Nope, I didn't say missiles can't fly. I was drawing a connection between
two sensational but similarly unsubstantiated reports.
For the record, I don't rule out the future possibility of an
"anti-gravity" machine. I just doubt it will suddenly appear out of
nowhere.
>It seems that over 100 crazy people had a spontaneous group
>hallucination in New York on the night the plane went boom.
>The Washington Times (07/24/96) reported about these crazies:
>
> Several eyewitnesses, including an Air National
> Guard pilot flying in the area when the explosion
> occurred, have told the FBI they saw a bright,
> flare-like object streaking toward the jumbo jet
> seconds before it blew up. ABC News said yesterday
> that the investigators had more then 100 eyewitness
> accounts supporting the theory. ^^^
>
>Can you imagine that, 100 crazy conspiratorial people attacking
>the truth-meme, which is that missiles can't fly or hit planes.
Untold thousands have reported hearing the voice of God or seeing the face
of Jesus. Truth-seekers must recognize situations in which wishful
thinking plays a role.
Besides, you can't believe everything you read in the newspapers or see on
TV.
>What is more, there is a bad conspiratorial radar out there that
>is also a dangerous threat to the truth-meme:
>
> Associated Press 07/19/96
>
> There were reports that radar detected a blip
> merging with the jet shortly before the explosion,
> something that could indicate a missile hit.
>
>Thank the truth-meme that some secret pentagon officials stopped the
>testimony of that conspiratorial radar -- the AP story continues:
>
> But Pentagon officials, speaking on condition of
> anonymity, said government analysts have studied
> several radar reports of the area and the blip
> was found to be a spurious signal.
The same Associated Press cites a report there was a meaningful blip *and*
an anonymous report that it was concluded to be a spurious signal. Which
should we believe? The conclusion it was spurious was later included in a
formal statement -- subjecting it to broader public scrutiny.
>I am glad we can rely on our secret govt agents to stand up for
>truth when those bad "spurious" radars and witnesses get out of
>hand and threaten the truth-meme.
No, what you are really suggesting is a conspiracy between the entire
government and the entire media to cover up the "truth." However, neither
of these institutions (in the U.S., at least) are as monolithic as you
imagine. Nor is the media (despite its many faults) merely a tool of the
government.
> >If true (I mean the missile story) it would be terrible news for
> >
> >extropians, because it would suggest that the truth is a very weak meme.
>
>IAN: Wow, this sort of says it all: If the missile theory is true,
>then the truth-meme is weak. So it's preordained that there can only
>be one variety of truth even if it's false, and that truth must be
>that the a missile could never have hit TWA flight 800.
>
>I'd say this line of reasoning is a threat to the truth. The only
>"truth meme" is logical thinking. The only truth is what is.
We agree on the form of truth. What we disagree over is your belief that
only a handful of conspiracy theorists have access to its substance.
Ira Brodsky
Datacomm Research Company
Wilmette, Illinois