Posted on 11/16/2001 1:09:54 PM PST by Smogger
It's called "critical thinking" skills, which most intelligent people have acquired. And how about that saying: "trust, but verify." You can "trust" the government all you want, but a smart person verifies everything before believing (blindly). Any behavioral psychologist would say someone who insists they're right by repeating themselves weakens their credibility and becomes more suspect as to the voracity of what they are saying. The Bible even says: let your yes be yes and your no be no. (Don't go on defending, adding, etc., it takes away from the strength of conviction.)
And if there's no conviction, and not enough evidence to point to a simple yes or no, then, gee, isn't it okay to say: "I don't know yet, but I'm working real hard to find out the truth." Seems to me that is genuine, sincere, and most truthful (thereby leading to less suspicion and speculation by the listener).
Furthermore, why is it that they called TWA#800 an accident when ALL OF THE EVIDENCE POINTS TO A MISSILE? Scores of witnesses saw a streak of light zigzag up from the horizon and strike #800. One of them was an army major helo pilot. The FBI ignored his testimony as well as the testimony of all the others. They invented their own piece of crap story that no one believes except the biased media and the gullible. Laughably, in order to explain away the upward streak of light, they said that after the nose of #800 fell off, the plane CLIMBED for 1000 feet (this explains the upward streak of light)! Anyone with any knowledge of the airplane or physics KNOWS that this is impossible.
If they covered up that time, why should I ever believe them again? This investigation already has a bad smell.
Obviously I hope I am wrong on that one.
Yep.
I am often laughed at, scoffed, or ridiculed for disbelieving or being skeptical about what those in authority or positions of power claim to be true, merely because they say it is. When anything controversial is reported (i.e., the 587 plane crash), most people believe whatever they're told by the media (and the media and government know this). Until I hear a logical, rational explanation, backed up by evidence, I reserve the right to not believe everything we're told. Evidence persuades intelligent people because it backs up statements made or positions taken.
Statements made without evidence to support it are just opinions. But others opinions are just opinions, which I feel free to ignore. My opinions are based on materials I have read, experts I have listened to that cite specific studies which are available for inspection, scientific truths, which, by their nature, are objective truths (as opposed to junk science), and the like.
It's a shame so many sheeple are willing to accept and believe someone's opinion simply because they look cute, wear the right clothes, or have a nice voice. On the other hand, if the sheeple question the pretty people/talking heads, they may have to use their brains and think for themselves.
Not to mention that this one in a million freak accident just happened to occur at JFK airport, in the NYC area - the NYC area and the Wash DC region being the two prime regions under terrorist attack. It could have occured at any of hundreds of airports in the world, but no it was just an innocent freak accident in the NYC area. Right like I would believe that. If it smells like fire than it is fire.
Dobbyman
Yeah, right. And it's obvious that you are Ms. Cleo. You have the same accuracy so far.
I work for a Fortune 500 company in the telecommunications industry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.