Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-secret-contract-tied-nsa-security-industry-pioneer-001729620--finance.html The idea that RSA didn't know that they had installed an insecure DRBG solution as default is completely and utterly indefensible. Everyone else in the industry was aware that it was likely bugged. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: oh yeah, for truly depressing caution cynicism, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States Sure as hell hope we don't do that sort of thing anymore On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: reasonable amount of caution: the nsa has recruited double agents at american companies to insert back doors into internet tech so they can spy on both americans and those abroad. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this discussion is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership, authority and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be strongly selected in evolutionary terms. I'm not against the topic. I was being a little flippant -- my apologies. I do not mean to be disrespectful. I guess I feel that there's healthy skepticism, and then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It is healthy to be skeptical of mainstream science when it comes to something like LENR. It is healthy to be skeptical of the government when they say that they're not reading your email right now. Then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It's almost like an autoimmune disorder, where the immune system goes overboard and attacks the body or the nervous system. This seems to be the case when people throw out all science, instead of just the more egregious stuff discounting LENR. Or when we imagine a cabal that is intentionally playing around with the Fed rate in order to maintain control of Washington. I guess it's a matter of degree more than anything else. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government help to overthrow an elected government in Iran and support the coup-d'etat that put in place the Shah. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The CIA tried to organize an invasion of Cuba when Castro took over. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave its support to brutal dictators in South America for many years. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave coordinates of Iranian military forces to the Iraqi government so that chemical weapons could be more accurately deployed against them. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, undertook a false flag operation and destroyed the World Trade Center buildings with planes in order to advance its strategic objectives. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, thought it would make sense to deploy a hydrogen bomb against a US city or town for the sake of its strategic objectives. (I suppose this would potentially occur to a few extremists in government, but luckily more rational people would no doubt prevail.) I don't think it is submitting to the aura of authority of the US government and yielding up critical analysis and imbibing its account of things to take these positions. It's asking what makes sense and what is feasible, and trying to sort out the truth of the matter. This is something that is hard to do when one's trust of anything and everything related to the government has been undermined. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze, that kind of thing was one of the things I was alluding to. The stuff that is now openly admitted to as 'Old News' is horrific. It was not that horrific. Not like a war, or a thermonuclear bomb. Have a sense of proportion! But at the time it would have been considered an unreasonable conspiracy theory. Not at all. When these things (human experimentation) were revealed, no one doubted they happened. No one claimed this was all an imaginary conspiracy theory. And today similar things do happen, but they are dismissed as conspiracy theories. No, they are not. When real things like this happen, people believe it. We don't believe imaginary things which have no evidence. Later they will be old news. Wrong again. You need to read history. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Blaze, that kind of thing was one of the things I was alluding to. The stuff that is now openly admitted to as 'Old News' is horrific. It was not that horrific. Not like a war, or a thermonuclear bomb. Have a sense of proportion! In many ways it is worse. No question the loss of life is less, but even a pacifist could see a war or a thermonuclear bomb detonation to be ultimately in the interest of peace. And today similar things do happen, but they are dismissed as conspiracy theories. No, they are not. When real things like this happen, people believe it. We don't believe imaginary things which have no evidence. There is a lot of evidence for 9/11 being a false flag event.
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It was not that horrific. Not like a war, or a thermonuclear bomb. Have a sense of proportion! In many ways it is worse. No question the loss of life is less, but even a pacifist could see a war or a thermonuclear bomb detonation to be ultimately in the interest of peace. I was thinking more of an accidental explosion of a modern bomb, or a terrorist attack with one. This would be worse than the WWII bombs, because they are so much more powerful now. People don't realize that. Actually, thanks to the U.S. and Russia arms negotiations, the megaton bombs have been scrapped, but the ones remaining are still in the hundreds of kilotons I believe. Anyway, I disagree. Even granting that it contributed to peace (an issue beyond the scope of the discussion), a bomb is incomparably more horrific and inhuman than the worst human experimentation even conducted by the U.S. Just measured by cold-blooded standards of the number of people hurt and killed and the immensity of the damage and pain, it was far worse. Books such as J. Hersey's Hiroshima and the museum at Hiroshima can only give a slight impression of what happened. The totality was beyond human comprehension. I am not suggesting this was unique. Many other events in history, such as other wars or the Black Plague, were as bad. What I just wrote is similar to what the nuns in Emmitsburg Maryland wrote a few weeks after the battle of Gettysburg, as they struggled to cope with the casualties. They said 'no one can begin to imagine the suffering,' and they were right. There is a lot of evidence for 9/11 being a false flag event. Ed and I disagree, for the reasons already stated. Let's agree to disagree, and drop the subject. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: It was not that horrific. Not like a war, or a thermonuclear bomb. Have a sense of proportion! In many ways it is worse. No question the loss of life is less, but even a pacifist could see a war or a thermonuclear bomb detonation to be ultimately in the interest of peace. I was thinking more of an accidental explosion of a modern bomb, or a terrorist attack with one. This would be worse than the WWII bombs, because they are so much more powerful now. People don't realize that. Actually, thanks to the U.S. and Russia arms negotiations, the megaton bombs have been scrapped, but the ones remaining are still in the hundreds of kilotons I believe. Anyway, I disagree. Even granting that it contributed to peace (an issue beyond the scope of the discussion), a bomb is incomparably more horrific and inhuman than the worst human experimentation even conducted by the U.S. Just measured by cold-blooded standards of the number of people hurt and killed and the immensity of the damage and pain, it was far worse. Books such as J. Hersey's Hiroshima and the museum at Hiroshima can only give a slight impression of what happened. The totality was beyond human comprehension. This is an interesting conundrum. A natural disaster could be more horrific than a thermonuclear warhead, but by default would not be anyones fault, no malice. Where are a single person could be killed by a most insidiously evil mindset. So which is worse? Obviously it depends on where we throw our attention, if we are trying to understand just the human suffering, that would be the natural disaster. But the latter could even be an unsuccessful attempt but has a strongly malicious angle. I think we were addressing the plausibility of malicious acts by government and organizations and as such that is significant. There have been speeches given proposing killing the majority of humankind that has had applause (a standing ovation IIRC) with certain audiences. And are these people applauding evil, or misguided? It does not really matter, the fact is that people can support notions that are incredibly repugnant such as massive depopulation (90%) and genocide. My or your view of right and wrong, logical and illogical does not make sense of actions of people who have a differing belief system. That there can be traction to build a submarine with funnels in the top or killing 90% of everyone (everyone applauding were certain they were in the 10% no doubt) or Tuskeegee or enough support of operation northwood to even get it as far as the president shows that if we assume that reason and decency from organizations we will often be sorely mistaken. There is a lot of evidence for 9/11 being a false flag event. Ed and I disagree, for the reasons already stated. Let's agree to disagree, and drop the subject. I will agree to that wrt 9/11, but I will have to disagree to agreeing to disagree on the subject of dropping it. Of course it takes 2 to tango. John
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
This doesn't just seem kinda far out. It IS far out. Far, far out. Farther out than the Voyager 1 spacecraft. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This doesn't just seem kinda far out. It IS far out. Far, far out. Farther out than the Voyager 1 spacecraft. Ok, but the problem here is that you have limits to what you will give serious consideration. While I know you do not believe what I and many are certain has been proven about 9/11, even the things that are accepted and non-controversial that governments and other organizations have done or have planned to do would show you that this is not really as far out as Voyager 1, sadly. And while I could mention some of these things, the problem is that you will always consider that it applies to either other governments, not the transparent US Government, and when it is the US Government, then surely not now. Do you really need a list of things Governments, including the US government (and military) has done that makes this sadly plausible? They have lost plausible deniability on anything at this point. John
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim even plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an insane mind. Of course the government lies, of course it does bad things, of course it cannot be trusted. But the government does operate in predictable ways. Gaining any benefit from setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US gives no benefit whatsoever. Only an insane mind would consider such an act to have any benefit. I do not believe the US is being lead by insane people. They may be ignorant, stupid, or self-centered, but they are not insane. Bush was the closest person that fit this category, but he is gone along with the rest of his group. On Sep 23, 2013, at 2:25 PM, John Berry wrote: On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:16 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This doesn't just seem kinda far out. It IS far out. Far, far out. Farther out than the Voyager 1 spacecraft. Ok, but the problem here is that you have limits to what you will give serious consideration. While I know you do not believe what I and many are certain has been proven about 9/11, even the things that are accepted and non- controversial that governments and other organizations have done or have planned to do would show you that this is not really as far out as Voyager 1, sadly. And while I could mention some of these things, the problem is that you will always consider that it applies to either other governments, not the transparent US Government, and when it is the US Government, then surely not now. Do you really need a list of things Governments, including the US government (and military) has done that makes this sadly plausible? They have lost plausible deniability on anything at this point. John
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim even plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an insane mind. Of course the government lies, of course it does bad things, of course it cannot be trusted. But the government does operate in predictable ways. Gaining any benefit from setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US gives no benefit whatsoever. I disagree, if you are twisted, and want the power of fear over people to control them with more draconian measures and to start a war because you want people to support for conquest, and lowering the population, overthrowing governments and because it would cause huge financial gain for military manufacturing. Only an insane mind would consider such an act to have any benefit. I consider that to be the case of many in politics. I do not believe the US is being lead by insane people. That is where you and I differ. They may be ignorant, stupid, or self-centered, but they are not insane. Bush was the closest person that fit this category, but he is gone along with the rest of his group. I am afraid that I am unable to understand the sense in a great many things that are done. You have failed to consider precisely what I said in the first email, that horrific things are planned and done by governments, including the US govenment. The only issue is that the only non-controversial cases are historical as and recent example is likely to be hotly debated. Do you need evidence that they used to be insane?
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim even plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an insane mind. Of course the government lies, of course it does bad things, of course it cannot be trusted. To some extent. As Ed says, you can predict with some confidence which parts lie, about what, for what reasons. Many parts of the government can be trusted, especially the uncontroversial parts. The Agriculture Dept. will give you excellent advice on your crops. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has good statistics. I know they are good because: * They fit in well with other sources. * If the EIA misrepresented or misplaced the data, industry would raise a big stink. * Most of them come from industry. Say what you like about American industry, it usually provides good technical data. You can always trust things like the gas mileage estimates on new cars, or the watts and lumens ratings on lightbulbs. Because if one manufacturer lied about these things, the others would call them out. (That happens from time to time.) Some political or law enforcement agencies are corrupt or unreliable. The DoE is biased against cold fusion. But the government does operate in predictable ways. Exactly. Gaining any benefit from setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US gives no benefit whatsoever. Exactly. They are not crazy. There are a few crazy individuals, no doubt, but overall people in the U.S. government today are sane. There are historical examples of mass insanity in governments. I would say the Japanese government in 1941 was crazy to attack the U.S. The Confederacy was a bit crazy to fight on after Atlanta fell in 1864. They should have negotiated a surrender. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree, if you are twisted, and want the power of fear over people to control them with more draconian measures and to start a war because you want people to support for conquest, and lowering the population, overthrowing governments and because it would cause huge financial gain for military manufacturing. You seem to have no feel for how big a thermonuclear bomb explosion is, or what it would do. I can imagine a small attack fitting the purposes you describe. Even a larger one such as the 9/11 aircraft attacks. But anything on the scale of single nuclear bomb in Washington DC would not cause a financial gain -- it would destroy money as we know it. There is no conceivable financial gain from the explosion of a thermonuclear bomb, in any city on earth. That cannot benefit anyone. The extent of the damage would be unimaginable. The smallest modern bomb is far larger than the Hiroshima bomb, which was a horror you cannot begin to conceive of. Not only the physical damage, but also damage to things like the stock market, the financial markets, healthcare, infrastructure or insurance. Those institutions would cease to exist. Every life and property insurance company would be instantly bankrupt. There isn't enough money in all the insurance companies in the world to cover the damages or pay off the policies. There are many wealthy people in Washington, DC. The population density is high. If you were to set off a bomb in a small city in North Carolina or the Midwest, the economy would survive. It is cruel to say this, but that would kill far fewer people, and most of the victims would have smaller life insurance policies. They may be ignorant, stupid, or self-centered, but they are not insane. Bush was the closest person that fit this category, but he is gone along with the rest of his group. I am afraid that I am unable to understand the sense in a great many things that are done. There are degrees of senselessness. There are mistakes, big mistakes, horrendous mistakes, and then there are things like the Battle of the Somme or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Governments seldom make mistakes on the latter scale. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
Jed, do you believe that if you were in countries that had insane governments, and you were raised in that culture and had a normal degree of faith in that government. Would you have seen them as insane? Hindsight is 20/20, you would not fall for that would you? And if it was 1962 and operation Northwoods was put into play, and you were appropriately patriotic for the time (on average more so than now days I would think) and I told you that it was a false flag operation... Would you believe me? Of course you don't believe it now with 9/11 despite tons of evidence. Please consider that by being unwilling to consider such a thing, that your faith in the the system is precisely how false flag attacks can be considered. After I finally accepted that 9/11 was a false flag attack, and had already considered Bush stole the election and had an extremely low opinion of the republicans... I still was shocked to hear that they would have even dreamt up the concept of sexually torturing a child to coerce parent under interrogation, and making it legal. I accept that my mind is not on the right wavelength to even contemplate such concepts. John On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim even plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an insane mind. Of course the government lies, of course it does bad things, of course it cannot be trusted. To some extent. As Ed says, you can predict with some confidence which parts lie, about what, for what reasons. Many parts of the government can be trusted, especially the uncontroversial parts. The Agriculture Dept. will give you excellent advice on your crops. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has good statistics. I know they are good because: * They fit in well with other sources. * If the EIA misrepresented or misplaced the data, industry would raise a big stink. * Most of them come from industry. Say what you like about American industry, it usually provides good technical data. You can always trust things like the gas mileage estimates on new cars, or the watts and lumens ratings on lightbulbs. Because if one manufacturer lied about these things, the others would call them out. (That happens from time to time.) Some political or law enforcement agencies are corrupt or unreliable. The DoE is biased against cold fusion. But the government does operate in predictable ways. Exactly. Gaining any benefit from setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US gives no benefit whatsoever. Exactly. They are not crazy. There are a few crazy individuals, no doubt, but overall people in the U.S. government today are sane. There are historical examples of mass insanity in governments. I would say the Japanese government in 1941 was crazy to attack the U.S. The Confederacy was a bit crazy to fight on after Atlanta fell in 1864. They should have negotiated a surrender. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree, if you are twisted, and want the power of fear over people to control them with more draconian measures and to start a war because you want people to support for conquest, and lowering the population, overthrowing governments and because it would cause huge financial gain for military manufacturing. You seem to have no feel for how big a thermonuclear bomb explosion is, or what it would do. I can imagine a small attack fitting the purposes you describe. Even a larger one such as the 9/11 aircraft attacks. But anything on the scale of single nuclear bomb in Washington DC would not cause a financial gain -- it would destroy money as we know it. There is no conceivable financial gain from the explosion of a thermonuclear bomb, in any city on earth. That cannot benefit anyone. The extent of the damage would be unimaginable. The smallest modern bomb is far larger than the Hiroshima bomb, which was a horror you cannot begin to conceive of. Not only the physical damage, but also damage to things like the stock market, the financial markets, healthcare, infrastructure or insurance. Those institutions would cease to exist. Every life and property insurance company would be instantly bankrupt. There isn't enough money in all the insurance companies in the world to cover the damages or pay off the policies. There are many wealthy people in Washington, DC. The population density is high. That is a good point, but the some of the same could have been argued about the disruption of taking the WTC down and flying something into the Pentagon. Yet I and based on surveys possibly a majority of people are certain this did happen. I guess it depends on how much you want to reshape things, it doesn't make sense to me. Also what if the nuke's yield was reduced to appear more like whatever North Korea managed to detonate underground a few years ago? Also I do not know much about the size of Washington DC, but if it was detonated in a remote area? Possibly to be argued that it was detonated early because the good guys were on to them... I know I can't make sense of a lot that governments do. If you were to set off a bomb in a small city in North Carolina or the Midwest, the economy would survive. It is cruel to say this, but that would kill far fewer people, and most of the victims would have smaller life insurance policies. So maybe the insurance money is part of the reason? I know that things that seem inconceivable to me look like good ideas to the wrong kind of psychopath. They may be ignorant, stupid, or self-centered, but they are not insane. Bush was the closest person that fit this category, but he is gone along with the rest of his group. I am afraid that I am unable to understand the sense in a great many things that are done. There are degrees of senselessness. There are mistakes, big mistakes, horrendous mistakes, and then there are things like the Battle of the Somme or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Governments seldom make mistakes on the latter scale. Yesterday I watched an episode of QI, it is reasonably amusing, funny and informative. One bit of info was a steam submarine, it had funnels to let the steam out. Well it worked the way you would imagine a submarine with hole in it would work. More people have been killed by their own government than in all wars. John
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, do you believe that if you were in countries that had insane governments, and you were raised in that culture and had a normal degree of faith in that government. Would you have seen them as insane? I might. Many Japanese people did think their government was crazy in Japan in 1941, and many people in Georgia thought the Confederates were crazy. Just because the government is crazy, that does not mean that the whole population is. People in general tend to be sane, just as they tend to be healthy. If that were not so, our species would have gone extinct long ago. Insane governments are rare, and they usually come to their senses after a while. They seldom go to the extreme degree they threaten. Many Japanese people assumed their government and their Emperor really would have the nation fight to the last man, woman and child. That is what they said they would do. But they surrendered instead, much to the surprise of many people. Most wars stop long before the population is decimated (one-tenth killed). (Except in wars of extermination, where it the policy of the winner to kill or drive off the entire enemy nation.) Hindsight is 20/20, you would not fall for that would you? Many people did not fall for government lies in 20th century Japan, Germany, Russia . . . and in other places where the government had far more power to enforce its ideas than the U.S. government does. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
This discussion is getting a bit out of hand. Although I find it interesting to monitor the complex thoughts of my fellow vorts, I suggest that we attempt to move on to issues that are in line with our normal conversations. Perhaps someone might want to offer a location to which this topic could be pursued. Dave -Original Message- From: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Sep 23, 2013 5:23 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems? Jed, do you believe that if you were in countries that had insane governments, and you were raised in that culture and had a normal degree of faith in that government. Would you have seen them as insane? Hindsight is 20/20, you would not fall for that would you? And if it was 1962 and operation Northwoods was put into play, and you were appropriately patriotic for the time (on average more so than now days I would think) and I told you that it was a false flag operation... Would you believe me? Of course you don't believe it now with 9/11 despite tons of evidence. Please consider that by being unwilling to consider such a thing, that your faith in the the system is precisely how false flag attacks can be considered. After I finally accepted that 9/11 was a false flag attack, and had already considered Bush stole the election and had an extremely low opinion of the republicans... I still was shocked to hear that they would have even dreamt up the concept of sexually torturing a child to coerce parent under interrogation, and making it legal. I accept that my mind is not on the right wavelength to even contemplate such concepts. John On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The scary part is that intelligent people would consider this claim even plausible when the idea is obviously the hallucination of an insane mind. Of course the government lies, of course it does bad things, of course it cannot be trusted. To some extent. As Ed says, you can predict with some confidence which parts lie, about what, for what reasons. Many parts of the government can be trusted, especially the uncontroversial parts. The Agriculture Dept. will give you excellent advice on your crops. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) has good statistics. I know they are good because: * They fit in well with other sources. * If the EIA misrepresented or misplaced the data, industry would raise a big stink. * Most of them come from industry. Say what you like about American industry, it usually provides good technical data. You can always trust things like the gas mileage estimates on new cars, or the watts and lumens ratings on lightbulbs. Because if one manufacturer lied about these things, the others would call them out. (That happens from time to time.) Some political or law enforcement agencies are corrupt or unreliable. The DoE is biased against cold fusion. But the government does operate in predictable ways. Exactly. Gaining any benefit from setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US gives no benefit whatsoever. Exactly. They are not crazy. There are a few crazy individuals, no doubt, but overall people in the U.S. government today are sane. There are historical examples of mass insanity in governments. I would say the Japanese government in 1941 was crazy to attack the U.S. The Confederacy was a bit crazy to fight on after Atlanta fell in 1864. They should have negotiated a surrender. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: There isn't enough money in all the insurance companies in the world to cover the damages or pay off the policies. There are many wealthy people in Washington, DC. The population density is high. That is a good point, but the some of the same could have been argued about the disruption of taking the WTC down and flying something into the Pentagon. No. I am sorry, but you fail to understand the concept of orders of magnitude. You need a sense of perspective. You need some grasp of large versus small events. This is kind like saying that having your furnace burn down your house is sort of the same as the destruction of the Fukushima reactor complex. Yes, they are both a failure of a modern energy delivery system. But one is much, much *MUCH* bigger and more consequential than the other. Fukushima was hundreds of millions of times more expensive than the loss of your house would be. It led to destruction of the nuclear power industry in Japan. 50 working nuclear reactors thrown away! That alone has got to be worth about $800 billion in capital costs alone, never mind all the electricity that must be generated with coal and natural gas to replace them. Yes, the WTC attack was disruptive, but it was nothing remotely like a nuclear attack. Also what if the nuke's yield was reduced to appear more like whatever North Korea managed to detonate underground a few years ago? There is some control over yield, but you cannot dial down a nuclear bomb to that extent. You would just use a conventional explosive in that case. Also I do not know much about the size of Washington DC, but if it was detonated in a remote area? Possibly to be argued that it was detonated early because the good guys were on to them... The U.S., Russia and other countries detonated hundreds of bombs above ground in tests in the 1950s and 60s without killing many people. I think people would assume it was an accident. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
On Sep 23, 2013, at 3:43 PM, John Berry wrote: On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: That is a good point, but the some of the same could have been argued about the disruption of taking the WTC down and flying something into the Pentagon. Yet I and based on surveys possibly a majority of people are certain this did happen. The claim that the government was behind 9/11 is another example of how willing people are to believe insane explanations of events. They are so willing to distrust the government that they will believe something that has no evidence or rational reasons. Yes, 9/11 happened. Yes, the US government was incompetent in preventing the act. However, no evidence exists, except is some irrational minds, that the towers came down because of planted explosives or because the US government arranged for the flights to be hijacked. The US government is not clever enough to pull off such a stunt without all the details eventually being leaked. If the government does something insane, it will be done in full view, such as attacking Iraq. I guess it depends on how much you want to reshape things, it doesn't make sense to me. Also what if the nuke's yield was reduced to appear more like whatever North Korea managed to detonate underground a few years ago? Also I do not know much about the size of Washington DC, but if it was detonated in a remote area? Possibly to be argued that it was detonated early because the good guys were on to them... I know I can't make sense of a lot that governments do. If you were to set off a bomb in a small city in North Carolina or the Midwest, the economy would survive. It is cruel to say this, but that would kill far fewer people, and most of the victims would have smaller life insurance policies. So maybe the insurance money is part of the reason? I know that things that seem inconceivable to me look like good ideas to the wrong kind of psychopath. They may be ignorant, stupid, or self-centered, but they are not insane. Bush was the closest person that fit this category, but he is gone along with the rest of his group. I am afraid that I am unable to understand the sense in a great many things that are done. There are degrees of senselessness. There are mistakes, big mistakes, horrendous mistakes, and then there are things like the Battle of the Somme or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Governments seldom make mistakes on the latter scale. Yesterday I watched an episode of QI, it is reasonably amusing, funny and informative. One bit of info was a steam submarine, it had funnels to let the steam out. Well it worked the way you would imagine a submarine with hole in it would work. More people have been killed by their own government than in all wars. John
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
I agree with David Robinson that we should drop this discussion, but I would like to make a few more comments, and then I shall stop. Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The claim that the government was behind 9/11 is another example of how willing people are to believe insane explanations of events. They are so willing to distrust the government that they will believe something that has no evidence or rational reasons. This is partly caused by some political extremists who have deliberately sew distrust of the government. There were some in the left wing in the 1960s, but after the 1990s there were mainly in the right wing. It is a way gaining political power and votes. I think it is destructive and unpatriotic. This gives rise to another set of problems, on topic. These people are crying wolf. When the government actually does bad things, people dismiss it as business as usual. In the case of cold fusion, the DoE has been irresponsible. This should have more impact than it has, because the DoE and other agencies are not often this irresponsible. Everyone thinks they are! Mistakes and misjudgments are too often treated as crimes, or exaggerated. The Solyndra investment, for example, wasn't all that bad. It wasn't unprecedented. We should not close down the DoE because of it. Government and industry have often made bad investments in energy, agriculture, aviation, weapons and so on. If the government were to fund cold fusion, you know there would be an outcry because the standards are unreasonably high. Mistakes are not allowed. If the government does something insane, it will be done in full view, such as attacking Iraq. Exactly right! Or allowing Medicare fraud. Or not catching Bernie Madoff. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Jed, do you believe that if you were in countries that had insane governments, and you were raised in that culture and had a normal degree of faith in that government. Would you have seen them as insane? I might. Many Japanese people did think their government was crazy in Japan in 1941, and many people in Georgia thought the Confederates were crazy. Yes, and the same thing can be said if historians look back on the current period, many today do consider the US government to be insane. But if we assume that you are somewhat conservative in your views (not in the political sense) then as you are now, then more likely you wouldn't. People in general tend to be sane, just as they tend to be healthy. Trusting leaders is in an evolutionary sense probably a very good idea if they are right or wrong. Fitting into society and not opposing the top dog seems to be safe compared to opposing, doesn't it? It is very very unattractive to consider that your government may be so corrupt as to be dangerous to it's people. So it is very sane to avoid recognition that your own government can't be trusted, is corrupt and basically insane. But just because living in denial might be more comfortable, and even on an individual level safer, that does not mean it is true. If that were not so, our species would have gone extinct long ago. If people did follow a leader and trust them beyond reason, we would not have gained the organizational advantages that having leaders gives. Insane governments are rare. While I may disagree with you there and repeat the factoid I have heard, that more people have been killed by their own government than by all wars, and most wars are pretty insane anyway. , and they usually come to their senses after a while. They seldom go to the extreme degree they threaten. Plenty have. But what is your point, we should ignore governmental insanity (or what looks like insanity to us, to them it might be a grand chess match and we are looking at a pawn) because it doesn't always happen? Many Japanese people assumed their government and their Emperor really would have the nation fight to the last man, woman and child. That is what they said they would do. But they surrendered instead, much to the surprise of many people. Most wars stop long before the population is decimated (one-tenth killed). (Except in wars of extermination, where it the policy of the winner to kill or drive off the entire enemy nation.) Hindsight is 20/20, you would not fall for that would you? Many people did not fall for government lies in 20th century Japan, Germany, Russia Yes some people, and yet many did. A large percentage of the population did not fall for 9/11, at least not for too long, it took me a few years, initially I would not consider it and I thought that people who considered it were horrible for thinking such a thing. . . . and in other places where the government had far more power to enforce its ideas than the U.S. government does. I think you overlook the effect of the media (who is happy to look mostly critical, but will ignore anything significant like 9/11 being a false flag) and hand on your heart patriotism pledges in US schools. John
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Perhaps someone might want to offer a location to which this topic could be pursued. Vortex-B? Southern Poverty Law Center? ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this discussion is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership, authority and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be strongly selected in evolutionary terms. If you are likely to go against the leader and the rest of the group, tribe, society even if you are right, you are less likely to survive. So it is probably very strongly selected not to oppose either the group or the leader of the group unless you want to end up dead, or at least without support from the group. This is the same issue that LENR and other fringe topics are faced with. John On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 3:08 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Perhaps someone might want to offer a location to which this topic could be pursued. Vortex-B? Southern Poverty Law Center? ;) Eric
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this discussion is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership, authority and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be strongly selected in evolutionary terms. I'm not against the topic. I was being a little flippant -- my apologies. I do not mean to be disrespectful. I guess I feel that there's healthy skepticism, and then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It is healthy to be skeptical of mainstream science when it comes to something like LENR. It is healthy to be skeptical of the government when they say that they're not reading your email right now. Then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It's almost like an autoimmune disorder, where the immune system goes overboard and attacks the body or the nervous system. This seems to be the case when people throw out all science, instead of just the more egregious stuff discounting LENR. Or when we imagine a cabal that is intentionally playing around with the Fed rate in order to maintain control of Washington. I guess it's a matter of degree more than anything else. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government help to overthrow an elected government in Iran and support the coup-d'etat that put in place the Shah. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The CIA tried to organize an invasion of Cuba when Castro took over. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave its support to brutal dictators in South America for many years. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave coordinates of Iranian military forces to the Iraqi government so that chemical weapons could be more accurately deployed against them. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, undertook a false flag operation and destroyed the World Trade Center buildings with planes in order to advance its strategic objectives. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, thought it would make sense to deploy a hydrogen bomb against a US city or town for the sake of its strategic objectives. (I suppose this would potentially occur to a few extremists in government, but luckily more rational people would no doubt prevail.) I don't think it is submitting to the aura of authority of the US government and yielding up critical analysis and imbibing its account of things to take these positions. It's asking what makes sense and what is feasible, and trying to sort out the truth of the matter. This is something that is hard to do when one's trust of anything and everything related to the government has been undermined. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
reasonable amount of caution: the nsa has recruited double agents at american companies to insert back doors into internet tech so they can spy on both americans and those abroad. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this discussion is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership, authority and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be strongly selected in evolutionary terms. I'm not against the topic. I was being a little flippant -- my apologies. I do not mean to be disrespectful. I guess I feel that there's healthy skepticism, and then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It is healthy to be skeptical of mainstream science when it comes to something like LENR. It is healthy to be skeptical of the government when they say that they're not reading your email right now. Then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It's almost like an autoimmune disorder, where the immune system goes overboard and attacks the body or the nervous system. This seems to be the case when people throw out all science, instead of just the more egregious stuff discounting LENR. Or when we imagine a cabal that is intentionally playing around with the Fed rate in order to maintain control of Washington. I guess it's a matter of degree more than anything else. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government help to overthrow an elected government in Iran and support the coup-d'etat that put in place the Shah. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The CIA tried to organize an invasion of Cuba when Castro took over. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave its support to brutal dictators in South America for many years. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave coordinates of Iranian military forces to the Iraqi government so that chemical weapons could be more accurately deployed against them. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, undertook a false flag operation and destroyed the World Trade Center buildings with planes in order to advance its strategic objectives. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, thought it would make sense to deploy a hydrogen bomb against a US city or town for the sake of its strategic objectives. (I suppose this would potentially occur to a few extremists in government, but luckily more rational people would no doubt prevail.) I don't think it is submitting to the aura of authority of the US government and yielding up critical analysis and imbibing its account of things to take these positions. It's asking what makes sense and what is feasible, and trying to sort out the truth of the matter. This is something that is hard to do when one's trust of anything and everything related to the government has been undermined. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
oh yeah, for truly depressing caution cynicism, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States Sure as hell hope we don't do that sort of thing anymore On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: reasonable amount of caution: the nsa has recruited double agents at american companies to insert back doors into internet tech so they can spy on both americans and those abroad. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this discussion is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership, authority and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be strongly selected in evolutionary terms. I'm not against the topic. I was being a little flippant -- my apologies. I do not mean to be disrespectful. I guess I feel that there's healthy skepticism, and then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It is healthy to be skeptical of mainstream science when it comes to something like LENR. It is healthy to be skeptical of the government when they say that they're not reading your email right now. Then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It's almost like an autoimmune disorder, where the immune system goes overboard and attacks the body or the nervous system. This seems to be the case when people throw out all science, instead of just the more egregious stuff discounting LENR. Or when we imagine a cabal that is intentionally playing around with the Fed rate in order to maintain control of Washington. I guess it's a matter of degree more than anything else. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government help to overthrow an elected government in Iran and support the coup-d'etat that put in place the Shah. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The CIA tried to organize an invasion of Cuba when Castro took over. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave its support to brutal dictators in South America for many years. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave coordinates of Iranian military forces to the Iraqi government so that chemical weapons could be more accurately deployed against them. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, undertook a false flag operation and destroyed the World Trade Center buildings with planes in order to advance its strategic objectives. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, thought it would make sense to deploy a hydrogen bomb against a US city or town for the sake of its strategic objectives. (I suppose this would potentially occur to a few extremists in government, but luckily more rational people would no doubt prevail.) I don't think it is submitting to the aura of authority of the US government and yielding up critical analysis and imbibing its account of things to take these positions. It's asking what makes sense and what is feasible, and trying to sort out the truth of the matter. This is something that is hard to do when one's trust of anything and everything related to the government has been undermined. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Was the Navy shooting far more significant than it seems?
Blaze, that kind of thing was one of the things I was alluding to. The stuff that is now openly admitted to as 'Old News' is horrific. But at the time it would have been considered an unreasonable conspiracy theory. And today similar things do happen, but they are dismissed as conspiracy theories. Later they will be old news. On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote: oh yeah, for truly depressing caution cynicism, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States Sure as hell hope we don't do that sort of thing anymore On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.com wrote: reasonable amount of caution: the nsa has recruited double agents at american companies to insert back doors into internet tech so they can spy on both americans and those abroad. On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.comwrote: On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 8:24 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: The most interesting and somewhat topic relevant portion of this discussion is that of why belief systems that support trust in leadership, authority and beliefs that support general social cohesion are likely to be strongly selected in evolutionary terms. I'm not against the topic. I was being a little flippant -- my apologies. I do not mean to be disrespectful. I guess I feel that there's healthy skepticism, and then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It is healthy to be skeptical of mainstream science when it comes to something like LENR. It is healthy to be skeptical of the government when they say that they're not reading your email right now. Then there's stuff that goes beyond healthy skepticism. It's almost like an autoimmune disorder, where the immune system goes overboard and attacks the body or the nervous system. This seems to be the case when people throw out all science, instead of just the more egregious stuff discounting LENR. Or when we imagine a cabal that is intentionally playing around with the Fed rate in order to maintain control of Washington. I guess it's a matter of degree more than anything else. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government help to overthrow an elected government in Iran and support the coup-d'etat that put in place the Shah. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The CIA tried to organize an invasion of Cuba when Castro took over. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave its support to brutal dictators in South America for many years. Right amount of caution and cynicism: The US government gave coordinates of Iranian military forces to the Iraqi government so that chemical weapons could be more accurately deployed against them. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, undertook a false flag operation and destroyed the World Trade Center buildings with planes in order to advance its strategic objectives. Going overboard: The US government, or some part of it, thought it would make sense to deploy a hydrogen bomb against a US city or town for the sake of its strategic objectives. (I suppose this would potentially occur to a few extremists in government, but luckily more rational people would no doubt prevail.) I don't think it is submitting to the aura of authority of the US government and yielding up critical analysis and imbibing its account of things to take these positions. It's asking what makes sense and what is feasible, and trying to sort out the truth of the matter. This is something that is hard to do when one's trust of anything and everything related to the government has been undermined. Eric
