It seems unfathomable that Americans could participate in MIHOP or LIHOP.

[Stanchetalarooni]

But then again didn't the American Civil War pit American against American to the tune of 650,000 lives?
3,000 a drop in the bucket by comparison.

[zappaman]

1. The phrase "comparing apples to oranges" has never been so clearly illustrated.

Wow.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zappaman]

3. Doh!

Now, tell us how the bicycle and the space shuttle are kind of the same thing.
:rofl:

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[KDLarsen]

6. Comparing apples to oranges is putting it mildly

This one is more in the area of comparing apples to bicycles! :eyes:

ETA: At least it didn't involve Northwoods for a change...

[BeFree]

5. 56,000+ In Vietnam

What was that all about?

Same shit, different day. We are but pawns on their chessboard.

The bankers are the only winners.

[greyl]

7. No it doesn't. There's just no fucking evidence for it. nt

[sofa king]

9. Because it has been concealed, distorted, and destroyed.

Cover-up is excellent evidence. When confronted with disinformation and cover-up from the source that controls the information, both the law and logic requires one to assume that the cover-up is worth attempting because the actual crime is far worse.

You don't do that to hide your ineptitude. If you cover up superbly and get away scot free, you are not inept.

I'm not going to go back and list every attempt to mislead, misdirect, and misinform. You either saw it happen, or you never will see it.

[greyl]

10. That's terrible logic. Are you, or are you not, admitting there's no evidence?

If your theory is unfalsifiable, — which it automatically becomes when you claim you have no evidence for it because the evidence has been covered-up — you are dealing solely in the realm of faith.

Unfalsifiability
The main problem with any particular conspiracy theory is not that it's wrong, but that it's inarguable; not that it's false, but that it is unfalsifiable. Because it is unfalsifiable, a conspiracy theory is not provable or disprovable.

A theory is falsifiable if it is possible to test it against evidence to discover if it is true. To test a scientific theory, for example, a scientist would examine a body of evidence to formulate a general theory, which she, in turn, would test against more evidence to try to determine whether her theory might be true. Conspiracy theory is untestable because it invariably proposes that the evidence has been tampered with. In fact, conspiracy theory does more: it asserts that any evidence against the theory is actually evidence for it, in that it shows the great cunning and power of the conspirators: No evidence? Ah! That proves they destroyed it. Evidence to the contrary? Aha! See how they have forged, bribed, brainwashed, planted false leads....

Most conspiracy theories, then, are to some extent simply an article of faith.
http://www.butte.edu/departments/cas/tipsheets/thinking/conspiracy.html

Regarding your "You either saw it happen, or you never will see it."

PCTs do not treat their theories the way a historian or scientist treats theirs, which is to welcome challenges to their theory which will either strengthen it or refute/amend it.

PCTs vehemently oppose any challenges to their theories. The first line of defence is to issue personal attacks (see: ad hominem) against their opponents. These are generally in the form of ridicule; their opponents not having the ability to see "the real truth".

The theories of PCTs are often unfalsifiable, such as: UFOs exist but the government is suppressing the evidence. Any counter-argument citing an official source is instantly dismissed, and any real evidence that refutes their claims is classed as contrived or planted by those "powers that be" who are out to fool us.

www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_are_conspiracy_theories.php

Again, are you, or are you not, admitting there's no evidence?

[deconstruct911]

11. If there was suspicious evidence......

yet it was public knowledge that the suspicious evidence was covered-up, how can your question be answered yes/no?

[greyl]

12. I don't think it's possible for your hypothesis to be true.

I do think you're implying something like: If a cop catches a glimpse of someone putting something into their coat pocket, but doesn't know what it is because they didn't actually see the "object", the cop can still be certain that the person is guilty of carrying contraband.

That's terrible logic.

[deconstruct911]

13. So basically you're asking....

is there any evidence that hasn't been covered-up? If so, at this point I would say no.... Ultimately I'm just saying it's impossible for me to actually know if there is evidence because some of that evidence has been covered-up long ago. There is however evidence of suspicious evidence, and evidence it has been covered-up, and possibly evidence it was covered-up because it was incriminating. Hardly seems like a reason to be certain of the OCT, or that the source providing it is credible.

[greyl]

14. In the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat, right?

deconstruct911: So basically you're asking...is there any evidence that hasn't been covered-up?

Not exactly, no. My earlier question directed to sofa king was "are you, or are you not, admitting there's no evidence?"

Then I attempted to restate your statement thusly: "I do think you're implying something like: If a cop catches a glimpse of someone putting something into their coat pocket, but doesn't know what it is because they didn't actually see the "object", the cop can still be certain that the person is guilty of carrying contraband."

Care to comment on that last thing while taking notice of the subject line of this post?

[deconstruct911]

15. Ok....

I said:

"yet it was public knowledge that the suspicious evidence was covered-up, how can your question be answered yes/no?"

You said:

"I don't think it's possible for your hypothesis to be true. I do think you're implying something like: If a cop catches a glimpse of someone putting something into their coat pocket, but doesn't know what it is because they didn't actually see the "object", the cop can still be certain that the person is guilty of carrying contraband."

Does that make sense? I would say no.... Mainly because I was talking about evidence of a cover-up, and how such evidence makes answering your question (yes or no) impossible.....

[greyl]

16. It was obvious to the cop that the "suspect" was hiding contraband even though he didn't see it,

simply because the suspect put something into his pocket as soon as he was spotted.

Please inform me of the "suspicious evidence" that was covered-up, yet is somehow public knowledge.

[deconstruct911]

17. Here:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x288268

Hard-Drive Restoration
We asked about persistent press reports that a certain damaged hard-drives had
been recovered from the WTC site and sent to Germany, where a company was working
to restore them. These press reports contend that large volumes of suspicious
transactions flowed through computers housed in the WTC on the morning of9/11 as part
of some illicit but ill-defined effort to profit from the attacks. The assembled agents
expressed no knowledge of the reported hard-drive recovery effort or the alleged scheme.
Moreover, one of the New York agents pointed out, from personal experience, that
everything at the WTC was pulverized to near power, making it extremely unlikely that
any hard-drives survived to the extent they data be recovered.
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00269.pdf

Note the date of the MFR....

[greyl]

18. What is evidence of what?

Please summarize the conclusions you have drawn, and clearly state the evidence from which you have drawn it.

[deconstruct911]

19. Too funny

Edit to add: "You either saw it happen, or you never will see it."

[greyl]

20. I'll help you. Should what you posted lead someone to believe in controlled demolition

, or instead, foreknowledge of the plan to fly planes into the towers?

edit: And thank you so much for taking about a full minute to consider your previous reply. I can see this topic is important to you.

[sofa king]

21. Your analogy assumes trust of authority, which is your problem.

What is the cop to conclude? No. What if the cop is the perpetrator, that's the analogy.

Try the scene in Bad Lieutenant when Harvey Keitel, a high-ranking police officer, wanders onto the scene of a shooting in a car, uses his authority to peep inside, steals a kilo of cocaine from the crime scene and hides it in his jacket, and then accidentally drops it in front of the other cops. So he picks it up and hands it to someone else, saying, "I found this." And walks away.

Now imagine Harvey knowing the drug dealer was coming, maybe even shooting the guy himself, waiting to call backup, sanitizing the scene, controlling the investigation of the scene, and then going home and free-basing with a couple naked chicks for the next two days, while guys like you back him up to the hilt all the way because he has a shiny badge.

That is an appropriate analogy.

[OnTheOtherHand]

22. umm, WHY is that an appropriate analogy?

It looks like an unsupported ad hominem attack ("guys like you back him up to the hilt all the way because he has a shiny badge") -- although, silly me, it's just an analogy.

It's especially weird because one point of greyl's analogy is that the cop's inferences can't be trusted.

Backing up....

When confronted with disinformation and cover-up from the source that controls the information, both the law and logic requires one to assume that the cover-up is worth attempting because the actual crime is far worse.

Interesting. How do you apply that putative legal and logical requirement to Monicagate?

[greyl]

23. Wrong. The analogy is pointing out the terrible logic of the cop.

Are you, or you are you not, admitting there's no evidence?

[BeFree]

24. heh

So, if the cop knows a shooting occurred and he sees a suspect putting something in his pocket, then yes, he should conclude that the suspect may be acting in a suspicious way and may detain the suspect for further questioning.

We know 9/11 occurred. We know bush was warned that it was going to occur. We saw bush turn away and act suspicious (put something in his pocket). We have every right to suspect a cover up.

We have evidence of a cover up. The secret testimony to the commission is evidence, and that fact that some on the commission have stated they were lied to is evidence of a cover up.

[LARED]

8. So did this epiphany just pop into your mind, or

did you think long and hard before posting this bit of brillance?