In news:e29hpg$l8k$1@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somehost.somedomain.aus> typed:

In article <EOO0g.13680$LH2.1222@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>,
manic_mandy@hotmail.com says...

In news:1145248873.146867.294090@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
Rick Thorne <audeteffice@yahoo.com> typed:

Amanda Angelika wrote:

Rick Thorne <audeteffice@yahoo.com> typed:

This is all well an good except for one problem charlatans and
liars usually *act* like genuine sincere people.

Which in a way was my point - obviously missed.  Must be my fault.

That level of negativity or cynicism isn't normal or rational.

On your statement about rationality: since you didn't understand the
scope or point of my original post, allow me to explain that:

1) Scope: it was in response to the Art Wholeflaffer posts that have
corrputed these discussions since his name was Dick Frager in 1995.
These posts always open with some nonsense about what crackpots and
government disinformationists debunkers and skeptics are; this post
was a counter to those truly cynical ones.

2) Point: since it was directed at him and his kind, it was intended
to be sarcastic and little else.

On your statement about normalicy - given that you present only your
opinion and zero evidence or presentation of credentials that would
make me believe you're qualified to judge what is normal, I couldn't
care less than I do what you think about this.

Well there is a general consensus in society as to what is "normal"
One doesn't have to be "normal" oneself to recognise this :) OTOH
though the ability to recognise such consensus does perhaps define
sanity. Of course not everyone can do this which is why you get
sociopaths who in extreme cases have a view of what is "normal"
which is totally egocentric.

Your argument isn't rational or logical.

And since it wasn't an argument but a joke with a very specific
target, your response isn't valid or necessary.

Possibly not.

There is no evidence that *all* witness testimony is Perjurous,
neither can you demonstrate that to be the case.

I agree.  That's why it was a poke in a very specifc eye who gives
blind credence to all these claims without demanding any rigor
behind them, then accuses those of us who do as conspirators.

My honest opinion: this discussion is too important to leave in the
hands of extremists who will corrupt it either way.  All or nothing
doesn't work.  I want discussion and intellect to rule, not blaming
and conjuring, but that seems to be tragically absent from the
American dialog these days.

Well in a society where you have freedom of speech, expression and
religion, people are allowed to believe in the voices in their own
heads. Of course it doesn't necessarily mean these things are
totally unreal. OTOH though we don't really know the power of our
own minds. People say you can't record things that are a result of
imagination on video, but we don't really know this for certain. If
everyone in the world got their heads together maybe we could
recreate the entire universe we don't know.

I do believe that we should rationalise everything - everything -
completely, so it is then generally known, exactly what can be said
to be true or not.
ie. all the line of reasoning? is then given...

And it will be shown that certain things that is generally believed
to be real - is not simply true.

eg.

That no religion has exclusiveness unto themselves, therefore what
the Christians, Jews and Muslims believe in, is altogether not true.
Full stop.

And such beliefs which say - that we are alone in the universe,
is similarly not correct or logical at all.

That such foundations of basic beliefs can be agreed upon?
And from, it can then be shown that others in align with these,
are false... ie. the above religions in particular.

Well I think the main problem with belief is too many people mistake it for
knowledge. In fact religion makes a virtue of this and calls it *faith* and
conversly makes unbelief a sin. Which doen't make any real sense because
whether something is real or unreal, wrong or right it just *is* and no
amount of belief or disbelief can or will make any difference.

The only context in which this faith has any virtue is in relation to
man-made institutions. Because if there is a God He is the higher reality.

Mind it's not only religion that falls into this trap. People talk about the
"Laws of Physics" as if the limits of our scientific knowledge and reality
are one an the same thing. It's not because we don't actually know all the
laws of physics.

Well you may think you can get people to believe anything, but
ironically
you appear to have failed because you argument isn't based on
accepted fact.

I suppose if this were a high school debate, I'd give you a point
for this clever *little* rhetorical observation.  Since what I
really hoped for was a good laugh at the expense of a repellent
intellectual parasite, all I can do is sigh and roll my eyes,
hoping to be understood next time.

:)

LOL

There ya go. That's all I wanted all along.

Now maybe we can start talking intelligently about this topic.
 Amanda? Anybody?

Many people do. That said I have come across the odd person who will
come up with an idea and stick to it with religious fervour
regardless of all evidence to the contrary. Obviously you can't
debate with people like that it's a waste of time.
--
Amanda

There are certain things, which are regarded now - as - wacky, weird,
strange --- which are true. But not all such things (ie. truly weird
and
wacky, strange, etc) are... true.

And unfortunately we have been lied to for so long - particularly by
politicians and governments - but also by academics and religion.

I have compiled a short list -

Here is a list of the 7 most unbelievable truths, which are in fact
true - by default, if you will only look at the evidence available...


1. 9/11 is a lie. ie. the official story cannot be true. Full Stop.
   The facts do not fit the official story.
   Read any website which tells the story of actual events
   that happened on Sept 11th 2001.


2. The same with the Oklahoma story. April 19th, 1995.
   http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/OK/ok.html
   The truck bomb was not sufficient to bring down the building,
   which is a 'hard' target. Evidence seems to indicate that high
   explosive was stored illegally in the ATF department in the
   building, which exploded because of the truck bomb, and this
   secondary explosion inside the building killed most of the people
and caused the wholesale damage.

3. The same with the TWA 800 story.
   July 17th, 1996
   http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/CRASH/TWA/twa.html
   All eyewitnesses testify that a missile was seen, and that this
   was likely to have been the cause.

Not sure about those conclusions :)

4. The same with Kennedy Assassination story.
   11/22/63
   Only that the official story does not tally with eyewitness
testimonies.

5. The Apollo Moon Landings are a hoax. The official story is not
   true. July 20, 1969
   Too many details reveal inconsistancies which indicate it was all
   a hoax. See "What Happened on the Moon"... and other documentaries.

Well again not sure, I think it would be a shame if it was faked. But it is
remarkable that in the whole period of 37 years since the Apollo 11 landing
there has never been a high resolution image of the area showing the lander
and the flag left behind. Given there were supposedly subsequent missions,
and the historic significance of the event and the site it took place this
is quite strange.

6. The story of Christianity is not true, in that the official story
   is not the whole and complete story.
   www.tjresearch/tjheresy.htm
   The same applies to the stories of the Jews and Muslims belief
   systems, similarly they are incorrect as well.
   In brief - 'Jesus' did not die at the crucifixion, but was revived,
   recovered and journeyed onto Kashmir, where he lived into old age
   and is buried there. The tomb exists.
   The resurrection did not happen - that is a Christian invention,
ie. lie.

Surprise surprise. :)

7. Our world history is incorrect, in that there was an advanced
   ancient civilisation that had a higher level of technology more
   sophisicated than ours 50,000 years ago, till as late as
   7,000? years ago...

There's quite a bit of evidence pointing to that

There is another list ... of the wacky and strange, which I believe
are true, which I will compile, that deals more with this NG subject
matter...

I believe in looking at the evidence, in which the information tells
the story, and not just having a belief - only -.

Mind there is one factor one has to examine with conspiracy theories is
whether people would lie about things and what motivations they might have.
The problem I have with all the 911 conspiracy theories is whilst it is not
impossible the US Government might want to lie to the American people. It is
far more likely that these conspiracy theories have been fabricated by
people who actually hate America, every war is the same and propagandists
will stop at nothing in order to pervert the truth.
-- 
Amanda