This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 May 24 10.18am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
We have those things. The famous film of the shooting makes it clear that he was shot from two positions. Only a good deal of brainwashing has made people see something else. There is so much more. Any evidence or testamony that contradicted the official line was ignored or misinterpreted by the Warren Commission. The American government will never confirm the validity of any evidence because it would be highly damaging. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (23 May 2024 9.20am) No “we” don’t! We have persistent conspiracy theories that many believe but no definitive proof. As evidenced in the above. The conspiracy theories themselves are well documented and can be read here:- Those who believe these are true will never accept they could all be misinterpretations or malign trickery from attention seekers. Those who demand unequivocal evidence before accepting anything won’t.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 23 May 24 10.46am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
No “we” don’t! We have persistent conspiracy theories that many believe but no definitive proof. As evidenced in the above. The conspiracy theories themselves are well documented and can be read here:- Those who believe these are true will never accept they could all be misinterpretations or malign trickery from attention seekers. Those who demand unequivocal evidence before accepting anything won’t. The bottom line here is that you always believe the official line. Therefore, you are not open to any evidence, however compelling. The 'truth' that people believe is often governed by what is publically acknowledged by the government. Equally, some will always disbeleive officialdom. In the end, a balanced view will weigh the evidence and decide based on reason. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (23 May 2024 10.49am)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 May 24 3.35pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
The bottom line here is that you always believe the official line. Therefore, you are not open to any evidence, however compelling. The 'truth' that people believe is often governed by what is publically acknowledged by the government. Equally, some will always disbeleive officialdom. In the end, a balanced view will weigh the evidence and decide based on reason. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (23 May 2024 10.49am) The bottom line is I will believe when something is proved. Not when it is just believed by everyone else. I might harbour doubts and as a consequence keep an open mind on something but until there is unequivocal truth established I won’t claim certainty. When what is being presented as justification for any theory could actually be explained in other ways then I have more suspicions about the theory than I do about the conclusions of an official enquiry conducted by an independent body and subject to intense audit.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
cryrst The garden of England 23 May 24 5.54pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The bottom line is I will believe when something is proved. Not when it is just believed by everyone else. I might harbour doubts and as a consequence keep an open mind on something but until there is unequivocal truth established I won’t claim certainty. When what is being presented as justification for any theory could actually be explained in other ways then I have more suspicions about the theory than I do about the conclusions of an official enquiry conducted by an independent body and subject to intense audit. And what about TR being correct about grooming gangs.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 23 May 24 6.16pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The bottom line is I will believe when something is proved. Not when it is just believed by everyone else. I might harbour doubts and as a consequence keep an open mind on something but until there is unequivocal truth established I won’t claim certainty. When what is being presented as justification for any theory could actually be explained in other ways then I have more suspicions about the theory than I do about the conclusions of an official enquiry conducted by an independent body and subject to intense audit. There can never be unequivocal truth where a government denies, obfuscates and removes the evidence. Why would you expect there to be? The best evidence was Oswald himself and he was shot dead. Once the official line was that the Earth was flat. In '1984', Big Brother told you what to think. Would you really accept that 2+2=5? It seems that you would. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (23 May 2024 6.18pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 May 24 9.25pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by cryrst
And what about TR being correct about grooming gangs. The issue with Y-L was never about him being “correct”. The scandal was known about. It wasn’t discovered by Y-L. He just read about it in the newspapers and decided to make a career out of by talking about it and obstructing the police and other authorities in their work. Some of which was subsequently shown to have been inadequate, in ways unrelated to anything connected to Y-L. The problem was always that rather than actually helping he hindered. He threatened the integrity and success of prosecutions by his actions. Read this and it will be clear. It’s 6 years old but shows just what he was up to:-
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 23 May 24 9.52pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
The issue with Y-L was never about him being “correct”. The scandal was known about. It wasn’t discovered by Y-L. He just read about it in the newspapers and decided to make a career out of by talking about it and obstructing the police and other authorities in their work. Some of which was subsequently shown to have been inadequate, in ways unrelated to anything connected to Y-L. The problem was always that rather than actually helping he hindered. He threatened the integrity and success of prosecutions by his actions. Read this and it will be clear. It’s 6 years old but shows just what he was up to:- How long was "wait for the official report" the watchword?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 May 24 10.11pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
There can never be unequivocal truth where a government denies, obfuscates and removes the evidence. Why would you expect there to be? The best evidence was Oswald himself and he was shot dead. Once the official line was that the Earth was flat. In '1984', Big Brother told you what to think. Would you really accept that 2+2=5? It seems that you would. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (23 May 2024 6.18pm) What’s true or not has nothing to do with governments, or what they say. It only concerns evidence that is factual. Governments may well obscure the truth, but that’s an unrelated issue. If you don’t know something, for any reason, you don’t know it. You may think you do, but you don’t. Oswald was shot dead. I don’t know why. But this account from someone who was responsible for trying to find out seems logical:- Being suspicious encourages enquiry but does not provide evidence. Oswald did kill someone else before being arrested. Why would he have done that unless he was the JFK gunman? This is another logical explanation of motives. His target could have actually been Connally and not JFK! None of this proves anything but they are at least as good theories as any others. Until we know which, if any, are right, we remain unsure. That most people thought the world was flat doesn’t mean anything other than that they were ignorant and were believing without evidence. It was a hypothesis that like all hypotheses remains the most logical explanation until a better one arrives. Which it did and any argument stopped. Authoritarian states can instruct whatever they like and demand compliance but they cannot command the heart. You either believe or you don’t. That’s unrelated to what you do. Propaganda can mold opinion and hide the truth from most but those determined to find it can and do, often at great personal risk. Big Brother was a fiction that described this! 2 + 2 isn’t 5! You don’t need anything more than your fingers to understand that.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
becky over the moon 24 May 24 7.37am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
What’s true or not has nothing to do with governments, or what they say. It only concerns evidence that is factual. Governments may well obscure the truth, but that’s an unrelated issue. If you don’t know something, for any reason, you don’t know it. You may think you do, but you don’t. Oswald was shot dead. I don’t know why. But this account from someone who was responsible for trying to find out seems logical:- Being suspicious encourages enquiry but does not provide evidence. Oswald did kill someone else before being arrested. Why would he have done that unless he was the JFK gunman? This is another logical explanation of motives. His target could have actually been Connally and not JFK! None of this proves anything but they are at least as good theories as any others. Until we know which, if any, are right, we remain unsure. That most people thought the world was flat doesn’t mean anything other than that they were ignorant and were believing without evidence. It was a hypothesis that like all hypotheses remains the most logical explanation until a better one arrives. Which it did and any argument stopped. Authoritarian states can instruct whatever they like and demand compliance but they cannot command the heart. You either believe or you don’t. That’s unrelated to what you do. Propaganda can mold opinion and hide the truth from most but those determined to find it can and do, often at great personal risk. Big Brother was a fiction that described this! 2 + 2 isn’t 5! You don’t need anything more than your fingers to understand that.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
georgenorman 24 May 24 8.38am | |
---|---|
In the end, the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then? [Orwell, 1984]
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Teddy Eagle 24 May 24 9.05am | |
---|---|
Modulo 1 arithmetic. Every number equals 0, so 2 + 2 = 0 + 0 = 0 = 5 Not my own work. Ripped off from someone more better at sums than me.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 May 24 9.44am | |
---|---|
There will always be criticism and room for improvement in everything. Especially with the benefit of hindsight. It’s how we get better.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.