BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions

Subject: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 01:10 PM

A perfect example

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoXQWiSlM

People in a panic can't be believed.
It takes a Washingtron Commission to write down what really happened.

Al Gore would probably say that you can't get people to believe a truth whose salary depends upon disbelief.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 01:12 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=tvj7Q9LRAJo&mode=related&search=

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM

And finally the funniest and most suspenseful BBC/FOX snafu of them all...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6iB0QECqoaI&mode=related&search=

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 01:47 PM

who we are up against
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AXt-cQpZ-5A&mode=related&search=

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 01:48 PM

You can't get people to believe a truth whose jobs and careers depend on disbelief either. When even their lives may depend on at least pretending to disbelieve, they will do so.

That job was a well-planned demolition...with or without the aid of a handful of Muslims with boxcutters. It has enabled the unprovoked invasions of two entire foreign countries, the death of a great many innocent people, and it may yet enable far worse than that...if yet another attack is launched on Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 02:15 PM

The above clip is funniest BBC screw up in propoganda I have ever seen

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: gnu
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 02:45 PM

The first video, at 6:58 minutes clearly shows that the building depicted failed at or near the level impacted by the plane and NOT from below. So, it did fail as a result of the plane impact or as a result of a well planed demolition above the level of plane impact (which is not offered nor likely).

I did not bother to watch the rest of the video. It is clearly eveident that the implication of a well-planned demolition below the level of plane impact of the building depicted at 6:58 minutes in that video is unsupported at present.

I am not saying anything except what I am saying. I did not say there were no big bangs... I did not say that the whole thing was not engineered by some bad guys who wanted to invade Iraq... and so on, and so on.

I'm just saying that the buiding depicted at 6:58 failed at or above the level of plane impact and NOT below.... watch the video.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: bobad
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 03:16 PM

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 05:46 PM

Much has been made of 'lumps on the plane' - alleged add-ons near where the wings attach to the body. The sad thing is that some simple research - hey, can you still buy Airfix plane models? been some years for me.... :-) - of looking at the plane reveals that is just part of the original design to make sure the wings don't fall off...

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 06:05 PM

Just found this, it's really good!

Trust me, you SHOULD read it... it proves that perhaps the Death Star Attack was an Inside Job!!!

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 06:47 PM

Hey, I don't buy the "bumps on the plane" thing either. That, however, does not mean I regard all the other alternative theories as false. To find one or two bad apples in a barrel does not mean you throw out the whole barrel, does it?

If I were going to blow up those buildings in front of millions of   people after arranging to have some airplanes hit them as a visual distraction, would I try to make it look like nothing but the airplane hits brought them down? You bet I would. I'd arrange it that way.

That doesn't necessarily prove there was a controlled demolition, but neither does your observation of the explosion, gnu, prove that there wasn't.

I'd tend to go more by the statements of a lot of eyewitnesses on the day it happened if I were to go on anything. A lot of people say they heard secondary explosions in other parts of the building, and there are recordings of people referring to bombs going off in the building...firemen and professional people who would not be likely to be mistaken about that.

You will interpret these things according to how your mind is already made up about 911 if you are like most people. That's how the human mind works. It forms a conclusion, becomes emotionally attached to defending that conclusion from that point on, and carries on in a predictable fashion...seeking out evidence that supports its conclusion, denying or scoffing at evidence that doesn't, coming up with great lines of argument to support its position.

I already admit to being like that. Why don't you just admit it too? ;-) And that goes for all of you out there.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 07:12 PM

"I'd tend to go more by the statements of a lot of eyewitnesses on the day it happened if I were to go on anything. "

And the instances of eyewitnesses to the same event contradicting each other is beyond count! Even when and eyewitness SEES something and reports precisely what he SEES, it does not always prove anything about causality! "Puff of smoke" "Loud explosions" Geeze! There were plenty of all of those on 9/11...and panicked people saw stuff from different angles. Yet people believe the stories they WANT to believe!
I am totally tired of half-truth, insinuations, speculation and inaccurate data being tied together with guesswork and palmed off as "conspiracy"

Even 'honest' people can be totally confused and mistaken....that's why we ask those who KNOW what happened...

Yeah...I ranted....so sue me.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 07:21 PM

True enough, Bill, eyewitnesses often offer conflicting stories. On the other hand, who are we going to ask about a disaster? Someone who WAS there or someone who WASN'T? We do the best we can.

There are 2 possibilities here.

1. The government has nothing to hide about 911.

2. They have something to hide about 911.

If you look at things assuming #1, then you will probably believe the 911 commission's theory (which IS ITSELF a conspiracy theory...an officially backed one). If you look at things assuming #2, then you will tend to believe some of the other conspiracy theories instead.

Everyone backs whichever conspiracy theory they think is most plausible, including you, Bill.

You will hear from my lawyers in the morning about your rant... (grin)

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 07:27 PM

"that's why we ask those who KNOW what happened"

Ah. And who would those people be?

If the government is covering up, then they obviously WON'T give us the real info, will they? And they will silence or ridicule or just ignore any source of real info. Has the government ever covered up anything before? Whaddya think? Are politicians capable of lying to cover their butts? Whaddya think? Would they lie to get public support for a war overseas? Whaddya think? Is there any precedent for that sort of behaviour in the halls of power? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:16 PM

I don't share my delusions with anyone! You have to pay me if you want some of them.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Bill D
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:23 PM

I don't suppose you are suggesting that all those careful reports by those who designed and BUILT the towers, and the various metallurgists, demolition experts, fire officials, photo analysis companies, air traffic controllers, Air Force pilots, ....and those who dug thru the ruins for months....are suspect, while those who collect odd videos and assemble fascinating quotations are believable....are you?

Nawwww....you are way too careful for that.

Of course politicians will lie to cover their butts....that must mean that if one 'seems' to have his butt covered, he must have lied, hmmm?

Silly? That's essentially whay many of these theories boils down to. "They often do, so they did". "It looks like a 'controlled demolition', so it must BE a controlled demolition."

"All Indians walk in single file....at least the Indian *I* saw once was walking in single file"


Curiosity about the truth? Sure... Ask questions? No problem! Reject the simplest, most reasonable answers if weird, complex plots are more interesting? *tsk*

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: GUEST,Guest who?
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:30 PM

So what's the gist of the videos? Downloading problems.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 08:38 PM

Going back the original thread title, I would offer up some more important delusions:

God(s?) exist

People aren't so selfish/stupid as they appear to be

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:25 PM

Depends how you define "God(s)", doesn't it Bunn? I bet I don't believe in "God" according to your definition of the word either... ;-)

My guess is that many people are considerably more selfish than they appear to be, that some are more stupid as well, and that others are less so. Appearances can often be deceiving.

Bill...

I have read careful reports about 911 by all sorts of people who sound well-informed and knowledgable to me, Bill, and they don't all agree with one another by any means. Some support the government's position. Some don't. You, like anyone else (me included) are believing exactly what you wish to believe and you are listening to whoever supports your view and discounting whoever doesn't.

If a government were covering up, it would certainly find lots of "experts" to push its point of view, wouldn't it? They did so when proving Saddam had WMDs, didn't they? There were other experts who denied that. Turns out those ones were right.

The 911 controversy has plently of credible-sounding people with good sounding credentials on both sides of the debate. That's no surprise to me. That is always the case in such situations.

You're subjective in your judgements, Bill. You're not unbiased. You're the same as me or anyone else in that respect...we are all biased in our opinions. And not ONE of us knows for sure whether or not 911 was an inside job. I think it probably was. You don't. We each have a perfectly credible case to build on the basis of our own form of bias. So don't go ballistic on me and get all righteous because my opinion is different from yours, okay?

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: GUEST,Guest who?
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:33 PM

Fire brought down the towers?

Come to think of it, my stove melts every time I turn it on. Those gas flames are hotter for longer periods of time than the jet fuel achieved on 9/11, therefore, my stovetop melts every time I turn it on. And that is NO CONSPIRACY. I can PROVE it with the GOVERNMENT'S OWN REPORT ON 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Rapparee
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 09:51 PM

Even though I've been to the Texas Book Depository and seen where Kennedy was shot and the window he was shot from, even though I could have done it because the shot wasn't difficult at all, Lee Harvey Oswald had an entire regiment of sharpshooters to help him because someone who was trained by the military couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside (as everyone knows).

I don't trust eyewitnesses, I don't trust film, I don't trust video. What I DO trust is hard physical evidence, such as melted steel girders and the residue of concrete exposed to extremely high heat.

Unfortunately, I have some knowledge of explosives. The "Twin Towers" were NOT (in my opinion) brought down by anything other than being hit by an airplane, the airplane's fuel burning, and the updraft of air caused by the fire (similar to the firestorms caused by incendiaries used on cities during WW2 or what can happen during a wildfire).

Also, Lincoln was shot as part of a plot by his wife, who wanted to marry Jefferson Davis with whom she'd been carrying on an affair for years.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 Mar 07 - 10:07 PM

There's a lot of interesting stuff out there about the Kennedy assassination, Rapaire. Oswald may have fired the fatal shot, he may not have, he may have had help, he may have been set up. I doubt we will ever know. My guess is that the Mafia was involved (and probably some other people as well) and that the fatal shot came from in front off the grassy knoll area, but I'm only guessing.

I've heard other theories about what caused those girders in the WTC to melt, also from people who have a knowledge of explosives, but I am not going to say anything further about that, because frankly, I think it might be a bit dangerous to (even just on this little forum here). You're welcome to your opinion. I'm welcome to mine.

Regarding the Lincolns, I'll say this: Penelope Rutledge was not involved in that affair.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 05:17 AM

To the untrained panic stricken ear, the sound of large steel girders letting go under enormous stress being transmitted thru the building will sound very much like explosions.

I speak as someone who spent quite some time fiddling with sound handling techniques - producing (and faking) sound effects for theatre - both by hand and tape...

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: gnu
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 05:54 AM

LH : "That doesn't necessarily prove there was a controlled demolition, but neither does your observation of the explosion, gnu, prove that there wasn't."

My what? Doesn't prove what? Gosh. I wrote that as carefully as I could so it could not be misinterpreted. I didn't observe an explosion. I didn't prove anything. I merely stated what is clearly obvious in the video.... nothing more.

I said, in summary, : "I'm just saying that the buiding depicted at 6:58 failed at or above the level of plane impact and NOT below.... watch the video."

Like I said, watch the video. And, read my post, do not read into it.

Ah, goodbye.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 01:50 PM

Yes, gnu, I understand that. I just had some further thoughts of my own on the matter, that's all. My busy mind likes to ramble on, you know...

Conversation is like a game of pingpong. Every time you see the ball coming across the net there is this ungovernable impulse to immediately give it a whack and send it back to the other side. That's what keeps these threads going for so damn long. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: gnu
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 02:19 PM

Hehehe.... Thanks, buddy. I can get with that and I can appreciate that.

However, like I said, I just wanted to state "that fact", so, I'll leave youse all to figure out why Garge and the Saudis wanted to dismantle the earth's fourth largest standing army and kick Saddam's ass and decided to do it by staging this elaborate hoax and subsequent slaughter with little regard for human life.... if that is what you are figuring. Go figure?

Too bad Rudolf Hess and Lord Mountbatten are not around to comment. (Yes, it's a very nasty joke, but there it is.)

Have fun.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 02:50 PM

Hmm. What I think is sorta like this...

I think there was a consortium of people in politics and the private sector (particularly the oil industry) who had a great strategic plan in mind for the early 21st century, and that plan went something like this:

"The Soviet system is going to fail soon. When it does, the USA will be in an unchallengeable position as the world's only superpower. This will place us in a position to secure much greater profits and to basically run pretty much the entire world as we want to, because we will have military supremacy.

The first thing we must do is secure the world's main oil reserves. This is not only a matter of profit, it's vital to our future as the reigning superpower.   The coming breakup of the Soviet Union will give us full access to the oil in the Caspian region, and we can pipe it down to the Indian Ocean if we can persuade the Afghans to let us. If not, we find an excuse to knock out the Taliban and replace them with a client regime in Kabul. We also must secure the Iranian and Iraqi oil by causing regime change in both those countries...particularly in Iran, because we still haven't taken revenge on them for what they did to us in 1979....and ruling superpowers do NOT allow defiance on the part of small countries. If one gets away with it, more will be emboldened to, so we can't permit that.

Any country that is defiant of our New World Order which could also be called the Pax Americana will be dealt with sternly. We will apply economic pressure and diplomatic pressure on them until they comply with our gameplan. If that doesn't work, we will accomplish regime change by whatever means is feasible, up to and including fullscale war.

We will need new threats in the world to replace the vanished Warsaw Pact, because without an existing threat it would not be possible to get public consent to maintain our habitually very high levels of military spending and our research into new weapons systems.

Who shall the new threat be? How about radical Islam? It would be perfect. Their way of life is unacceptable to us in many ways, and we have already fallen out with them over events in Iran and in the Arab-Israeli conflict. They are incapable of militarily posing any real danger to the USA, because they are too disunited and backward, and they don't run any major power which can meet us in a relatively even fashion on the battlefield. They will be the perfect "bad guys", and can be relied upon to provide a simply endless series of excuses for intervention exactly where we need and want to intervene...where the oil is.

Okay. Now how do we accomplish this? If we want to go to war, we need a Pearl Harbor level event to get the American people onside. Nothing less will do. Perhaps we can upset the more fanatical Muslims enough that they will provide us with such an event through a terrrorist action. If so, great! All the better. We'll watch, wait, and make sure to let it go ahead when we see it coming.

If, on the other hand, they are not well organized enough to pull off such an attack...well, then...I guess we'll have to arrange it somehow ourselves, only make it look like they did it."

*****

And that's how I figure it. Either they saw it coming, and helped allow it to go ahead...or they fully arranged it. It has all been done to secure the aims laid out well in advance by the PNAC (Project for a New American Century).

Russia knows that. Europe knows it. China knows it. The Arabs know it. How they will deal with it remains to be seen, because the wrong decisions in such matters can lead to hundreds of millions of people dead and a worldwide disaster beyond anything we've yet seen in any past war.

If there is going to be a great war over this, I think the opening salvoes were fired in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon, but the crucial incident is likely to be an attack on Iran. If that happens, it may have an effect equivalent to Hitler's attack on Poland in '39. There may be no going back after that.

So, let's hope that cooler heads prevail, and they mutually back off.

(*all the above is mere speculation on my part...)

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 04:32 PM

"You're subjective in your judgements, Bill. You're not unbiased. You're the same as me or anyone else in that respect..."

Sorry, LH, it is NOT the same....my judgments differ from yours in several respects. You are 'usually' making assertions that 'X' or 'Y' is so, or probably is so...I am 'usually' saying only that a certain line of reasoning or claimed 'fact' does not stand up to scrutiny.

If you cannot see the difference between the two TYPES of judgment, then we can't go much further.


.....and *sigh*....everyone....please...ONCE AND FOR ALL...The girders in the WTC did not MELT!! They were weakened by heat...after having much of their protective fireproofing knocked off by impact! THEN they sagged from heat, fatigue and damage, and eventually failed from the weight and loss of structural integrity. Continuing to assert that "the fire was not hot enough to melt steel" is a classic "straw man" argument. Failure to grasp this point because you only read what the conspiracy theorists assert is flat lazy research!

   Concocting complex plots, even IF they are "mere speculation", based on **subjective** ideas of what certain parties 'might' have done only adds fuel to an already damaged view of history, and makes attempts at clarifying the matter with serious analysis that much harder.

Do I sound peeved? Good....I meant to sound peeved.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: bobad
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 04:41 PM

Aha Bill, now it's pretty obvious that you were in on the conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Bill D
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 05:01 PM

Oh, my! Found out...now Bob Novak will be putting MY name in his column!

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 05:25 PM

You're just doing what everyone does, Bill. You're interpreting the available information in the way that you find most convincing. That does not peeve me. It's the fact that you obviously think you're more objective and rational than I am that peeves me... ;-)

I am confident, Bill, that I am just as intelligent and rational as you are. I base that on a life fraught with a great deal of observation of myself and others. I am equally confident that I, like you, can make errors and draw false conclusions. I do not consider myself superior to you.

If the government is covering up their own complicity in 911, they will go to great efforts to distribute false information, false testimony from various experts who are on the payroll, and various isolated facts which in themselves may be true, but are arranged so as to lead to an overall false conclusion. They have vast resources at their disposal to do that if they want to. If so, they have you and a lot of other people fooled.

If the government is not covering up anything about 911, then I am the one who has been fooled...by various other people who are not in the government.

And there is no way on Earth that either you or I can determine, without any vestige of remaining doubt, which of those above cases is the real one....regardless of what info we look up from either the government spokesmen or from their most severe critics.

We are both ultimately at the mercy of whatever "facts" and opinions are given to us by someone else, and that someone else usually has an unspoken agenda behind whatever they are saying.

The only testimony that I have total faith in is testimony coming directly from someone I personally know and already have total faith in, and who was in the position to know what they're talking about. I don't know anyone like that when it comes to 911, and I don't expect you do either.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 05:27 PM

Further to what Bill said, I have read- and believe - that the pools of "molten steel" that some have reported were in all likelihood melted alum(i)in(i)um which melts at a MUCH lower temperature.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Peace
Date: 16 Mar 07 - 05:34 PM

Speaking of mass hysteria/ shared delusions, I awoke today in a cold sweat. I had a terrible dream in which George W Bush became President of the US in not only 2000 but also in 2004. THAT is scary!

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 07:07 AM

There is more than enough scientific info available to show that the steel melted AFTER the collapse...

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 08:26 AM

What's the debunking on the Pentagon? I know some people who like to go on about how a plane could not possibly have caused the damage--the hole wasn't big enough, not enough pieces of the plane were found, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 09:29 AM

"You're interpreting the available information in the way that you find most convincing. "

What you don't seem to comprehend, LH, is that there are formal, objective ways to analyze and interpret information.

Your statements about 'everyone doing the same thing, and being subjective' feel more like looking for a built-in excuse to continue BEING personally subjective, so you don't have to feel constrained by the rigors of sorting out GOOD information from dubious conjecture, hearsay, and wishful thinking.

   There's a large difference between having an 'open mind' in order to consider all relevant data, and treating ALL data as relevant, in spite of evidence and reason to the contrary. And often, when someone has 'bought into' an analysis from one set of data, they emotionally begin ignoring conflicting or additional data.

An example...when that attack on 9/11 hit the Pentagon, there were claims that "it wasn't a plane"...because the security camera saw the explosion, but had NO images of a plane. Once that, and similar 'explanations' were circulated on the internet, it became very difficult to get all those folks to go bake and READ the explanation that the security camera was not taking continuous video, but only a frame every couple of seconds, so that the plane passed by BETWEEN frames! Such an easy explanation, but to this day there are people who will tell you that since it "couldn't have been a plane, it must have been....X...Y...Z"...and the wild guesses proliferate! (Never mind the many eyewitnesses who saw the plane approach, or the pieces of plane found.)

There are many aspects to this process of examining evidence and ferreting out the best explanation possible...some involve collecting all the evidence possible, some involve sorting the useful evidence from extraneous stuff that just happened to be contiguous in space & time, and some involve the VERY tricky bit of relating the various facts in a coherent and logical way.

If you read my critiques carefully, you will see that most of them are NOT saying that *I* know all the answers, but instead, suggesting that I see problems with *others* answers...either regarding the data itself, or the logic in making claims about what the data shows.

*I* am not qualified to 'do' complex analysis of disaster photos and debris, but I DO have some training in recognizing faulty logic and careless assembling of information. This is why I know that there ARE more ways to explain "puffs of smoke" than positing a wildly complex theory of 'controlled demolition explosions'.......and those other explanations are available from those who, unlike me (or you!) ARE qualified to explain exactly why a building can behave like WTC7 did.

   Again...there are those who MAKE claims...(or repeat the claims of others)...and those who try to evaluate claims. I am 'almost' always in the camp of the evaluators, because that's where my (limited) expertise lies.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 02:35 PM

Well, Bill, there is always the possibility that you're right and I'm wrong, of course...as I am well aware.

There's also the unanswered question of how much time and trouble you and I have actually gone to in looking up stuff to support our opinions. I haven't kept a journal of my activities, so it is a question that I guess never will be answered.

I don't have any strong opinion one way or another about the Pentagon attack...just questions in my mind. I've heard a lot of interesting stuff, but I'm not sure just how to sort it all out.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 03:57 PM

(The Pentagon was just the quickest example I could think of to illustrate my point.)

Re: "...how much time and trouble you and I have actually gone to in looking up stuff to support our opinions. "

It is obvious that, in this day and age, with all the myriad shows, sites and articles bombarding us with claims & counter claims, most of us do not have the resources OR time to investigate the details personally. The trick is to develop our understanding of who IS likely to have the most 'neutral' data and information.
   Places like "Snopes" exist to sort out some of the 'old wives tales' from truth, and find answers, not rumors. Google, and related places, can find ALL the opinions...from the most extreme silliness to details by real experts...and everything in between. It is ok...even GOOD....to read a selection of all of them, to get a feel for the directions the issue is going - and then to investigate the more....ummmm....'astounding' assertions & theories from other viewpoints. Often, like the Pentagon camera, the answer if relatively simple. Other times, as in some reports of UFOs, it ain't so easy, and needs a LOT more investigation.

   I think there are some basic differences in people...some can't abide not having **answers**, and will adopt 'A' until 'B' seems better...others, like me, are content to just not KNOW some things, and will be highly suspicious of pat answers and claims that seem premature.

and so it goes.........

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 04:51 PM

Well, yeah. You're right that many people can't abide not having answers. It's too uncertain for them. We all want very much to know what is really going on.

The thing that I find is the biggest problem is people's tendency to continue defending an initial position they're taken mainly because their pride is involved in doing so. I call it the "Vietnam syndrome": "We can't leave now, because if we did then all those lives would have been lost in vain. To 'cut and run' now would be a betrayal, and an admission of failure."

This is the primary thing that stands in the way of most people giving any real consideration to opinions that are different from their own. They have a self-image to maintain.

I am not going after you when I say that, Bill, I'm just talking about human nature in a general sense.

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 07:54 PM

Crop Circles.

It is true that some have been man made - some even deliberately under close study to see how ones made this way compare with the 'found ones' - and clear differences exist between both types.

Now whatever you may want to personally believe, I can never look at them quite the same way again, since having seen one particular image.

Most of them have very sharp 'pixel on/off' type images, but I saw one (not man made) that has a very complicated circular maze type sharp image on the right, and a vague blurry image on the left. Then you rotate it 90 degrees, and this blurry blob turns into an amazingly striking image, just like how those photos of snow covered mountains turn into faces (it's just the way our brains work processing visual input!)...

Do I know all the answers?

Nope - but I get a bit twitchy whee

1) loud mouthed w*nkers decry it all as rubbish
2) loud mouthed w*nkers tell me the ONLY possible answer is XXX

I just dunno - yet! And the same with Kennedy's assassination, 9/11. etc, etc, etc. Both categories above obviously have an agenda, and they both NEED to convince ALL non-believers...

Subject: RE: BS: mass hysteria/ shared delusions
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 07 - 08:06 PM

" Do I know all the answers?

Nope - but I get a bit twitchy when

1) loud mouthed w*nkers decry it all as rubbish
2) loud mouthed w*nkers tell me the ONLY possible answer is XXX "


Right! That is exactly how I feel about it, Foolestroupe. It is people who are absolutely SURE that either "it's all rubbish" or "it's gospel" who piss me off to the max, and they are the people I get into fights with on this forum over things like UFOs, Kennedy assassination, 911, crop circles (a fascinating mystery!), ghosts, life after death, telepathy, God, etc....

Such people act is if they WERE God...or had been specially commissioned by him to set everyone else straight. Anyway, the world's always been full of people who love saying that anything they don't already believe in is "rubbish". It's part of maintaining their usual mental comfort zone.