|
Post by smlbstcbr on Dec 4, 2010 11:53:31 GMT -4
Well, it's very obvious to most people that the "leaked" material is, redundantly, stating the obvious... just that in a more official level. Yesterday (or the day before, not sure), for some reason, BBC News feed took out of the locker the famous Mincemeat Operation and compared it with the current Wikileaks thing going on. This might seem very fictitious, but I tend to believe that Assange is the protagonist (voluntary or not) of a similar plan. The US intelligence might have known (it's a supposition) about the attempts to leak data concerning their diplomats. Aware of the the situation, they planted documents containing good, bad and fictitious information. To give them legitimacy, they act against the release of the documents, make a call to stop it, but, eventually, the documents make it to the public. Concerning why would they do it, well... there's a lot of interests I can think of.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 30, 2010 21:16:24 GMT -4
Speculation on an individual's motives is a very valid input for debate. You note how what you said doesn't correlate with what Echnaton said? Sure. It's valid input, though it's far from the most useful part of it. But the fact that it's far from the most useful part of it is why it is, as he said, "a poor substitute for a factual input." If there is no factual input, the motive doesn't really matter very much. Didn't see it that way, thanks for pointing that out.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 30, 2010 9:58:56 GMT -4
Oh well, time will tell what tiny bit of truth lies beneath all this... Perhaps some day in the future we will say, "they told us about this so long ago..." My prediction is that, if some day there is some correspondence between what Hastings says and some real events of the day, the connection will be purely happenstance. The far more likely scenario however, is that at some point an equally credulous UFO proponent will look at some trivial events and make up a story about how Hastings laid it out for us and we didn't believe him. Ain't that a b!tch?
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 30, 2010 9:57:31 GMT -4
I wonder if those guys really needed their 15 minutes of fame. Speculation on an individuals motives is a poor substitute for factual input in a debate. Speculation on an individual's motives is a very valid input for debate. In this case, those guys went there because they felt the need to tell that something happened there, unfortunately for them, their evidence is circumstantial. Very bad for them that their evidence is largely circumstantial. What motivates us who know (despite the fact that we never set a foot on) that men went to the Moon to debate such facts with the hoax believers? I think the same can be applied to those guys and analysing why they did it might give a better perspective of the whole matter (if there's one).
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 29, 2010 12:04:41 GMT -4
What concerns me is why do they expose to the ridiculous if they aren't really certain of what they are saying? Personal certainty is separate from a demonstration of factual content or even plausibility. Speculation on possible motives will not answer any questions about the veracity of the claim. Plenty of people prefer being ridiculed by most to being ignored by all. I like the last part, "Plenty of people prefer being ridiculed by most to being ignored by all". I wonder if those guys really needed their 15 minutes of fame. Oh well, time will tell what tiny bit of truth lies beneath all this... Perhaps some day in the future we will say, "they told us about this so long ago..."
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 29, 2010 10:22:19 GMT -4
Okay, but all their statements are easily shown to be wrong by actual documentation. Some who are "breaking their silence" have been doing so for quite some time with no consequences. Some weren't even actually there when the event they're "breaking their silence" about happened. Robert Hastings has been shown to deliberately misrepresent communications so that things directly contradicting him somehow come out supporting him instead. True, true. Well, it's their truth, it's up to us to look at the facts and say: "maybe this <insert something> all can explain what happened there..." What concerns me is why do they expose to the ridiculous if they aren't really certain of what they are saying? Something must have compelled those guys to go into the limelight of media and us, critics. I see, but all this kind of affairs are always subjetive.
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 28, 2010 22:57:33 GMT -4
In your original post you said you were skeptical about UFOs, when are you going to show some of this skepticism? You've done nothing but argue on behalf of these dubious claims. Here it comes (as asked). I can take their statements as such, that something unknown happened there but then, to make an obviously political argument out of that such as "ET is angry with the nukes" is just nonsense (yet). The event experienced by that people must have something sort of life changing. I'm not going to say "UFOs are coming" until compelling evidence is shown, but to dismiss the allegations of , lets say, numerous people with a very specific training just because, unfortunately, no one has been able to gather irrefutable evidence of such things is also nonsense. There are lots of witnesses but no compelling *enough* evidence shown... However, there is one thing that worries me, IF (big if) they are telling the truth, then the nuclear capabilities (or something else) in the world might come off control because of this phenomena, which needs to be thoroughfully studied because it is a public safety concern. Just imagine the case in that one UFO is flying in the same path of an airliner...
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 28, 2010 18:40:04 GMT -4
Lets debate this: a certain number of military officers have decided to break their silence (and potentially violate Non-disclosure Agreements) to say us that something completely unexpected (and that shouldn't have happened) happened at certain time during their service and that event, all of them seem to agree, put a serious risk on the safety of nuclear silos. A person with a certain reputation gathers them all in a meeting to discuss their experiences about such event. Does the fact that that certain person is known to be stubborn takes out legitimacy to those officers claims?
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 27, 2010 19:54:29 GMT -4
"What if" what? "What if" it had some validity? It doesn't. There is no viable evidence to suggest that it does. Almost every single statement Robert Hastings ever presented has been shown to be flawed in some important way. Why bother speculating about it? Because, even if the guy has flawed evidence, there must by a small grain of truth in his statements and, by debating, we might be able to find out what's wrong with the guy... On the other hand, there's also the possibility of us being wrong... come on, it's funny to debate about this!
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 27, 2010 15:07:03 GMT -4
Placing aside all the sources... what if...
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 23, 2010 19:57:19 GMT -4
Well, the reason I posted it is the word Reuters on that... I certainly want to see what will come out of that...
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 22, 2010 23:11:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 10, 2010 21:11:18 GMT -4
Does anyone still really believe that Fidel is at all concerned about anyone but himself and his immediate family? Evo does ;D As many have predicted (though a bit late) Castro has turned his statements back and said it was a "misinterpretation by the media" Anyways, the damage has been done... and it was hiliarious
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Sept 9, 2010 21:09:01 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by smlbstcbr on Apr 23, 2010 17:02:48 GMT -4
I do agree with Morales on one thing - Coca Cola really isn't especially good for you. Considering that its main ingredient is COCA... ;D And, for your entertainment... they just announced the formation of the Ministry for the Mother Earth...(which does... I don't know!!!)
|
|