it no matter what. Charles Charles...I admire the clarity of your thinking and your ability to state your thoughts succinctly and cogently. Yours should be the textbook answer for those who promote "official myths". This is a far superior tactic to simply calling them xxxholes*. Jack *I may have spelled this wrong. I hope it is not a forbidden word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now