reply to post by NeoVain
I am neither saying this story is true or false, THAT is denying ignorance, since neither you nor i can know if it is true.
I have already said that I could be wrong. And yes, neither you nor I know if it’s realor not.
I am simply pointing out that your attempts to "debunk" or "stating this as implausible" are based on assumptions derived from a close
“Closed mind set”?
Interesting use of language. Clearly you do not know me.
My stance on this thread is based on my opinion
, which I am willing to change if convincing –and verifiable - evidence arises. Your use of
those phrases suggests that you would be unwilling to change your mind. In my opinion
…that even then have several logical flaws in them…
And the original story doesn’t
My opinion is based on a logical approach to this supposed mass death, and the potential fall-out among the relatives.
…which i point out by making equal assumptions from another just as plausible viewpoint, based on the current facts.
Where are the facts
As far as I’m aware (and please correct me if I’m wrong here), but this is just a story
tied in neatly with other stories
, and an as
unidentified sound phenomenon.
Some would call that “joining the dots”.
In my opinion
, it is creating a narrative.
Denying ignorance is not defined by denying information…
What quantifies information?
Science fiction novels contain information, but should we believe the contents of those books to be the truth?
Yes, they may contain real science
, but it is presented in a fictional
See my point above about Wilcocks creating a real-life, real-time narrative based on unproven concepts.
Some people will believe it because – to them - it sounds plausible, others will not because - to them - it does not.
…but on seeking the truth, and if you come to a dead end in your search for knowledge(which your assumption inevitably leads
Why is it a dead end? I’m not entirely dismissing
the concept of a clandestine war, just a story that reads badly, has flaws, and is –
– completely unverifiable
…that is obviously the wrong way…
? Well, forgive me if I disagree. I reiterate the matter of swallowing without chewing…
…if your goal is to get to the bottom of the matter, rather than to move on with an assumption of the actual facts fabricated in your own
“Actual facts”. There’s the interesting use of language again…
Denying ignorance is what i do, do you?
I’ll ignore the veiled insult there. This time.
What you’ve done on this thread so far is attempt to disallow me my opinion, whilst supporting the OP, and Fulford, completely.
Believe what you want. I’m not denying you your opinion.
Nor will you deny me mine.