You are full of assumptions...which is your whole problem. You take a complete fantasy as reality and disdain the actual facts. And, against my contention, you can't even cite one or two of the most important pieces of physical evidence. (No mystery. There is none.) You are shooting blanks and trying to substitute personal remarks. You are the one who is not asking questions of this whole charade.
I never once stated what I personally believe regarding the titanic. I was hoping you'd fill me in on why you believe it was an organic event. I don't have a dog in this fight. You agreed that it would be stupid to think it was intentionally sunk but never explained why, while saying the burden is on the conspiracy theorist. I'm not the conspiracy theorist. I'm neutral but open to possibility and you haven't swayed me towards either conclusion. My only problem with what you've said is you're attacking people who think it was intentional, but you haven't explained why that's a stupid thought.
Because the story is known, documented, and makes sense.
And because sinking ocean liners is normally an act of war, not an assassination plot. Nor is it ever explained how an iceberg was wrangled to get in the way of the Titanic. Or why that was the most reliable and effective method of assassination (not to say most economical).
And the burden is on the conspiracy theorist, because the weight of evidence is against the conspiracy. So the burden is to disprove the evidence (a hard thing to do). Usually, the theorists totally avoid any attempt to do that and accuse the evidence of being fake.
Why are they stupid? Because they are willing to believe something that is entirely fictional. They think in terms of "But, couldn't it be this way?" instead of "Here is what is amiss with the original evidence. Other evidence that conflicts with the original evidence."
On top of everything is the unquestioned premise that had these three men not been killed, the Federal Reserve would not have happened. As a lifelong observer of government, that is not a bet I would take.
So, there is a lot of swallowing one has to do. I'll pass.
That's okay. The more you dig into the background, you begin to realize that everyone responsible was trying to do the right thing...with, as it turns out, mistaken assumptions, ignorance of key facts, and a rescue plan that turned out not to be very effective. Some have pointed out that the Titanic might have survived the impact if it had driven directly into the berg. The bow would have been crushed, but the anti-flooding compartments would not have been breached. Damaged, but recoverable. It makes one wonder.
You are full of assumptions...which is your whole problem. You take a complete fantasy as reality and disdain the actual facts. And, against my contention, you can't even cite one or two of the most important pieces of physical evidence. (No mystery. There is none.) You are shooting blanks and trying to substitute personal remarks. You are the one who is not asking questions of this whole charade.
I never once stated what I personally believe regarding the titanic. I was hoping you'd fill me in on why you believe it was an organic event. I don't have a dog in this fight. You agreed that it would be stupid to think it was intentionally sunk but never explained why, while saying the burden is on the conspiracy theorist. I'm not the conspiracy theorist. I'm neutral but open to possibility and you haven't swayed me towards either conclusion. My only problem with what you've said is you're attacking people who think it was intentional, but you haven't explained why that's a stupid thought.
Because the story is known, documented, and makes sense.
And because sinking ocean liners is normally an act of war, not an assassination plot. Nor is it ever explained how an iceberg was wrangled to get in the way of the Titanic. Or why that was the most reliable and effective method of assassination (not to say most economical).
And the burden is on the conspiracy theorist, because the weight of evidence is against the conspiracy. So the burden is to disprove the evidence (a hard thing to do). Usually, the theorists totally avoid any attempt to do that and accuse the evidence of being fake.
Why are they stupid? Because they are willing to believe something that is entirely fictional. They think in terms of "But, couldn't it be this way?" instead of "Here is what is amiss with the original evidence. Other evidence that conflicts with the original evidence."
On top of everything is the unquestioned premise that had these three men not been killed, the Federal Reserve would not have happened. As a lifelong observer of government, that is not a bet I would take.
So, there is a lot of swallowing one has to do. I'll pass.
Fair. Thank you for the explanation.
That's okay. The more you dig into the background, you begin to realize that everyone responsible was trying to do the right thing...with, as it turns out, mistaken assumptions, ignorance of key facts, and a rescue plan that turned out not to be very effective. Some have pointed out that the Titanic might have survived the impact if it had driven directly into the berg. The bow would have been crushed, but the anti-flooding compartments would not have been breached. Damaged, but recoverable. It makes one wonder.