Wanted : A Better Quality of Fake News

[Voltaire]

Afternoon,
Since many of you have been kind enough to furnish me with some newsy
weblinks, thought it was probably time that I do the same in return.

As some have commented, the best approach seems to be to read a variety
of news sites and try and discern some concensus of statement or opinion.
Then balance that against your own political leaning, whether you accept
the result.

Regarding overseas news websites, given current circumstances overseas,
it's hard to find websites that have broad coverage yet don't just present
a consistent US perspective.

For that reason, I don't tend to read the main US newspapers very often.
Nor some of their European counterparts (like the BBC, The Times, Der
Spiegel etc) or their Asian counterparts.


New Zealand New Sites

It's difficult to find NZ based news websites apart from Stuff and NZ Herald.
Have to agree with a few that the refacing of the NZ Herald has not added to
either the quality of its content or its presentation.

The only other NZ based websites that I look at are:
Scoop : http://www.scoop.co.nz/
News Room : https://www.newsroom.co.nz/

and occasionally the blog
No Right Turn : https://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/ (only as a flag
to recent events)


Overseas Newspapers - Inventory by Geographic Area (if you're trying to
find online newspapers or magazines)

http://www.world-newspapers.com/
http://www.onlinenewspapers.com/


Overseas News Sites - Europe

I offer a few that some might find of interest. Find that many of the
stories (and their telling) presented on these websites have tended to
"stand the test of time" a little better. You're welcome to disagree.

Russia Insider : http://russia-insider.com/en
Sputnik International : https://sputniknews.com/
Russia Today : https://www.rt.com/

Deutsche Welle : http://www.dw.com/en/top-stories/s-9097
France 24 : http://www.france24.com/en/
Guardian : https://www.theguardian.com/international
Euro News : http://www.euronews.com/
NSNBC International : https://nsnbc.me/

Overseas - Latin America

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/

Overseas - Asia

Asia Times : http://www.atimes.com/
The Diplomat : http://thediplomat.com/ (six free articles per month,
then subscription based)

China Global Times : http://www.globaltimes.cn/
China Daily European : http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/world/
China Peoples Daily Online : http://en.people.cn/
China Money Report : http://www.thechinamoneyreport.com/ (finance focus)

Japan NHK : https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/
Nikkei Asian Review : https://asia.nikkei.com/

Overseas - Middle East

Middle East Online : http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/
Al Monitor : http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/home.html
Middle East Eye : http://www.middleeasteye.net/
Al Jazeera : http://www.aljazeera.com/

Press TV (Iran) : http://www.presstv.com/
FARS News (Iran) : http://en.farsnews.com/

Israel and Palestine : http://mondoweiss.net/
Palestine Chronicle : http://www.palestinechronicle.com/

Caspian Report : http://caspianreport.info/


Overseas - Blogs

There are some many blogs to choose from, so I offer only a few. Quality
and political bias may vary, but interesting editorials or opinion pieces
are often present.

New Eastern Outlook (NEO): https://journal-neo.org/
Informed Comment : https://www.juancole.com/
Common Dreams : https://www.commondreams.org/
Strategic Culture : https://www.strategic-culture.org/
Global Research : http://www.globalresearch.ca/?context=home
ZCommunications ZNET : https://zcomm.org/all-types/
Consortium News : https://consortiumnews.com/
The Conversation : https://theconversation.com/global
Activist Post : http://www.activistpost.com/

Zero Hedge : http://www.zerohedge.com/
CounterPunch : https://www.counterpunch.org/
Truth Out : http://www.truth-out.org/
The Nation : https://www.thenation.com/
The Intercept : https://theintercept.com/
Dissident Voice : http://dissidentvoice.org/
The Peoples Voice : http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/index.php
Tom Dispatch : http://www.tomdispatch.com/
Anti-War : https://antiwar.com/

William Engdahl : http://www.williamengdahl.com/index.php
Ron Paul Institute : http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/
John Pilger (Investigative Journalist) : http://johnpilger.com/articles
Andre Vltchek (Investigative Journalist) : http://andrevltchek.weebly.com/
James Petras : http://petras.lahaine.org/

The 4th Media : http://www.4thmedia.org/
Mint Press : https://www.mintpressnews.com/
Voltaire Network : http://www.voltairenet.org/rubrique120359.html?lang=en
Foreign Policy in Focus : http://fpif.org/
The American Conservative : http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/

Inter Press Service : http://www.ipsnews.net/
True Publica : http://truepublica.org.uk/global/


Cheers,
Viking

Do you not get " News Fatigue" ?

I miss the crackly sound of the Big Ben chiming and ' Your listening to the BBC World Service" on the wireless

[Viking01]

Do you not get " News Fatigue" ?

I miss the crackly sound of the Big Ben chiming and ' Your listening to the BBC World Service" on the wireless

Hi,
Well, only a proportion of them are daily publications, while a number are weekly
(or only when the authors has new content to publish). Probably only 10-15 sites
that I read regularly. KB is of course one of those sites .... 8-)

And Yes, you're right, a certain degree of "news fatigue" sometimes occurs. Mind you,
I sometimes skip over certain topics (e.g. Trump and Russian threat / US healthcare)
as there is little real news value .

Cheers,
Viking

[oldrider]

Evidence of Donald draining the swamp? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-syria-program

[Viking01]

Evidence of Donald draining the swamp? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...-syria-program

Can't say that I think that Trump's actions in this respect will make much difference.

Think that the Pentagon will still be making delivery of arms to the required parties
behind the scenes, even though the CIA might supposedly be being reined in. So his
action is probably more "window dressing" (than being an action of substance).

Follow-up article:
https://journal-neo.org/2017/07/31/d...blem-in-syria/

[oldrider]

How credible is the material in this post then? https://jamesperloff.com/2017/05/19/...acy-theorists/

[Viking01]

How credible is the material in this post then? https://jamesperloff.com/2017/05/19/...acy-theorists/

Well, let me start by saying that I'm not quite sure what questions(s) you are
actually asking (e.g. whether I personally believe the snippets within the attached
web link, or whether there is sufficient third party information available within the
public domain to substantiate some of them).

I haven't watched the embedded video clips. Nor have I read the author's book
("Truth is a Lonely Warrior").

However, having read about many of the events listed, I'm happy to make some
comment on some of them as to whether they seem feasible (to me at least).
This reply might be a little on the long side - I apologise in advance.

Following the order of the events as presented within the weblink:

Oligarchy / Democracy
All I'll say is that a robust functioning democracy might consist of more than just
the opportunity to cast a vote for a political party once every three years, and
sit quietly in-between.

Electronic Voting in the USA
This has been a topic of debate for a number of US elections, especially since
GW Bush won the 2000 election. The fact is that many of the electronic voting
machine types have not had their software certified, and lack some basic audit
controls.

Not only have they been accused in the past of being easy to hack, they lack
basic mechanisms to verify counts. The latest Defcon gathering in Las Vegas
this last week showed hackers were able to easily penetrate machines from
three main suppliers (Diebold, Sequoia, Winvote) in 30 minutes. Saw a recent
article in "The Register", dated 30/07/2017.

US Federal Reserve
Having read at least two books on the background of the activities leading up to
the creation of the Federal Reserve, the process was governed by several large
banks (not only US) and much was done in secret. There was plenty of interest
in having a government controlled banking entity and dollar, where money would be
created under government control; however the large private banks wished to kill
off that proposal, and to implement a body (Federal Reserve) under private control.

Recovery from the 1907 recession in the US was partly influenced by actions taken
by the private banks, and it was used as justification for the need of the Fed. The
time period from 1910 - 1913, leading up to the Fed being instantiated in 1913 after
the banks meeting at Jekyll Island, makes for interesting reading. Transparency and
honesty might not be words that immediately came to mind.

I have also had interest in reading about the Bank of International Settlements (BIS)
headquartered in Switzerland, but have not been able to find much information about
this body over the years (probably for very good reason).

Smedley Butler (Major General)
Can recall reading an autobiography about Smedley Butler several years ago, and it
ws very interesting reading. Started his fighting career in the Philippines around about
1901-02 (when the US took over the Philippines), and then had subsequent postings
in China, Central America and the Caribbean.

He led some of the US forces in France in WW1, and was quite critical of the US
industrialists who profited handsomely from supplying provisions (in some case
sub-standard) to American troops in WW1.

With the fascist powers in ascendancy during the 1930's (and the Great Depression
underway), he was notable in that a group of industrialists approached him in the
early 1930's (about 1933) to front up a "coup" against FDR, but which he strongly
rejected. Think that the US authorities held a series of House of Reps meetings
later in the 1930's which verified his statements.

When he retired, he made comments that many of his actions in the Marines (in both
the Caribbean and Central America in the period 1910-1930) had been made at the
"request" of the banks and the industrialists in order to protect their various interests.
You can find a book by Smedley Butler on the web entitled "War is a Racket". There
is also quite a good Wikipedia article on him as well.

Lusitania
This has been a source of discussion ever since its sinking in 1915 off the south coast
of Ireland. While UK and US Government sources denied that the vessel carried weapons
and ammunition, it has been separately verified that it was indeed carrying supplies for
the British forces.

There was a release of official UK docs by UK Ministry of Defence back in 1982 warning
divers on the wreck site of the presence of munitions.

While the Germans had given both UK and US governments fair warning of what would
happen to vessels carrying munitions that tried to break the U-boat blockade of the UK
during WW1, there were elements within both UK and US circles that wished to get the
US involved in WW1 on the Allied side. Major bank loans had been made to the UK and
European countries for war materials, and it was by no means clear that the Allies would
prevail (and the loans be repaid). I have read that Churchill was heavily involved in trying
to influence US politicians.

US politicians and banking interests were also at the same time interested in displacing
England as the main imperial power in the world.

Woodrow Wilson knew that the US public had little appetite for war, so they needed
a triggering event (and the sinking of the Lusitania was one event that helped lead
to that outcome). However, they had to wait until the Zimmerman Telegraph in early
1917 to seal the deal, so to speak.

Pearl Harbour Attack
In the early 1930's, Japan had already invaded China / Manchuria and was trying to
establish its own Zone of Prosperity in Asia. The US military and industrialists saw
that as a challenge to their power and to their financial interests. In the late 1930's,
the US had effectively pushed Japan into a corner (via sanctions on steel and oil
supplies).

By 1939, the US military had managed to "crack" the cipher system (Purple Cipher,
or Enigma) used by the Japanese military and embassies, and was able to read their
communiques and to track the movement of Japanese military forces.

When the naval force due to attack Pearl harbour left Japan in Nov 1941, the US
authorities were aware this had occurred and its likely destination. However, they
were unwilling to take countering action for fear of revealing their knowledge of
the Japanese cipher system. The local military leaders at Pearl Harbour (both Kimmel
and Short) were not kept fully in the loop, and were effectively left to take all the
responsibility for lack of preparedness at Pearl Harbour. Believe that they were both
removed from active service as a result.

It is interesting that action by the families of both these men within the last 5 years
has led to a "formal government restatement" of what transpired, with a formal military
apology being issued to their families and some financial compensation being paid.

Gulf of Tonkin Incident 1964
Again, another "false flag" incident (this time to justify US troops being sent to
Vietnam).

Incidentally, James Stockdale has published another article on this event within
the last few days. Being a US pilot - and overflying the area within an hour of its
supposed occurrence, there were no North Vietnamese torpedo boats observed,
and no evidence of an engagement having occurred.

USS Liberty Attack by Israel 1967
This unprovoked attack of a US naval ship by Israeli forces has been quite well
documented, and there are audio recordings available online taken at the time of
the action. Not only did Israeli forces know it was a US ship (ally), they continued
to attack it for at least a further hour after being advised of its identity.

It is understood that Israel did not want a US vessel with capability for interception
of communications in the area prior to the Six Day War in 1967 being commenced
(where Israel was deemed to be the aggressor, initiating attacks against Egypt,
Syria and Jordan).

911 and the Twin Towers
I'll leave you to make your own mind about this event. However, from what I've read,
I'd be inclined to say that all three buildings (the Twin Towers and Building 7) were
ultimately brought down by controlled demolition. The video of the individual building
collapses defy conventional physics (i.e. floors effectively being in "free fall").

Even though the Twin Towers were both struck by aircraft, both of the buildings were
sufficiently over-engineered to be able to resist both a collision and the subsequent
fires. In contrast, Building 7 was not even hit by an aircraft, and the internal fire within
that building was extremely localised (nowhere near enough to cause a collapse).

I would also support a "controlled demolition" scenario by:
-The presence of military grade nano-thermite on some of the steel beams (University
of Copenhagen analysis)
-The presence of molten metal around some of the beams within the building basements
(conventional fires would not burn hot enough)
-The presence of angled cuts on main support beams within the basement areas (from
controlled demolition
-Fire crews hearing and being caught in small explosions consistent with a controlled
demolition.

I am also cynical about both the Pentagon building explosion as well as of Flight 93
which crashed in Pennsylvania. The damage done at the Pentagon was far too small for
a conventional aircraft, and was more consistent with either a small missile or a bomb.
How an aircraft managed to approach at such a low angle and to cause so little damage
in and around the Pentagon building is not believable. Similarly, the footprint of the crash
site for Flight 93 was much too small for an aircraft of that size (Boeing 757).

Add to the above (i) the supposed flying ability of the "perpetrators" and (ii) the lack
of airforce fighter cover in the vicinity (apparently out of state on training that day),
the whole story just gets more and more unbelievable.

Having read the final report from the 911 Commission (as well as the findings from NIST,
(who supposedly conducted metallurgical and building analysis), I have no confidence
whatsoever that any robust analysis and investigation was conducted by the authorities.

Middle East Wars
Yes, I had also seen the video clip and read evidence from Wesley Clark, and his being
unofficially advised around 2001 that the neo-cons intended to effect regime change in
seven Middle Eastern countries within 5 years (including Iraq, Libya, Syria and Iran).

This was in the period after the USSR had "self destructed" (1990-2000) and the US was
effectively the single world super-power, so there was a definite "window of opportunity"
for the US to do so.

Given the subsequent exposure of the US neo-con agenda - and subsequent invasions of
both Iraq and Libya (not to mention Syrian "civil war"), then Wesley Clarks comments sound
quite believable to me.

In each of the four countries listed above, there are good geo-strategic or political reasons
for the US wanting to do so:

-Iraq - Access oil resources plus also block possible Russian oil/gas pipelines
-Libya - Access oil resources plus prevent Gaddafi implementing golden dinar as separate
currency for settling oil payments (instead of USD)
-Syria - Block possible Russian oil/gas pipelines plus support Saudi Sunni Wahhabism plus
Israeli interests (oil and water in the Golan)
-Iran - Payback time plus support Saudi Sunni Wahhabism plus Israeli security interests

Iran and WMD
Have to agree with Scott Ritter (UN Weapons Inspector) that Iraq did not have any weapons
of mass destruction. Not only had that been verified by UN weapons inspectorate, but Saddam's
own son-in-law (who had been in charge of weapons programs) had escaped Iraq around 2001
and been interrogated to the extent that he verified Iraq had no WMD. Still that didn't stop GWB
and the neo-cons for invading Iraq in 2003.

Interesting to see recent attempts within the UK to indict Tony Blair for war crimes relating
to Iraq.

Zionist and AIPAC Influence on US Politics
Think that this has just been getting stronger and stronger ever since the time of Truman
(elected in 1948).

Reading a good book on this topic at the moment ("The Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy"
by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt).

Al Qaeda and ISIS
Not able to comment much at this stage, other than to say there appears to be financial groups
willing to finance civil unrest and uprisings around the world (be they Middle Eastern regimes,
the US Government, or individuals like George Soros). And there seem to be plenty of "religious
warriors" willing to travel to other countries and wage jihad (whether for money or religion sake).

The US Press
I have plenty of skepticism over what passes for news in the US newspapers. Given that the
majority of "news" is controlled in the US by one of five main organisations (i.e. Viacom, AOL,
Disney, Clear, NewsCorp) - and this concerns Radio / TV / Internet / News Content, it would
not be difficult to control what stories are being told and how. Or not being told, as the case
may be.

Having also just finished a book on the CFR = Council of Foreign Relations ("Wall Streets Think
Tank - The CFR and the Empire of NeoLiberal GeoPolitics 1976-2014"). This has helped fill in a
few gaps in understanding, and whose interests might be being served. So it is no surprise to
see names of individuals like Rockefeller (or corporates like Monsanto) mentioned centre-front.



Conclusion
Not having looked at the individual video clips (and looked at the telling of each story), I still
think the majority of events mentioned within the weblink probably had some substance behind
them.

Hope that answers your question(s).

Cheers,
Viking

[Voltaire]

Pearl Harbour.

It was the first time a major aircraft carrier attack was carried out, and it was a long way from Japan.

If the Americans knew in advance they could have been in position to intercept them and still brought the US into the war.

They gave the Japanese a sound beating six months later at Midway and the carriers never even were in sight of each other.

( remember seeing the movie in Sensorround in the 70's)

911...find it hard to believe such an elaborate conspiracy could be carried out and kept quiet....and for what gain...to invade

Iraq and Afghanistan....really, they could have " sent advisers"

[YellowDog]

Historical fake news:

[oldrider]

Well, let me start by saying that I'm not quite sure what questions(s) you are
actually asking (e.g. whether I personally believe the snippets within the attached
web link, or whether there is sufficient third party information available within the
public domain to substantiate some of them).

Conclusion
Not having looked at the individual video clips (and looked at the telling of each story), I still
think the majority of events mentioned within the weblink probably had some substance behind
them.

Hope that answers your question(s).

Cheers,
Viking

I am impressed with your reply - thank you. (currently under pressure from her indoors to get moving and do a job for her)

[Laava]

Not sure if this is fake or not?

[Viking01]

Pearl Harbour.

It was the first time a major aircraft carrier attack was carried out, and it was a long way from Japan.

If the Americans knew in advance they could have been in position to intercept them and still brought the US into the war.

They gave the Japanese a sound beating six months later at Midway and the carriers never even were in sight of each other.

( remember seeing the movie in Sensorround in the 70's)

911...find it hard to believe such an elaborate conspiracy could be carried out and kept quiet....and for what gain...to invade

Iraq and Afghanistan....really, they could have " sent advisers"

Morning. Interested to see your comments. Thanks.

Pearl Harbour
Yes, you are right in that the Americans knew that the Japanese naval fleet
had left port, but they could not determine its exact path (and so set up an
intercept). They were very dependent upon spotting from other vessels or
from islands in the vicinity (no spy satellites in those days).

Due to the Great Depression - plus the US's recent involvement with the
League of Nations (pacifist role), again the US public would have been
very reluctant to be involved in another European war. That's not to say
that some of its politicians felt the same way (like Sec of State Henry
Stimson - he is one US politician worth reading about further).

The US was also not on a war footing in 1941, despite the fact that some
of their industries had been manufacturing and supplying Allied forces in
Europe earlier. For those US politicians arguing for US entry to WW2, they
again needed a triggering event.

Think the political assessment was that an attack on Pearl Harbour would be
limited in scope, and that some loss was acceptable. However, they probably
under-estimated how thorough the Japanese dive and torpedo bombers could be.

Even on the morning of Dec 7 1941, radar stations on the north of Oahu did
report inbound aircraft, but they were also expecting a squadron of US B29's
around the same date. Surprise !

Midway
That battle is a very interesting naval battle as well, and one (along with
the battle of the Coral Sea) which is credited with being the turning point
of the Pacific war for the US.

Again, neither fleet knew the whereabouts of the other exactly, but because
of Enigma (the US being able to intercept naval communiques) plus Japanese
ships breaking radio silence on one or two occasions, the US forces had a
much better idea where the Japanese fleet was.

Again, the battle was one which hinged around timing, and Japanese carriers
were unlucky to be caught out with their defensive fighter screen away while
its own bomber aircraft were on the deck being refuelled and re-armed.

I too can recall the movie about the battle of Midway in the 70's. However,
one must remember that a US military "loss" will not necessarily stop the US
movie industry from producing a movie. "Black Hawk Down" about Mogadishu
in Somalia comes to mind .... 8-)

911
Well, I accept your comment that "it is hard to believe such an elaborate
conspiracy could be carried out and kept quiet". But then, how many of us
who turned on the TV on Sept 11 2001 could quite believe the sight of two
aircraft hitting the Twin Towers, and then the collapse of those buildings.
I mean, we all saw it happen with our own eyes. The aircraft must have
caused their collapse.

But it did not take very long for all sorts of professional people (e.g.
engineers and scientists) to start questioning the official 911 narrative.
And for good physical reason.

The Twin Towers were over-engineered to be able to withstand damage
estimated at 5x more than that likely suffered, and still remain structurally
intact. And the plane fuel loads (plus internal building flammable material)
would not have been sufficient to generate temperatures needed to weaken
or melt main structural beams. Not even close.

And then video clips show the Twin Towers collapsing in "near free fall", as
if the main supporting beams on lower floors did not exist. Plus some "puffs
of dust" from the corners of the buildings (akin to a controlled demolition)
immediately preceding their collapse.

I'm not a "conspiracy theorist" per se. Its just I don't believe the official 911
narrative - because the science and the video evidence just doesn't support it.
Maybe years spent studying science and engineering has something to do with
it .... 8-) Let me ask you: Do you think that building structural codes for the
construction of skyscrapers in the US has been amended post 911 (because they
were seen as being deficient) ?

And then when we see news clips like Wesley Clark ("7 countries within 5 years")
and hear US politicians like Dick Cheney being reported ("we need a Pearl Harbour
event"), maybe then it's time to question whether there is some neo-con politicial
agenda in play.

The following website makes interesting reading:
http://www.consensus911.org/the-911-...us-points/#TT1


Afghanistan and Iraq
Well, I think the reason why they didn't just "send advisors" is that they wanted
to effect regime change, and that they realised that "US boots on the ground"
in large numbers was required. However, even the best laid of plans sometimes
go astray .....

I gave some very short reasons why I thought Iraq was of interest to the US in
my earlier reply.

And despite their military "withdrawal" back in 2011, the US still has military forces
in-country in 2017 (supposedly assisting the Iraqis to fight ISIS). It's just as well
they didn't decommission and close all those US military bases after all ..... 8-)

In the case of Afghanistan, there are several good reasons why Afghanistan was of
interest to the US:

-Forget about 911 and Osama Bin Laden (and "promotion of democracy" or "womens
rights"). Instead, think:

-To deny the Chinese the opportunity of a oil / gas pipeline (from Iran). Instead read
about the US oil company UnoCal and the proposed TAPI pipeline
-To be able to stir up the Muslim populations in the Stans (using US military bases
in-country) in order to give the Russia Federation an ongoing political and military
headache
-US geological surveys back in the 1980's and 90's had also determined that Afghanistan
has some quite significant mineral wealth (e.g. deposits of vanadium, copper, rare earths,
lithium, tungsten) which US corporations would have liked to acquire
-The drug related income from the poppy crops was also useful in quietly funding other
US military activity not authorised or funded by the US Congress (similar to the method
used for funding of weapons for the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980's and early 90's)

And some of those reasons are just as equally valid today more than 15 years after 911.

Ask yourself: Why does the US - now in 2017 - not just "cut its losses" and get out of
Afghanistan ?

Cheers,
Viking

[Viking01]

Not sure if this is fake or not?

I'm not sure that I can help you there. The face does look familiar.

Mind you, the press secretaries at the White House keep changing
so often (even when Donald doesn't fire them) that it's hard to keep
up with the latest face.

If I find out, I'll be sure to let you know.

Cheers,
Viking

[bogan]

Maybe years spent studying science and engineering has something to do with
it .... 8-) Let me ask you: Do you think that building structural codes for the
construction of skyscrapers in the US has been amended post 911 (because they
were seen as being deficient) ?

I disagree, the science and engineering offer an improbable but plausible explanations for all physical evidence seen from the event. The unquantifiable improbability does not make it an impossibility, any more than an incompletely proven chain of evolution means god did it.

The question as to structural codes is one of complete irrelevance if you think the physical evidence of the event shows conspiracy fact, it is however, very relevant to conspiracy theory.

[Katman]

I disagree, the science and engineering offer an improbable but plausible explanations for all physical evidence seen from the event. The unquantifiable improbability does not make it an impossibility, any more than an incompletely proven chain of evolution means god did it.

And we all know how you just love to cling to improbabilities.

[Viking01]

I disagree, the science and engineering offer an improbable but plausible explanations for all physical evidence seen from the event. The unquantifiable improbability does not make it an impossibility, any more than an incompletely proven chain of evolution means god did it.

The question as to structural codes is one of complete irrelevance if you think the physical evidence of the event shows conspiracy fact, it is however, very relevant to conspiracy theory.

Afternoon.

Thanks for the clarification on conspiracy theory and conspiracy fact.
Point understood and duly noted. Please excuse my laziness with terminology.
I'll take more care in future.

Cheers,
Viking




Note to Self: If I'd known that the audience would be that picky .....
just as well that he didn't pick me up on the absence of footnotes and
references (especially after all the lies, er fake truths that I've told on
this thread so far).

Still, as I've always said, tell them a convincing story with confidence
and they'll believe you every time.


Note to Self: Avoid getting involved in an online philosophical discussion
with Bogan - and Katman ..... 8-)