Comment: Skepticism cuts both ways.

(See in situ)


Skepticism cuts both ways.

How come those who accept the "official story" are not also called "conspiracy theorists"? After all, mass shootings, bombings, etc., always involve two or more people, even if the crime is only committed by a single person. Do you believe law enforcement ford not investigates more than one suspect when a major crime is committed?

I go with the theory that best supports the facts. For example, when Flight 800 exploded and crashed into the Atlantic Ocean in 1996, the "official story" was a "design flaw in the 747 was responsible." However, EVERY OTHER TIME THIS HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY, the FAA ordered ALL of that series of aircraft grounded until all of the aircraft had been inspected for the "design flaw".

The only logical conclusion ANY skeptic should draw is the FAA knew full and well the "design flaw" was NOT responsible for the catastrophe.

The government has lied to us so blatantly and so repeatedly that any real "skeptic" would search for other explanations before accepting the government's "official story".

May I relate a personal experience, which draws suspicion to the "Official Story"? When the Space Shuttle Columbia exploded in 2003, CNN provided a "news flash" warning people to stay away from debris as it could cause "instant death". Reports came out of most of the wildlife in the debris stream was found dead. I left NASA only a few months before the Challenger disaster in 1986, so I followed the reports pretty closely. I do not recall ANY reports of "fish kills" as the results of Challenger debris; nor were there any warnings to swimmers, boaters, etc. to stay away from the debris field.

The day after the Columbia exploded, a reporter for THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE reported an unnamed local astronomer photographed a "Orange-Purple, corkscrew energy beam penetrating the shuttle wing root," which was the site of the explosion. The astronomer turned these photos over to NASA without having them published by the CHRONICLE, because of the possibility the "energy beam" was an "artifact" of his Nikon camera. Neither NASA nor the CHRONICLE followed up on the story. So, about six months later,after NASA had published the "official story," I called the CHRONICLE reporter whose byline had appeared on the story. The reporter said he "hadn't heard anything, but believed the 'energy beam' was an 'artifact.'" However, when I asked the name of the "local astronomer," the reporter told me he had "lost it."

Now, do you honestly believe a reporter with his own byline in a major newspaper, who had written a front page story would LOSE his source?

"Believe nothing you hear, only what you see. Belay that, believe half of what you see." Burt Lancaster, "The Crimson Pirate" (1952)