|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 7, 2005 16:52:16 GMT -4
The minute I heard JFK, Jr. had made known his plans to run for public office I figured he'd been murdered. This from rense.com. A "tell-some" article from a special forces government investigator who was at the crash site and interviewed witnesses. He's currently in hiding. Enjoy. www.tomflocco.com/fs/PurgeTheEvil.htm
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 7, 2005 18:15:59 GMT -4
Please no more of this, I just can’t take it any more. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH…………….running out of the room.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 7, 2005 23:31:03 GMT -4
I guess the more obvious idea that perhps a pilot who was inexperianced at instrument flight and not trained for night flying, attempted flight he shouldn't have, with a broken foot and as a result or his inexperience become disorinented and unable to control the plne properly, crashed is just far too simply. Funny thing is that it happened to far more experienced pilots who find themselves in conditions they hven't trained for and no one says boo about them being "murdered."
|
|
|
Post by rocketdad on Sept 8, 2005 1:19:26 GMT -4
And why is John Denver's "mysterious plane crash" not a subject of inquiry?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 8, 2005 1:36:47 GMT -4
Or Payne Stewart's?
Perhaps because they weren't running for office.
Perhaps someone should check up on Sonny Bono's death. Maybe someone moved a tree...
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 8, 2005 1:46:23 GMT -4
Or Payne Stewart's? Perhaps because they weren't running for office. Perhaps someone should check up on Sonny Bono's death. Maybe someone moved a tree... Maybe Sonny Bono will be my next thread. The circumstances surrounding his death were mysterious.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 8, 2005 1:58:02 GMT -4
LHO, Jr?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Sept 8, 2005 3:06:16 GMT -4
Or Payne Stewart's? Perhaps because they weren't running for office. Perhaps someone should check up on Sonny Bono's death. Maybe someone moved a tree... Maybe Sonny Bono will be my next thread. The circumstances surrounding his death were mysterious. Yeah very mysterious, I mean who would ski into a tree? Well apart from the fact that there ws anther death from the same thing about a week later and a number of accidents every year with people being seriously hurt of killed from hitting trees at high speed while skiing.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Sept 8, 2005 8:52:14 GMT -4
Maybe Sonny Bono will be my next thread. The circumstances surrounding his death were mysterious. Yeah very mysterious, I mean who would ski into a tree? Well apart from the fact that there ws anther death from the same thing about a week later and a number of accidents every year with people being seriously hurt of killed from hitting trees at high speed while skiing. The perfect cover, don’t you think? Enquiring minds want to know!
|
|
|
Post by skinbath on Sept 8, 2005 11:52:36 GMT -4
Dead Hoosiers, Just because the exact circumstances of a death are unknown,that does not have to mean they are suspicious.It simply means they are unknown and in some instances,perhaps more importantly, unknowable,and that`s where the guesswork sets in. You made a comment in another thread.....to be exact..."You need to expand your horizons"........BUT,it`s precisely because people have expanded their horizons that they grow to realise that CTs are not the only answer. I`m not going to say you`re wrong,(though to be polite,I reckon whoever writes and comes up with this stuff should seriously consider better employing their time as a science fiction novelist),but most of the conspiracy theories,without evidence,remain just so,i.e. theories.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 8, 2005 13:58:19 GMT -4
Real events are fraught with inconsistencies and holes in the data. In fact, when someone hands me a complete set of fully-consistent evidence, then I know there's a cover-up. It's unrealistic to expect there to be answers for every conceivable question in an inquiry of a true event.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Sept 8, 2005 15:05:12 GMT -4
(though to be polite,I reckon whoever writes and comes up with this stuff should seriously consider better employing their time as a science fiction novelist) Would you mind not traducing science fiction novelists, please? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 8, 2005 15:18:45 GMT -4
Dead Hoosiers, Just because the exact circumstances of a death are unknown,that does not have to mean they are suspicious.It simply means they are unknown and in some instances,perhaps more importantly, unknowable,and that`s where the guesswork sets in. You made a comment in another thread.....to be exact..."You need to expand your horizons"........BUT,it`s precisely because people have expanded their horizons that they grow to realise that CTs are not the only answer. I`m not going to say you`re wrong,(though to be polite,I reckon whoever writes and comes up with this stuff should seriously consider better employing their time as a science fiction novelist),but most of the conspiracy theories,without evidence,remain just so,i.e. theories. I don't think speculation about JFK, Jr.'s death would fall into the science fiction category, but otherwise, yeah. I know they're theories and am in agreement with you about the unknowable aspect of things. When you get right down to it, nearly all of it (the absolute truth about people and what they're up to) is virtually unknowable, isn't it? What we accept as meritorious info varies from person to person based on our perception of reality, among other things.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Sept 8, 2005 18:03:59 GMT -4
That's true: we can't know everything about everything or everyone. The fun question is then what we do about that. What should we assume? Or should we assume anything? Should I assume that people are doing evil unless they or I can prove they are doing good? It's that implicit conclusion that always gets us in trouble.
Should we assume every airplane crash is a hijacking? A murder?
The fact is that far more accidents happen than deliberate acts. So statistically any occurrence is more likely to be an accident than otherwise. In scientific terms, that becomes our null hypothesis. The art of investigation is knowing what circumstances are likely to be deliberate and which are likely to be coincidence. When we say "It's suspicious that...", we are proposing something that would be the case for a deliberate act, but not the case in an accident or happenstance. But suspicion is far more subjective than we give it credit for.
Ed Mitchell and I had a great conversation several years ago about the nature of coincidence. This had nothing to do with his space missions, but rather to do with his study in certain paranormal phenomenon. The gist of the conversation was that the phenomenon we generally refer to as "coincidence" doesn't really exist. That is, whether two occurrences proximal in time and space constitute a potential causality or salient combination depends largely on the meanings that certain people subjectively assign to the events.
Maybe a brief example will illustrate.
We all know that washing your car will ensure that some event occurs to get it dirty again. (My parking lot borders a gravel pit, so my car is perpetually dusty no matter how often I wash it.) We consider it an unfortunate coincidence that it rains the day after we wash our cars. But it doesn't always rain after car washing, and we don't always wash our car just before it rains. If it rains on my newly-washed car, would someone else -- who did not wash his car that day -- consider that rainstorm a coincidence? Probably not.
The implication from that line of reasoning is that "coincidences" are largely manufactured. Or stated another way, potential coincidences are commonplace -- even ubiquitous. There is no end to the number of events that happen near each other in space and time, constantly, everywhere. Those events become coincidences only when some of the many events simultaneously occurring are given significance by subjective consideration. We can "create" coincidences simply by picking and choosing what events we consider salient.
The normal methods of assigning significance are highly subjective. Therefore the observer must develop the skill to separate subjective salience from objective salience.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Sept 8, 2005 20:24:50 GMT -4
How about the "Clinton Body Count"? That's just too much coincidence for me. I presume you're familiar with it?
|
|