REastwood Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 How to construct a conspiracy... 1. Take an event for which there is limited or hard to access information (Moon landing, MH370, Twin towers) 2. Take a single image or piece of information released to the public (photo of an astronaut with no visible stars in background, Satellite data, Construction details of the towers) 3. Make one small assumption that sounds logical (no stars in background therefore not in space, data missing therefore a landing took place, towers can't collapse therefore explosives used) 4. construct a detailed logical argument based on that one assumption, i.e. if THIS is true then all the rest of it must be true as well. The trick to dispelling a conspiracy is to locate the assumption and refute it. The reason there are no stars in the background is because of ....... 1
rankamateur Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 When omnidirectional satellite pings are the only data directing a multimillion dollar search and rescue, and it has been shown that these pings can be plotted logically along the SW track or the NW track around the circle then unless someone has an agenda that is influencing the search like the USA or China or Russia then it would make a lot of sense to explore both possibilities, surely. Exploring the NW track, if they haven't already starved to death while we fiddled in the southern Indian Ocean, then the passengers may well still be alive. 1
Exadios Posted March 18, 2015 Posted March 18, 2015 When omnidirectional satellite pings are the only data directing a multimillion dollar search and rescue, and it has been shown that these pings can be plotted logically along the SW track or the NW track around the circle then unless someone has an agenda that is influencing the search like the USA or China or Russia then it would make a lot of sense to explore both possibilities, surely. Exploring the NW track, if they haven't already starved to death while we fiddled in the southern Indian Ocean, then the passengers may well still be alive. No. The data cannot be "plotted logically along the SW track or the NW track". Only the SW track can be logically plotted. So, the NW track has been explored and found not to be possible.
Rotorwork Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 It is amazing what they can do these days, some times I look at Clouds & I can see a rabbit! New Contrail Data Released Hope one day they find the Aircraft. Fly Safe R W https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUWEtvSjBVS2JWX0E/view?pli=1 1 1
Kyle Communications Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 That is a extremely interesting investigation. Certainly is well worth looking into very seriously
poteroo Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Logical and well supported scientifically it may be - but the sticking point for most Aussie taxpayers is that we are being asked to support a never-ending expansion of this search. At what point will Canberra cease this search? Who will then meet the further recovery costs if something is detected? Meanwhile, it's business as usual for MH. happy days,
PA. Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I don't get it. Australia has a responsibility to search for survivors, not to look for their lost luggage. 5
Marty_d Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 Apparently the search has cost $150m so far and will cost another $50m for the next stage. I can understand the families of the passengers & crew wanting answers, but I think the money could be better used elsewhere. 2
bexrbetter Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 but I think the money could be better used elsewhere. To me it's not the money but it gets to a point when you have to sensibly say enough, that's just the way it is. Time will turn the plane up, WW1 and 2 stuff stills gets found on occasion by people doing something else completely.
Marty_d Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 While I agree with you, I wouldn't dismiss the money. It's a bit hard for the government to cry poor and cut funding to things like community legal services while they spend hundreds of millions looking for a crashed plane where there's no hope of survivors. 1
bexrbetter Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I don't disagree but Shirley they can allocate the job to the Navy, that money is budgeted for daily anyway. Maybe they only search the SW route because Australia can afford it ....
Guest john Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 The issue of mounting costs for this uncertain search so far, having run into millions of dollars, which has been publicly stated, the Australian Tax Payer has born the brunt of so far, what has to be remembered is that the INSURANCE COMPANY for Malaysian Airlines would ultimately be required to reimburse the Australian Government their search costs if in the event that the Insurance Company accept LIABILITY FOR THIS CLAIM.
Rotorwork Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 I don't disagree but Shirley they can allocate the job to the Navy, that money is budgeted for daily anyway.Maybe they only search the SW route because Australia can afford it .... Hey Bexrbetter, I didn't realise Shirley had been allocated a job in the Navy Regards R W
facthunter Posted April 17, 2015 Posted April 17, 2015 The Malaysian Gov't is paying some of it. The way surveillance all over the place is possible, it's hard to believe no one can plot it's path more accurately. Regarding the landing on the moon some staging of the event was done in case they didn't get the actual signal and didn't make it back as well. THAT act has muddied the waters. A friend of mine was told by his (muslim) co pilot that they didn't pass over Mecca on the way, ( That is the ONLY way to leave earth) so the moon landing is made up by the Americans and didn't happen. Nev
Teckair Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 A friend of mine was told by his (muslim) co pilot that they didn't pass over Mecca on the way, ( That is the ONLY way to leave earth) so the moon landing is made up by the Americans and didn't happen. Nev If you weren't there and did not see it for yourself how can you be sure what happened? Same goes for a heap of things Port Arther, 9/11, JFK, believing something just because it was on TV is silly.
Old Koreelah Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Blind faith over common sense- and they think things will be better when they are in charge.
fly_tornado Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Its no wonder that MH370 is still lost. Australian navy is hopeless, can't even stop wooden fishing boats full of refugees http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australian-navy-to-hand-50-asylum-seekers-back-to-vietnam-20150417-1mnew5.html
bexrbetter Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Hey Bexrbetter, I didn't realise Shirley had been allocated a job in the NavyRegards R W I am pretty sure there has been quite a number of Shirleys in the Navy for a long time ... 1
Marty_d Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 If you weren't there and did not see it for yourself how can you be sure what happened? Same goes for a heap of things Port Arther, 9/11, JFK, believing something just because it was on TV is silly. Please don't tell me you think Port Arthur and 9/11 never happened. As for JFK you saw the back of his head blown off on live television before special effects were that good. It may not have been Lee Oswald who pulled the trigger but the man sure as hell died that day. As for Port Arthur why don't you go talk to some of the local families who live there. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear that their relatives being shot by a madman didn't actually happen. 1
octave Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 If you weren't there and did not see it for yourself how can you be sure what happened? Same goes for a heap of things Port Arther, 9/11, JFK, believing something just because it was on TV is silly. Yes, it would be "silly to believe something just because it was on tv" but then all of these events have corroborating evidence. I find it intriguing that the "conspiracy theorists" tend to apply a much less rigorous test to the conspiracy theories than they do to the actual events. Also, they tend to believe not just in one conspiracy but they seem to think everything is a conspiracy. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insights-into-the-personalities-conspiracy-theorists/ 2
pmccarthy Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 I think there is an international secret plot to discredit conspiracy theorists. 1 2 4 1
bexrbetter Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 I think there is an international secret plot to discredit conspiracy theorists. I laughed! Sadly it's not far from fact. 1
dutchroll Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 If you weren't there and did not see it for yourself how can you be sure what happened? Same goes for a heap of things Port Arther, 9/11, JFK, believing something just because it was on TV is silly. Because there were plenty of people who were there and did see it happen. This is akin to saying "you cannot confirm the truth of anything you haven't directly observed yourself", which of course is nonsensical. 4
Teckair Posted April 18, 2015 Posted April 18, 2015 Please don't tell me you think Port Arthur and 9/11 never happened. As for JFK you saw the back of his head blown off on live television before special effects were that good. It may not have been Lee Oswald who pulled the trigger but the man sure as hell died that day.As for Port Arthur why don't you go talk to some of the local families who live there. I'm sure they'd be thrilled to hear that their relatives being shot by a madman didn't actually happen. No not trying to tell you anything that would be a waste of my time. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now