A
Anonymous
Guest
Adam Rang said:
Okey Dokey.
Okey Dokey.
There's certainly always been alot of doubt in my mind as to a) whether TmV was in fact the bomber, b) whether if he was, he worked alone c) his motivation for the attack d) the behaviour of the FBI during the case (disappearing evidence etc.) e) the reports of the explosion etc etc.
As with many ConThes it's often pure laziness that leads to making a decision like this - it's easier to fabricate a storyline based on one's own beliefs (ie anything the CIA/FBI/DEA does is intrinsically bad) and then to hang what scraps of hearsay you come across onto this tree to confirm your own beliefs. Personally there's much about this case which reminds me of the JFK scenario - individuals doing the work of many men, lack of convicing evidence, apparent scapegoating in the press, evidence tampering and political motivations surrounding the handling of the case.
Yet another case that'll keep the over active imaginations amongst us hung up for years rather than actually paying attention to what is happening *now*.
As with many ConThes it's often pure laziness that leads to making a decision like this - it's easier to fabricate a storyline based on one's own beliefs (ie anything the CIA/FBI/DEA does is intrinsically bad) and then to hang what scraps of hearsay you come across onto this tree to confirm your own beliefs. Personally there's much about this case which reminds me of the JFK scenario - individuals doing the work of many men, lack of convicing evidence, apparent scapegoating in the press, evidence tampering and political motivations surrounding the handling of the case.
Yet another case that'll keep the over active imaginations amongst us hung up for years rather than actually paying attention to what is happening *now*.
A
Anonymous
Guest
dot23 said:
People frequently talk about the consiracy theory of history, and the cock-up theory of history. To these basic approaches should be added the "cocked-up conspiracy" theory, and the "covered-up cock-up" theory (i.e. consiracy to cover up evidence of a cock up.) In most cases where there is evidence of dodginess, my money is usually on the latter. I suspect that if there is any dodginess in OK bombing, that it probably is of this form. (Though I admit to curiousity about the seismology.)
A
Anonymous
Guest
Seismology....
April 19th: The Bombing of the Murrah Building
Cover
Scan of the seismographic record. Note the circle around the Murrah events
Circled Detail of the Murrah events
May 23rd: The Sequenced Demolition of the Murrah Building
Seismographic record of the Murrah Building Demolition
.....and here as well.
April 19th: The Bombing of the Murrah Building
Cover
Scan of the seismographic record. Note the circle around the Murrah events
Circled Detail of the Murrah events
May 23rd: The Sequenced Demolition of the Murrah Building
Seismographic record of the Murrah Building Demolition
.....and here as well.
A
Anonymous
Guest
The seismology
Just a few initial thoughts on the seismology.
a) Is it possible that we are seeing reflections due to sub-surface features? (Later I'll try and do something a little more quantitative by looking at the distances involved.)
b) Another possibility may be that the first disturbance is due to the explosion itself, but that the second disturbance is due to ~1/3-1/2 of a building collapsing to the ground.
c) I have a couple of other ideas, but I need to think them through a little more before I post them.
Adam, due you know what the horizontal scale is (i.e. what distance corresponds to how many seconds?)
Just a few initial thoughts on the seismology.
a) Is it possible that we are seeing reflections due to sub-surface features? (Later I'll try and do something a little more quantitative by looking at the distances involved.)
b) Another possibility may be that the first disturbance is due to the explosion itself, but that the second disturbance is due to ~1/3-1/2 of a building collapsing to the ground.
c) I have a couple of other ideas, but I need to think them through a little more before I post them.
Adam, due you know what the horizontal scale is (i.e. what distance corresponds to how many seconds?)
Has anyone else seen this?
http://www.rense.com/general26/fam.htm
Not that I've ever been a big believer
in police/FBI suspect sketches, but...
TVgeek
http://www.rense.com/general26/fam.htm
Not that I've ever been a big believer
in police/FBI suspect sketches, but...
TVgeek
A
Anonymous
Guest
TVgeek said:
To be honest, the sketch looks more like Arnhult.
The chin in the sketch is a lot broader than Padilla's. I think that the only features that they have in common are (other than than 2 eyes, mouth etc,) that they both have short hair, and are male. In addition, it is unclear that the sketch is of the same ethnic group as Padilla.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: The seismology
OK, got some more numbers.
The distance from OK City to Norman, where the seismology station is, is ~21 miles. (~34 km)
An acoustic wave propagating through rock travels at ~3-8 km/s, and hence it should take ~4-11 seconds (assuming that it takes the "shortest" route.) If we assume that there is a mass of sub-surface rock (of some other type) which produces reflection, and hence "echo", then we can scope out the depth, and hence likelihood of this hypothesis.
Assuming that we want a 4 second delay (Adam, you'll have to help me here on what the actual gap is), and a speed of sound of ~3km/s, then that would imply a reflection from an surface at a depth of ~15 km depth.
I'm now looking for additional info/data, and will let you know when I find some.
Adam, I tried hunting for the info (re: intervals) on the website that you pointed to, but,
a) Couldn't find it (directory listing had been disabled)
b) Looking at the home page for the website, makes it apparent that the folks involved may perhaps be toying with the politics belonging to the far-right-of-centre. (Not a nice sight/site. )
Fortis said:
OK, got some more numbers.
The distance from OK City to Norman, where the seismology station is, is ~21 miles. (~34 km)
An acoustic wave propagating through rock travels at ~3-8 km/s, and hence it should take ~4-11 seconds (assuming that it takes the "shortest" route.) If we assume that there is a mass of sub-surface rock (of some other type) which produces reflection, and hence "echo", then we can scope out the depth, and hence likelihood of this hypothesis.
Assuming that we want a 4 second delay (Adam, you'll have to help me here on what the actual gap is), and a speed of sound of ~3km/s, then that would imply a reflection from an surface at a depth of ~15 km depth.
I'm now looking for additional info/data, and will let you know when I find some.
Adam, I tried hunting for the info (re: intervals) on the website that you pointed to, but,
a) Couldn't find it (directory listing had been disabled)
b) Looking at the home page for the website, makes it apparent that the folks involved may perhaps be toying with the politics belonging to the far-right-of-centre. (Not a nice sight/site.
)
A
Anonymous
Guest
Unfortunatly the page i got it from was coverd in other info so I just copied the relevant onfo onto here. It didnt give any intervals I'm afraid.
We can try and find out more about these guys to find our answer perhaps...
[EDIT]
BTW, about that website... thats Matt Rivero's site. Although I dont really like him I do find that he's got some good info occaisonally. The problem I have with him is that he never actually comes out with what he truly believes, instead he uses links and quotes to 'suggest' to us what his true message is.... I'll give you a little clue... his faviourite quote of all time is... "I can not tell you about evidence linking the Israelis to 9/11. Thats classified information" - US official.
We can try and find out more about these guys to find our answer perhaps...
[EDIT]
BTW, about that website... thats Matt Rivero's site. Although I dont really like him I do find that he's got some good info occaisonally. The problem I have with him is that he never actually comes out with what he truly believes, instead he uses links and quotes to 'suggest' to us what his true message is.... I'll give you a little clue... his faviourite quote of all time is... "I can not tell you about evidence linking the Israelis to 9/11. Thats classified information" - US official.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Adam Rang said:
Yup, I don't think that you have to dig to deep to work out his underlying message. Unfortunately it means that anything that he says is tainted with his own spin. You've just got to work with the primary sources instead. I'll have a dig and see if I can find any more information on the "traces."
A
Anonymous
Guest
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 826
One comment
This seems to me to be comparing oranges and apples. The way in which you demolish a building is controlled. The whole thing does not fall in the same way building that has been just plain blown up for maximum property damage. When you demolish a building, it tends to be staged; upper floors collasping inward as small charges take out support walls and so the cumultive seismic force just isnt generated, as it would be by just blowing out the bottom of a building and letting catastophic failure do the rest.
As to the rest of the report, I can't really fault his logic
8¬)
This seems to me to be comparing oranges and apples. The way in which you demolish a building is controlled. The whole thing does not fall in the same way building that has been just plain blown up for maximum property damage. When you demolish a building, it tends to be staged; upper floors collasping inward as small charges take out support walls and so the cumultive seismic force just isnt generated, as it would be by just blowing out the bottom of a building and letting catastophic failure do the rest.
As to the rest of the report, I can't really fault his logic
8¬)
A
Anonymous
Guest
Adam Rang said:
Interesting. He says that the trace measured at Norman is not evidence for multiple explosions due to the sound wave propagating through two different routes. (Based on this, we can presumably rule out the testimony from Matt Rivero's site.)
The other interesting thing is that he mentions that Brown had 5 theories that may be able to explain the data collected at the other location, but on the webpage he only describes one of them (which Brown then rules out.) It would be *very* interesting to know what the other 4 theories are. (Particularly as any of them could be the "true" reason for what was seen.)
Another site
(http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/govliesoklahomacity.html)
contains another article describing the seismology. In one place it says,
This last line appears to suggest that he still considers it to be an open question. (Note that he *does* still believe in the multiple bomb hypothesis.) If the evidence is consistent with single and multiple bombs, then personally I'd plump for the simpler case with just a single bomb.
I'd still like to know more about these "4 other theories".
A
Anonymous
Guest
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 2,011
gov't says FBI "expert" probably lied
Key McVeigh Witness Testimony Questioned
WASHINGTON (AP) - Ten days before Timothy McVeigh was executed, lawyers for FBI lab employees sent an urgent letter to the attention of Attorney General John Ashcroft alleging that a key prosecution witness in the Oklahoma City bombing trial might have given false testimony about forensic evidence.
The allegations involving Stephen Burmeister, now the FBI lab's chief of scientific analysis, were never turned over to McVeigh, though they surfaced as a judge was weighing whether to delay his execution because the government withheld evidence.
The letter, however, was recently turned over to bombing conspirator Terry Nichols who faces another trial on Oklahoma state murder charges.
``Material evidence presented by the government in the OKBOMB prosecution through the testimony of Mr. Burmeister appears to be false, misleading and potentially fabricated,'' said the June 1, 2001, letter to Ashcroft obtained by The Associated Press.
The letter cited Burmeister's testimony in a civil case as evidence contradicting his earlier McVeigh testimony. It was sent to Ashcroft's general fax number and by courier with the notation ``URGENT MATTER FOR THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.''
Justice officials said Wednesday the letter was routed to Ashcroft's clerical office in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, where it sat for nearly two months and then was forwarded to the FBI - well after McVeigh was executed.
Neither Ashcroft nor other top officials in the Justice Department who handled the McVeigh case saw the letter, spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said. It was never reviewed to determine if it should be handed over to McVeigh's lawyers, officials said.
Prosecutors are obligated by law to disclose any potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense.
McVeigh's lawyers expressed dismay at the revelation. At the time the letter was sent, a judge had dramatically delayed McVeigh's execution by one month because of other evidence the FBI failed to turn over during his trial.
``It is truly shocking and just the latest revelation of government conduct that bankrupts the prosecution, investigation and verdict,'' said Stephen Jones, McVeigh's lead trial attorney.
Rob Nigh, an Oklahoma attorney who represented McVeigh from trial through his final appeal, added: ``Had we had this letter, we would have had additional arguments to make to Judge (Richard) Matsch why the execution should be stayed.''
Justice officials could not explain how a letter marked for urgent attention by Ashcroft on an issue that was dominating the headlines could be misrouted, except to say that the outside lawyers should have done more than send it by fax and courier.
Comstock said the Justice Department does not believe the allegations would have affected the outcome. ``Court after court has found that the evidence of guilt against McVeigh was overwhelming,'' she said.
The allegations surfaced in mid-May 2001 when Burmeister, who made a key forensic discovery in the McVeigh case, was being questioned by lawyers for FBI lab employees who had sued the agency. One of the lab employees had been dismissed recently.
A transcript of the deposition obtained by AP shows Justice and FBI lawyers became concerned that statements Burmeister might make would be helpful to McVeigh and Nichols, and they ordered lawyers to cut off that line of questioning.
``We can't have him now second guess his testimony in the McVeigh case,'' a Justice lawyer interjected. ``I mean the effect of that is to embarrass the FBI.''
FBI officials stood by Burmeister.
``It didn't happen,'' FBI lab director Dwight Adams said when asked about the allegations of false testimony. ``Steve Burmeister is one of the FBI's finest experts. He is meticulous and honest.''
The law firm that sent the letter represents several FBI lab employees, including Frederic Whitehurst, the FBI chemist who trained Burmeister and later made whisteblower allegations that led to widespread reforms inside the FBI lab.
``We believe that these concerns are most serious and that we are under an obligation to turn this information over to you so that you may fulfill your obligation to notify the defendants in the OKBOMB cases about these serious matters and take corrective action,'' the letter to Ashcroft stated.
Burmeister rose to prominence in the case after he made a surprise discovery of ammonium nitrate crystals embedded in a single piece of the Ryder truck McVeigh used to detonate his deadly explosive that killed more than 160 people at the Alfred P. Murrah building on April 19, 1995.
Burmeister's discovery was key to the government's proof that McVeigh and Nichols had used a giant fertilizer bomb to carry out their attack. Ammonium nitrate is a key ingredient in such a bomb.
McVeigh's defense lawyers attacked the evidence, suggesting the ammonium nitrate, which dissolves in moisture, could not have survived the rain that fell on the Murrah site shortly after the bombing and that it might have come from contamination inside the lab.
At the time of the 1997 trial, the FBI lab had been stung by Whitehurst's allegations of shoddy science and some forensic evidence was kept out of the McVeigh trial because of contamination issues.
But Burmeister's discovery was permitted as evidence in the trial. Burmeister testified the evidence he found could not have been contaminated because he kept his lab examination area locked and that only FBI personnel wearing sterile lab coats and other protective gear had access to the area.
Outsiders ``were restricted basically from coming into my work area, into my room,'' Burmeister testified. ``My room was specially locked, and that's where I conducted the examinations.''
If lab employees are ``coming into my area where I'm going to be handling evidence, they're required to wear protective clothing,'' he added.
However, the law firm letter to Ashcroft provided citations of sworn testimony from Burmeister in an unrelated civil case showing cleaning crews and a fellow chemist had unrestricted access to Burmeister's work area - without protective clothing.
``Mr. Burmeister testified that while this chemist shared an office with him, no extra precautions were taken to prevent contamination,'' the letter said.
The letter further offered Burmeister's own description of the access cleaning crews had to his lab area. ``There was a service staff that would come in and buff and wax the floors,'' he testified, adding he was present working in his suite sometimes when the crews came in.
``I've known them to clean windows in offices and I've seen them stand on the heating elements by the windows,'' Burmeister added.
Ammonia is one of the ingredients in common window cleaning solution.
Adams, the FBI lab director, said the lawyers took Burmeister's deposition testimony out of context and that the fact that cleaning crews or lab employees in nonsterile clothing accessed his workspace after hours could not account for how the ammonium nitrate crystal became embedded in the truck part.
``You can make what you want to about who has access to the room but the key fact is that crystal was embedded with great force and that could only come from an explosion ... not contamination from some cleaning crew,'' he said.
The lawyers' letter also stated that during his deposition, Burmeister contradicted testimony on a second matter in the McVeigh case when he testified that the chemical residue PETN found on McVeigh's clothing is ``not used for drug purposes anymore.''
``At his deposition, Mr. Burmeister contradicted his OKBOMB testimony and admitted that PETN was 'still used for some heart medications,''' the letter to Ashcroft said.
The letter questioned why prosecutors had never corrected the trial record.
Adams said Burmeister qualified his answer at the McVeigh trial by saying it was to the best of his knowledge, that he did not intend to mislead the court and that other witnesses explained to the jury about the multiple uses of PETN.
04/30/03 17:13
© Copyright The Associated Press.
---------------------------------------------------
Though it hardly proves Mcveigh's innocence (and I have very little doubt he was guilty) I think it helps re-raise two points. a) That our attorney general, John Ashcroft, has no regard for constitutional law or the Bill of Rights and b) that those of us who have been harboring suspicions about the identity of John Doe #2 (gov't used eyewitness testimony to prove T.M. bought the fertilizer, sent out A.P.B.'s on J.D. II, then claimed that said witnesses were mistaken that they saw anyone with Mcveigh) and the fact of an FBI informant at white-supremacist compound Elihom City (which Mcveigh visited before the bombing) are not just howling at the moon. There is more to this story, and the government does not want it to come out.
Total aside, but why is Terry Nichols appealing? He doesn't seem to realize that life in prison is the upside for him. If he gets a new trial he might just get the death penalty. If he thinks he's going to walk, he is stoopidcraazy.
Key McVeigh Witness Testimony Questioned
WASHINGTON (AP) - Ten days before Timothy McVeigh was executed, lawyers for FBI lab employees sent an urgent letter to the attention of Attorney General John Ashcroft alleging that a key prosecution witness in the Oklahoma City bombing trial might have given false testimony about forensic evidence.
The allegations involving Stephen Burmeister, now the FBI lab's chief of scientific analysis, were never turned over to McVeigh, though they surfaced as a judge was weighing whether to delay his execution because the government withheld evidence.
The letter, however, was recently turned over to bombing conspirator Terry Nichols who faces another trial on Oklahoma state murder charges.
``Material evidence presented by the government in the OKBOMB prosecution through the testimony of Mr. Burmeister appears to be false, misleading and potentially fabricated,'' said the June 1, 2001, letter to Ashcroft obtained by The Associated Press.
The letter cited Burmeister's testimony in a civil case as evidence contradicting his earlier McVeigh testimony. It was sent to Ashcroft's general fax number and by courier with the notation ``URGENT MATTER FOR THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.''
Justice officials said Wednesday the letter was routed to Ashcroft's clerical office in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, where it sat for nearly two months and then was forwarded to the FBI - well after McVeigh was executed.
Neither Ashcroft nor other top officials in the Justice Department who handled the McVeigh case saw the letter, spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said. It was never reviewed to determine if it should be handed over to McVeigh's lawyers, officials said.
Prosecutors are obligated by law to disclose any potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense.
McVeigh's lawyers expressed dismay at the revelation. At the time the letter was sent, a judge had dramatically delayed McVeigh's execution by one month because of other evidence the FBI failed to turn over during his trial.
``It is truly shocking and just the latest revelation of government conduct that bankrupts the prosecution, investigation and verdict,'' said Stephen Jones, McVeigh's lead trial attorney.
Rob Nigh, an Oklahoma attorney who represented McVeigh from trial through his final appeal, added: ``Had we had this letter, we would have had additional arguments to make to Judge (Richard) Matsch why the execution should be stayed.''
Justice officials could not explain how a letter marked for urgent attention by Ashcroft on an issue that was dominating the headlines could be misrouted, except to say that the outside lawyers should have done more than send it by fax and courier.
Comstock said the Justice Department does not believe the allegations would have affected the outcome. ``Court after court has found that the evidence of guilt against McVeigh was overwhelming,'' she said.
The allegations surfaced in mid-May 2001 when Burmeister, who made a key forensic discovery in the McVeigh case, was being questioned by lawyers for FBI lab employees who had sued the agency. One of the lab employees had been dismissed recently.
A transcript of the deposition obtained by AP shows Justice and FBI lawyers became concerned that statements Burmeister might make would be helpful to McVeigh and Nichols, and they ordered lawyers to cut off that line of questioning.
``We can't have him now second guess his testimony in the McVeigh case,'' a Justice lawyer interjected. ``I mean the effect of that is to embarrass the FBI.''
FBI officials stood by Burmeister.
``It didn't happen,'' FBI lab director Dwight Adams said when asked about the allegations of false testimony. ``Steve Burmeister is one of the FBI's finest experts. He is meticulous and honest.''
The law firm that sent the letter represents several FBI lab employees, including Frederic Whitehurst, the FBI chemist who trained Burmeister and later made whisteblower allegations that led to widespread reforms inside the FBI lab.
``We believe that these concerns are most serious and that we are under an obligation to turn this information over to you so that you may fulfill your obligation to notify the defendants in the OKBOMB cases about these serious matters and take corrective action,'' the letter to Ashcroft stated.
Burmeister rose to prominence in the case after he made a surprise discovery of ammonium nitrate crystals embedded in a single piece of the Ryder truck McVeigh used to detonate his deadly explosive that killed more than 160 people at the Alfred P. Murrah building on April 19, 1995.
Burmeister's discovery was key to the government's proof that McVeigh and Nichols had used a giant fertilizer bomb to carry out their attack. Ammonium nitrate is a key ingredient in such a bomb.
McVeigh's defense lawyers attacked the evidence, suggesting the ammonium nitrate, which dissolves in moisture, could not have survived the rain that fell on the Murrah site shortly after the bombing and that it might have come from contamination inside the lab.
At the time of the 1997 trial, the FBI lab had been stung by Whitehurst's allegations of shoddy science and some forensic evidence was kept out of the McVeigh trial because of contamination issues.
But Burmeister's discovery was permitted as evidence in the trial. Burmeister testified the evidence he found could not have been contaminated because he kept his lab examination area locked and that only FBI personnel wearing sterile lab coats and other protective gear had access to the area.
Outsiders ``were restricted basically from coming into my work area, into my room,'' Burmeister testified. ``My room was specially locked, and that's where I conducted the examinations.''
If lab employees are ``coming into my area where I'm going to be handling evidence, they're required to wear protective clothing,'' he added.
However, the law firm letter to Ashcroft provided citations of sworn testimony from Burmeister in an unrelated civil case showing cleaning crews and a fellow chemist had unrestricted access to Burmeister's work area - without protective clothing.
``Mr. Burmeister testified that while this chemist shared an office with him, no extra precautions were taken to prevent contamination,'' the letter said.
The letter further offered Burmeister's own description of the access cleaning crews had to his lab area. ``There was a service staff that would come in and buff and wax the floors,'' he testified, adding he was present working in his suite sometimes when the crews came in.
``I've known them to clean windows in offices and I've seen them stand on the heating elements by the windows,'' Burmeister added.
Ammonia is one of the ingredients in common window cleaning solution.
Adams, the FBI lab director, said the lawyers took Burmeister's deposition testimony out of context and that the fact that cleaning crews or lab employees in nonsterile clothing accessed his workspace after hours could not account for how the ammonium nitrate crystal became embedded in the truck part.
``You can make what you want to about who has access to the room but the key fact is that crystal was embedded with great force and that could only come from an explosion ... not contamination from some cleaning crew,'' he said.
The lawyers' letter also stated that during his deposition, Burmeister contradicted testimony on a second matter in the McVeigh case when he testified that the chemical residue PETN found on McVeigh's clothing is ``not used for drug purposes anymore.''
``At his deposition, Mr. Burmeister contradicted his OKBOMB testimony and admitted that PETN was 'still used for some heart medications,''' the letter to Ashcroft said.
The letter questioned why prosecutors had never corrected the trial record.
Adams said Burmeister qualified his answer at the McVeigh trial by saying it was to the best of his knowledge, that he did not intend to mislead the court and that other witnesses explained to the jury about the multiple uses of PETN.
04/30/03 17:13
© Copyright The Associated Press.
---------------------------------------------------
Though it hardly proves Mcveigh's innocence (and I have very little doubt he was guilty) I think it helps re-raise two points. a) That our attorney general, John Ashcroft, has no regard for constitutional law or the Bill of Rights and b) that those of us who have been harboring suspicions about the identity of John Doe #2 (gov't used eyewitness testimony to prove T.M. bought the fertilizer, sent out A.P.B.'s on J.D. II, then claimed that said witnesses were mistaken that they saw anyone with Mcveigh) and the fact of an FBI informant at white-supremacist compound Elihom City (which Mcveigh visited before the bombing) are not just howling at the moon. There is more to this story, and the government does not want it to come out.
Total aside, but why is Terry Nichols appealing? He doesn't seem to realize that life in prison is the upside for him. If he gets a new trial he might just get the death penalty. If he thinks he's going to walk, he is stoopidcraazy.
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,407
A
Anonymous
Guest
MacVeigh was arrested and killed ASAP because though his methods were wrong, his ideas about government are basically correct.
If he hadn't been white and American, he'd already be free and making money denouncing the US in new York and San Francisco.
If he hadn't been white and American, he'd already be free and making money denouncing the US in new York and San Francisco.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Calypsoparakeet seems a little confused.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Alexius said:
Well, naturally if I do I can't tell you.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Think we're seeing the dawn of a new 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' here?
A
Anonymous
Guest
lopaka said:Is this sarcasm? You're right, black people are never put to death in the US. Just white people.
The current fad is to blame white people and to especially elevate and kowtow to middle easterners (who are also white people except to liberals).
Such things move about upon political expediency.
It's also likely that organized internal groups would at least appear to present overall a greater danger. :spinning
A
Anonymous
Guest
AndroMan said:
No, I know what's going on and clearly understand the situation. Those who think otherwise are either very confused or are trying to mislead people.
A
Anonymous
Guest
calypsoparakeet said:No, I know what's going on and clearly understand the situation. Those who think otherwise are either very confused or are trying to mislead people.
At the risk of seeming to criticise this stance... its a little 'tin foil in the hat' to make the sweeping statement that one is the holder of an absolute truth and those who hold an opposing opinion are either ignorant or part of the conspiracy...
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hugo Cornwall said:
So I'm the only one who makes "sweeping statements"?
I don't hold the "absolute truth" or I'd know everything. I don't know when and where your mother was born, for example, and make no claims to.
On the other hand, if I am convinced I am correct about something then obviously I must be convinced anyone who disagrees is wrong. That's only logical. They don't have to be "part of the conspiracy" to be wrong and they don't have to be "ignorant." Indeed, most college professors are wrong when it comes to their politics. Certainly they aren't ignorant. I don't know about their affiliations with any "conspiracy."
Does anyone seriously expect that I will hold a position that I also believe to be wrong and thus that I assume whoever disagrees is necessarily right?
Talk about needing a tin foil hat.