New Theories Urgently Needed

[Fuzzness 2]

thank you for playing. we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

[Mirorgate 0]

thank you for playing. we have some lovely parting gifts for you.

But I already have a toaster

[Captain Ewok 1,891]

Please calm down for those arguing or I will have to close the thread. Like JFK there will always be conspiracy theories. We can all take a side and if anything appreciate the creativeness of the others.

[Jenn! 918]

Please calm down for those arguing or I will have to close the thread. Like JFK there will always be conspiracy theories. We can all take a side and if anything appreciate the creativeness of the others.

PWNED

[yabasta 0]

since you are taking so long, i'll help you out.

link 1

"Astounding evidence of that cultural stability is found in our recruiting successes, which have marched on without a single dip for the last six and a half years, month by month. We're recruiting up to 98 percent of high school graduates. We have an unbelievably high quality of young men and women who seek to serve their nation. "

link2

us graduation rate from high school....from low 70's to mid 60%, about 2/3 of the way thru the document, page 16....right hand column.

would you prefer a fork, spoon, or shovel to eat your words? i don't consider a 25-30% disparity in favor of the military being "a lot"

you say i am taking "so long" and yet i posted in this thread last night. So if i go off and live my life and go to work and do things other than waste my time arguing with you i am somehow losing the debate? The debate is not a debate that will come to an end of any kind. Mainyl because you have this ####### thing about flogging your dead smilie horse. You keep showing a total failure to understand what has been made clear by me.

98% of high school graduates in the army is a victory to you but to me it is sad. It also does not disprove that a lot of soldiers are dumb. The reason is that even dumb people can get a high school diploma. Yes i know this is shocking news for you. I didn`t say dumb people don`t deserve to live or anything extreme either. I simply stated that " a lot" of soldiers are dumb. I stressed many times that a lot was not a majority or intended to mean a majority. It is impossible to get an accurate figure on that as it is all relative. A matter of opinion if you will.

If you wish for me to explain my beliefs further then just take a look through the history of war and the history of soldiers and look at the news every once in a while. If you do that you will see plenty of examples of soldiers being either dumb violent or both. Sure sometimes they are following orders but that enforces my beliefs.

You can throw abuse at me and look down your nose at me all you like but the fact is that i have that opinion and if you can`t deal with it after i explain how i got to that view and what i meant then that is up to you. I thought soldiers were meant to be tough but you start whining as soon as i mention anything negative about some of your super breed of human beings who must not be criticised because they risk their lives.

Anyway in summary i won`t be eating my words so you can keep your utensils and start a war with them or something whatever they teach you smart soldiers to do when faced with a conflict such as an internet debate. First rule is that this is a wolrd of many different people and sometimes those people will be different. You can try and learn from them and perhaps try to teach them a thing or two or you could just bomb them (with abuse and name calling) and take their resources(waste their time).

[almaty 19]

Please calm down for those arguing or I will have to close the thread. Like JFK there will always be conspiracy theories. We can all take a side and if anything appreciate the creativeness of the others.

PWNED

i agree...the captain pwned them all

[yabasta 0]

There's nothing to debate. There are no unanswered questions. The problem here, as with most of these theories is that even if you fully discount them, the act of disproving them only seems to encourage the idea of a cover-up. Hence - wishful thinking!

Case closed no questions please we figured it out. A drunk driver who turned out to not be drunk just crashed. There is also the letter written by Diana and the eyewitnesses who don`t agree with the official story. The CIA has loads of documents on Diana but won`t release them but really it is wishful thinking that there is anything more to this. Erm o.k. Fishdude has spoken so it must be all sorted out.

By the way. As you keep using the phrase i wanted to point out something.

The definition according to wikipedia is

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality

My views on Diana`s death and the WTC attacks are based on both evidence and common sense along with simply finding the holes in the official story a little too far fetched. So it is simply a different rationale to you and not that i am leaving ratioanlity at the door.

When there is official secrecy and blatant cover ups of what really happened mixed with unexplained events and evidence holes it is natural for people to wonder what really went down. Some theories contradict each other so of course not all can be true. However the lack of agreement on what happened and how is also as much an indication of a conspiracy as it is evidence of people with wild imaginations.

For it to be wishful thinking i would have to prefer what i fear is the truth to what you "know" is the truth. I think an accident is preferable but i fear it is not the case. So that is not wishful thinking on my part. That is

People with no power can make murder look like an accident so people with power can do it better.

History teaches us many lessons and it is important to learn from those lessons or at least try to.

[tmma 467]

since you are taking so long, i'll help you out.

link 1

"Astounding evidence of that cultural stability is found in our recruiting successes, which have marched on without a single dip for the last six and a half years, month by month. We're recruiting up to 98 percent of high school graduates. We have an unbelievably high quality of young men and women who seek to serve their nation. "

link2

us graduation rate from high school....from low 70's to mid 60%, about 2/3 of the way thru the document, page 16....right hand column.

would you prefer a fork, spoon, or shovel to eat your words? i don't consider a 25-30% disparity in favor of the military being "a lot"

you say i am taking "so long" and yet i posted in this thread last night. So if i go off and live my life and go to work and do things other than waste my time arguing with you i am somehow losing the debate? The debate is not a debate that will come to an end of any kind. Mainyl because you have this ####### thing about flogging your dead smilie horse. You keep showing a total failure to understand what has been made clear by me.

98% of high school graduates in the army is a victory to you but to me it is sad. It also does not disprove that a lot of soldiers are dumb. The reason is that even dumb people can get a high school diploma. Yes i know this is shocking news for you. I didn`t say dumb people don`t deserve to live or anything extreme either. I simply stated that " a lot" of soldiers are dumb. I stressed many times that a lot was not a majority or intended to mean a majority. It is impossible to get an accurate figure on that as it is all relative. A matter of opinion if you will.

If you wish for me to explain my beliefs further then just take a look through the history of war and the history of soldiers and look at the news every once in a while. If you do that you will see plenty of examples of soldiers being either dumb violent or both. Sure sometimes they are following orders but that enforces my beliefs.

You can throw abuse at me and look down your nose at me all you like but the fact is that i have that opinion and if you can`t deal with it after i explain how i got to that view and what i meant then that is up to you. I thought soldiers were meant to be tough but you start whining as soon as i mention anything negative about some of your super breed of human beings who must not be criticised because they risk their lives.

Anyway in summary i won`t be eating my words so you can keep your utensils and start a war with them or something whatever they teach you smart soldiers to do when faced with a conflict such as an internet debate. First rule is that this is a wolrd of many different people and sometimes those people will be different. You can try and learn from them and perhaps try to teach them a thing or two or you could just bomb them (with abuse and name calling) and take their resources(waste their time).

I know "case closed" on the dumb soldier theory-but I just have to add.....

Yabasta, are you the USC, or the British Citizen?

Either way-the freedom of speech that you enjoy (and make full use of) today is preserved and was paid for by the blood of some of those "dumb solidiers".

I know I'll probably get the flogged horse for that! Oh, well.....

[yabasta 0]

Well actually that is why the armed forces manage to recruit so well, people actually believe they are free in the first place and believe that war and therefore soldiers are required to preserve it.

I will also clarify one more time that i did not call ALL or even most soldiers dumb. I will also say (again i think) that the fact a soldier is in a dangerous and "noble" role it does not make them immune to criticism. When i see soldiers torturing people i do not bite my tongue and be thankful that they are doing it for my freedom. I am smart enough to realise that by torturing and orphaning and widowing and destroying countries the military also have responsibility for much hatred towards the country that they represent.

p.s. i don`t do smilie posting too often and certainly not in debates of this nature and since i am the only person representing my views i imagine it is unlikely that we will see the horse icon.

Edited May 24, 2006 by yabasta

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

There's nothing to debate. There are no unanswered questions. The problem here, as with most of these theories is that even if you fully discount them, the act of disproving them only seems to encourage the idea of a cover-up. Hence - wishful thinking!

Case closed no questions please we figured it out. A drunk driver who turned out to not be drunk just crashed. There is also the letter written by Diana and the eyewitnesses who don`t agree with the official story. The CIA has loads of documents on Diana but won`t release them but really it is wishful thinking that there is anything more to this. Erm o.k. Fishdude has spoken so it must be all sorted out.

By the way. As you keep using the phrase i wanted to point out something.

The definition according to wikipedia is

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence or rationality

My views on Diana`s death and the WTC attacks are based on both evidence and common sense along with simply finding the holes in the official story a little too far fetched. So it is simply a different rationale to you and not that i am leaving ratioanlity at the door.

When there is official secrecy and blatant cover ups of what really happened mixed with unexplained events and evidence holes it is natural for people to wonder what really went down. Some theories contradict each other so of course not all can be true. However the lack of agreement on what happened and how is also as much an indication of a conspiracy as it is evidence of people with wild imaginations.

For it to be wishful thinking i would have to prefer what i fear is the truth to what you "know" is the truth. I think an accident is preferable but i fear it is not the case. So that is not wishful thinking on my part. That is

People with no power can make murder look like an accident so people with power can do it better.

History teaches us many lessons and it is important to learn from those lessons or at least try to.

Hmmm... the first year university semantics lesson....

As I said - there is no point debating this kind of thing because no matter what evidence is produced to the contrary of what you believe, the more it will enforce your view that something dodgy is going on.

98% of high school graduates in the army is a victory to you but to me it is sad. It also does not disprove that a lot of soldiers are dumb. The reason is that even dumb people can get a high school diploma. Yes i know this is shocking news for you. I didn`t say dumb people don`t deserve to live or anything extreme either. I simply stated that " a lot" of soldiers are dumb. I stressed many times that a lot was not a majority or intended to mean a majority. It is impossible to get an accurate figure on that as it is all relative. A matter of opinion if you will.

If you wish for me to explain my beliefs further then just take a look through the history of war and the history of soldiers and look at the news every once in a while. If you do that you will see plenty of examples of soldiers being either dumb violent or both. Sure sometimes they are following orders but that enforces my beliefs.

Forgive me for saying this - but you might perhaps want to rethink your phrasing on this issue. I believe I know what you mean - but saying for example, that "a lot of soldiers are dumb" is an offensive generalization, for which there is no reasonable supporting evidence. Perhaps you can't see it, but the fact that you keep saying it pisses people off.

You might be able to find evidence to say, for example, that % of recruits come from poor socio-economic backgrounds. It might also be fair to say that the military is often judged in the public mind by the actions of its worst representatives. But to color an entire institution as being intellectually sub-par is totally unjustifiable.

[yabasta 0]

Hmmm... the first year university semantics lesson....

As I said - there is no point debating this kind of thing because no matter what evidence is produced to the contrary of what you believe, the more it will enforce your view that something dodgy is going on.

So if there is no point and this is semantic then why are you still coming back for more? Because maybe you feel pasionately that i am wrong? You feel your views must be heard? You feel i must be brought down from my high horse? You are just bored? Or what?

If it is semantics to argue your points i am very sorry. I just don`t see how you can make statements like that and not expect me to argue them. No matter what evidence? The evidence has as far as i know not come out. There is evidence of cover up and no public enquiry. That enforces the idea of cover up. If evidence of it being an accident came out i would take that into account. I am after all not 100% certain of foul play but i am very suspicious of foul play. I am just not so quick to discount new ideas.

Forgive me for saying this - but you might perhaps want to rethink your phrasing on this issue. I believe I know what you mean - but saying for example, that "a lot of soldiers are dumb" is an offensive generalization, for which there is no reasonable supporting evidence. Perhaps you can't see it, but the fact that you keep saying it pisses people off.

You might be able to find evidence to say, for example, that % of recruits come from poor socio-economic backgrounds. It might also be fair to say that the military is often judged in the public mind by the actions of its worst representatives. But to color an entire institution as being intellectually sub-par is totally unjustifiable.

Well again i did not colour the entire institution as dumb. If i piss people off maybe they need to say why they are pissed off and explain to me why they are pissed off by my comments? If they are of low intellect and can`t understand me i will try and dumb down my explanation some more for them but at the end of the day it gets dark.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So if there is no point and this is semantic then why are you still coming back for more? Because maybe you feel pasionately that i am wrong? You feel your views must be heard? You feel i must be brought down from my high horse? You are just bored? Or what?

If it is semantics to argue your points i am very sorry. I just don`t see how you can make statements like that and not expect me to argue them. No matter what evidence? The evidence has as far as i know not come out. There is evidence of cover up and no public enquiry. That enforces the idea of cover up. If evidence of it being an accident came out i would take that into account. I am after all not 100% certain of foul play but i am very suspicious of foul play. I am just not so quick to discount new ideas.

It just seems to me that no matter what proof is put forward refuting whatever you seem to believe about any of these things, it won't make any change in your thinking. However you choose to argue the point, there is compelling evidence out there refuting every conspiracy regarding 9/11, Diana, JFK, crop circles what have you... Why is this not enough for you? An innate distrust of establishment perhaps.... Or wishful thinking

Lets try another example. A few pages back you said that you personally don't believe that man landed on the moon... What 'proof' then would it take for you to believe otherwise? Just curious...

All right - lets review. You said:

Well again i did not colour the entire institution as dumb. If i piss people off maybe they need to say why they are pissed off and explain to me why they are pissed off by my comments? If they are of low intellect and can`t understand me i will try and dumb down my explanation some more for them but at the end of the day it gets dark.

and as i said before a lot of those who join are indeed not the smartest of people. The definition of the term "a lot" is debateable but pointless.

no the term a lot does not mean a majority....

Also i do not need to paint the military in a bad light as they do that themselves, i am smart enough to realise how that comes about and i don`t blame them so much as i blame the system that made them.

A lot of people in the army are there because they are of a certain intellect or a certain violent disposition or perhaps they are turned into viiolent people. I am not suggesting that they are all dumb violent people but there is an element of that.

When i said a lot i did not mean a majority. A lot is a vague term i agree but one of it`s meanings is a large number. By a large number i mean a considerable ammount worth counting. Now does anybody have anymore definitions for "a lot" they wish to share?

I understand the military is a broad group of people but i also see that a lot(to clarify i mean a large number not a majority or all) are indeed of below average intellect and often seem to be of a violent disposition and like i said that comes with the job and the training for the job.

I will also clarify one more time that i did not call ALL or even most soldiers dumb. I will also say (again i think) that the fact a soldier is in a dangerous and "noble" role it does not make them immune to criticism. When i see soldiers torturing people i do not bite my tongue and be thankful that they are doing it for my freedom.

And this isn't a semantic argument? You say 'a lot', but stress quite clearly 'not most', even though most people would interpret 'a lot' as 'most' (regardless of what you are talking about). You can't say something like that, offering no evidence to back it up and then somehow expect not to be ridiculed for it!

In fact, from what you've written you're basing this entire opinion on what you've seen on TV network news - now if we assume for a moment that the armed forces are judged in the public conciousness by its worst elements, how can you reasonably extrapolate that to mean anything more than 'some'. Claiming that what you see on TV is representative of the entire armed forces or even 'a lot' is little more than allowing yourself to be manipulated by the media, according to your own preconceived biases.

Edited May 26, 2006 by Fishdude

[SteveLaura 0]

A few pages back you said that you personally don't believe that man landed on the moon... What 'proof' then would it take for you to believe otherwise?

Today, three abandoned lunar rovers still sit on the Moon. With the exception of their plastic parts, they will probably be sitting there thousands of years from now -- a silent testament to 20th century engineering.

"It's been very meaningful to me over the years to see the rover in pictures and photographs and on the television -- it's still sitting up there on the moon," Simpson said. "I had a little bitty part in putting it on the moon for who knows how long."

Source

Them's pretty good proof, I reckon. Someone will go back there some day, no doubt. And if these modules are not there, then...?

[yabasta 0]

I should make it clear that i believe the moon landings we saw on t.v. were quite probably faked. They certainly have lots of errors like wavign flags and no blast crater for the luna module etc.

[yabasta 0]

[

It just seems to me that no matter what proof is put forward refuting whatever you seem to believe about any of these things, it won't make any change in your thinking. However you choose to argue the point, there is compelling evidence out there refuting every conspiracy regarding 9/11, Diana, JFK, crop circles what have you... Why is this not enough for you? An innate distrust of establishment perhaps.... Or wishful thinking

You say no matter what proof is put forward but you did not make it clear which "proof" you refer to. So speaking generally i will say that my opinions are based on the information i find and i do attempt to look for all available information too. Sometimes "proof" is on both sides aswell. 9/11 JFK and Diana are all very big subjects and i would rather not debate all at once in one place thank you. I never mentioned crop circles. I will debate each issue you speak of. The fact that you believe the official story of all of the first 3 events makes you look rather gulable to me. You again though are trying to discredit me which is something you should do on the topics at hand and not on semantics like the phrase "a lot". There is compelling evidence which brought me to believe that there was a cover up in all the above cases. You can argue the compelling evidence but you can not just assume your evidence is correct and attempt to debunk me based on that.

And this isn't a semantic argument? You say 'a lot', but stress quite clearly 'not most', even though most people would interpret 'a lot' as 'most' (regardless of what you are talking about). You can't say something like that, offering no evidence to back it up and then somehow expect not to be ridiculed for it!

Well see this is where you are being really annoying. It is a skill you have obviously developed over time. A lot to you might mean most but how can you possibly say "most" people would say it meant most? I don`t expect to not be ridiculed by soldier boys as a lot of them are not smart enough to debate on the points of real value and importance. See i can wink just like. Again i don`t need to offer evidence for an opinion. I don`t need to answer to you as i am not in the army. If you look at the institution logically you will see it`s role and you will see how that role would appeal to certain people and how that institutions practices would affect those people.

In fact, from what you've written you're basing this entire opinion on what you've seen on TV network news - now if we assume for a moment that the armed forces are judged in the public conciousness by its worst elements, how can you reasonably extrapolate that to mean anything more than 'some'. Claiming that what you see on TV is representative of the entire armed forces or even 'a lot' is little more than allowing yourself to be manipulated by the media, according to your own preconceived biases.

Well actually i don`t own a tv right now and haven`t had one in this country for some time now. You are way off with your armchair analysis of me. Sorry. I gave a few sources of information for you. If you don`t really want to go indepth then you can just see the soldiers on t.v. Again i didn`t make a sweepign statement as i said a lot and not all. The evidence to debate me was figures regarding their "education". As if educated people were never dumb or violent. You see i base my opinions on a number of sources. I don`t expect you to let up because you clearly think you have something to prove. I am simply defending my words at this point and you are still trying to pick me off.

You jump to conclusions about me and about what i say.

Also i should add that the debunking thing about Loose Change does not work. I downloaded the entire 5 megs of file but it does not open. It could be my computer but until i figure it out i am unable to respond to the rest of the article. I will say the site it came from was very biased and one sided in it`s approach. This is never a good way to be in my view. As for the points posted i thought in Losse change they did say it was a gold ring. I could be wrong but i will double check sometime soon. I forget the other points right now so i will go give it a look.