From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Date: Mon Nov 11 1996 - 21:16:59 MST
Ira Brodsky wrote:
>
> Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> >IAN: Of course, as facts prove, you require ad hominem to
> >bolster your case, I'll try to stick with facts and logic. I
> >realize there's a degree of "joshing" here, but only a degree.
>
> I have argued from the beginning that we should stick to facts and logic.
> It is one thing to suggest the *possibility* TWA Flight 800 was brought
> down by a Navy missile. It is another thing to *announce* that is what
> happened -- which is precisely what a couple messages reposted to this
> forum did.
>
> I never ruled out the possibility of a missile. However, the cover-up
> theory as presented is absurd. It suggested the complicity of an entire
> crew of a Navy destroyer, multiple gov't agencies, and the White House.
We know for one that this particular White House is capable of covering
up ANYTHING that will preserve its power. We also know that multiple
government agencies which work under the blanket of secrecy everyday do
know how to keep a secret (SR-71 for ten years, the Stealth Fighter for
more than ten years, as well as some things you have no idea about yet).
In addition, something you may not know anything about Ira, is that on
Naval vessels, there are very few, if any portholes. ANything happening
in one section of the ship, due to its armoring, and the noise of
internal machinery, would be drowned out, and those individuals
involved, the vast number of whome are of low rank, know that if they
are given an order to shut up over something that gets classfied, they
will easily die if they open their mouths. I know this due to my own
experiences in the US Military. The phrase "we take care of our own" has
many meanings, some of which are pretty insidious.
I
> just don't think they could pull it off if they tried. Gov't employees
> aren't that competent.
US military personnel are not your regular government employees.
>
> In fact, it was on the basis of questioning gov't and media that I
> suggested Salinger was an unreliable source.
>
> But look at how quickly you and others embraced Salinger's remarks and
> proclaimed victory! (Remember, you originally stated that Salinger's
> comments "proved" it was a Navy missile.) I don't know what brought down
> TWA Flight 800. The official investigation doesn't appear to know what
> brought down TWA Flight 800. What we should be skeptical about is people
> thousands of miles removed, with possible political motivations, or an
> affinity for conspiracy theories, making spectacular but unsubstantiated
> pronouncemnets about "what really happened."
>
>
> Hmmm. I distinguish between arguments based purely on appeal to authority
> versus arguments that are supported by authoritative sources.
>
> Never questioning "authority" is one extreme. Always condemning authority
> is another. In my universe, authority is generally earned, so in itself it
> is not bad. There are abuses of authority. But guess what? There are
> even more abuses by people with only self-appointed "authority."
you mean, things like the National Security Act of 1947?
>
> If you are in a position of authority and declare TWA Flight 800 was not,
> in your opinion, downed by a missile of any kind your assertion will be
> questioned, doubted, and even contradicted twelve ways till Tuesday. I
> don't see why the same shouldn't apply to uncredentialed conspiracy
> theorists.
>
> >I've never said "the Navy did it." I believe 90% a missile did it.
>
> I don't have enough information to say it was or wasn't a missile, but I am
> increasingly doubtful it was a missile fired by the U.S. Navy and then
> covered up.
>
>
> I think you are right. I tend to believe authorities in various fields
> before I believe people who come out of nowhere with sensational stories.
> However, I also recognize the positive role that radical, "outside"
> thinkers can play.
>
> I notice, however, there are radical optimists and radical pessimists. I
> tend to pay more attention to the former. In my view, people who come up
> with potentially new and better ideas always deserve a hearing. At some
> point, on the other hand, people who continually tell us the truth isn't
> what it seems, but can never prove it, and argue that you are obviously
> naive or have been duped if you disagree with them, deserve to be tuned
> out.
>
> >
> >IAN: He's a scoundrel because he has documents the GovtMedia does not
> >like?? Forget the fact that these documents, if they are nothing more
> >than the internet document, have not, to my knwoledge, been disproven
> >in any fashion other than that they were anonymous and that the USN
> >says, "we weren't there." If the authorities say X is true, then X
> >is true and anyone who says otherwise is an "intellectually dis-
> >honest scoundrel." I reject that thinking as servile.
>
> He's intellectually dishonest because he tried to take personal credit for
> a "document" he never bothered to check out.
>
> Yes Ian, only a scoundrel would accuse other people of criminal behavior
> and then refuse to show the "proof." This is called slander.
>
> >Where's your proof that the internet document is false? I just, in the
> >last post, presented evidence that the key feature of disproving it,
> >that area W-105 is not a missile testing area, is compromised by the
> >USN dude saying the area is "not typically used for missile training."
This is another fallacy. All civil air navigation maps specifically warn
aircraft from that area for that very reason.
> >That does not prove the Navy did it, but it leaves the door open on
> >the validity of the document. So where's your assumed disproof?
>
> I am not the one trying to prove what happened. Admittedly, it strikes me
> as more honest for a Navy official to leave the door open than for
> conspiracy theorists to say with certainty "here is what really happened."
>
> I remain skeptical about the conspiracy theory. I am less skeptical about
> a widespread investigation that has not ruled out (last I heard) mechanical
> failure, a terrorist bomb, or a missile. It's the conspiracy theorists who
> have already made up their minds and are arguing from emotion. The
> official investigation admits it does not yet have enough facts.
>
The facts are that mechanical failure of the sort necessary to have the
failure that occured in that plane by itself has been determined to be
fantastically unlikely. It is also a fact that they have only found bomb
traces on sections of the plane where ordinances had been stored for
shipment during Operation Desert Storm. THe traces they found were no
where near that beleived needed to induce the blast the plane
experienced. What is left?
The fact that it is Navy vessels collecting the debris is like letting a
crime suspect examine and collect the evidence at a crime scene.
> This plane went down over the Atlantic Ocean. Many of the "facts" have not
> been recovered. Maybe they never will. It will probably take a systematic
> effort by a large number of trained investigators to get the answer.
>
> ***Skeptics will trust those who are retrieving and examining the actual
> physical evidence before they trust those who insist they already know what
> "really happened" because they have pieced it together from select media
> reports.***
>
Skeptics of what?
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:50 MST