RE: Are Conspiracies Stronger Than Truth?

Ian Goddard (
Mon, 23 Sep 1996 21:27:05 -0400

At 10:48 AM 9/23/96 -0500, Jeff Dee wrote:

>> At 10:46 AM 9/18/96 -0600, Ira Brodsky wrote:
>> >
>> >> TWA flight 800 was SHOT DOWN by a US NAVY AEGIS MISSILE
>> >
>> >This sounds like the recent "anti-gravity" experiments. <g>
>>IAN: Of course the missile theory sounds like "anti-gravity"
>>experiments, because, like anti-gravity, everybody knows that
>>missiles could never fly across the sky, much less hit a plane
>>-- why it's patently absurd.
>Obviously, they were not comparing the relative likelihood of
>missiles being able to fly vs. anti-gravity devices working. They
>were comparing the relative likelihood of our government going
>to all this trouble to cover up *this* specific accident (when
>we all know there have been accidents before, some pretty major,
>which were *not* covered up) vs. the likelihood that the
>government is funding ridiculously goofy research.

IAN: We also know that those guilty of crimes or errors always
rush forward to admit their wrongdoing, so indeed, suggesting
otherwise is like anti-gravity machine crankery.

> Your criticism of an analogy which was not the intended
> one does little to support your case.

IAN: I never assumed that what I said had any bearing on
the witness of over 100 people and radar in New York.

>>Can you imagine that, 100 crazy conspiratorial people attacking
>>the truth-meme, which is that missiles can't fly or hit planes.
>The 'truth meme' that was referred to is not that 'missiles can't fly'.
>It wasn't even that 'the government didn't do it'. The truth meme
>that (Ira Brodsky?) referred to was the 'truth' that they *did* do it.
>(Ira's?) point was that if the government *is* covering this up, that
>means that the truth meme of their *involvement* is weak, since they
>appear to be getting away with the 'coverup'.

IAN: I believe your correct that by truth-meme Ira did not imply
"truth-meme = no missile." However, coming off the "Navy
missile theory = anti-gravity claims" it was not obvious to me,
it is unexpected to imply a claim is crack-potism and then turn
around and consider that maybe it is real. But, that seems to be
what Ira did, so I own Ira an apology: Ira, sorry dude.

> As to whether we can imagine 100 people being mistaken in unison,
> the answer is yes. It happens all the time.

IAN: We might as well throw all eyewitness testimony out the window.
Any eyewitness report is just as likely a hallucination as any other.
Even if over 100 people see the same thing at the same time, it's no
more a measure of truth than if one person sees it. Pretty radical

> Your attack on something other than what
> was actually said does not support your case.

IAN: The only measure of support for my case I ever suggested was
the report of 100+ witnesses and radar. I never suggested that
my words were making this testimony more valid. But of course
since eyewitness is totally unreliable, it seems there is zero
evidence of any missile. The missile theory is swept away.

> And is it really necessary to point out that 'reports of something
> that could indicate something' are *not* incontravertable evidence?

IAN: But it is evidence, which seems much more than you'll allow.

> By the way, are you now denying that radar ever yields spurious
> signals? Is radar infallible?

IAN: Radar is fallible and everybody was hallucinating. No missile.
They should junk all radars, no radar reports are reliable, especially
those supported by mass group hallucinations.

visit Ian Goddard's Universe ----->