Ed,
Jones, my question is, at what point do suggested events become
so implausible to be deemed impossible? At what point does an
active imagination lose contact with reality and how can this
point be identified?
Like beauty, "plausibility" is in the eye of each beholder, but
please...
... do not be so naive as to think that the more-implausible and
the more-insane of the associated conspiracy theories which you
and I have been hearing with regards to 9/11 - were not themselves
planted or promoted by those whose interests involve keeping
secret, one "less-implausible" event.
In other words, how can we define sanity and identify insanity?
Yes, we can... but it is a shifting target... somewhat like
defining "pornography" ... where the late Supreme Court Justice
Potter Stewart famoulsy exclaimed, "I know it when I see it" ...
the so-called Potty-test.
For a start, can we agree that invading a soverign country under
false pretenses - is itself insane, correct?
Now that we have established that underlying fact, we can move on
to lesser instances of risk vs. rewards in governmental activity.
With this Iraq invasion as a standard for insanity, one can not
totally rule-out certain other activities - even if they are to
some degree - implausible.
Without such an understanding, we can never interpret another
person's claims or even the action of our government.
As sane individuals, most of us have great difficulty in
discounting enough, the level of ingrained insanity in government,
issuing out of the "red-scare" and "cold-war" years - when such
was actively encouraged - and indeed promotions within the agency
depended to a degree on who was the most extreme.
Should we believe the people who claim the government has placed
thought controlling devices in their homes?
No, not unless they can produce the actual device
Should we believed claims that chemicals are being rained down
upon us from secret airplanes in order to achieve an unknown
objective?
No. Not without trace evidence of such chemicals
Should we believe that the weather is being controlled to
increase the profits of the oil companies?
Not for that particular end (profits), in-and-of-itself - but as
to the braoder issue of influencing "weather control," as a
plausible goal of high-level intervention... hmmm... now that you
mention it...
...one hopes that you did not miss the latest news on Haarp ;-)
Again this is something that is within the range of plausibility
(for weather control) just based on the enormous amount of power
being used.
HAARP (the High frequency Active Auroral Research Program) will be
adding 132 more transmitters to bring their total number of
transmitters to 180. The installation began in 1993 with 18
transmitters, expanded to 48 in 1998 and will grow to 180
transmitters. The final expansion will bring the HAARP array to
full power, with ERP increasing to about 4 billion Watts!!
There is speculation that the project is an "effort to develop
ways to jam the electronics of incoming missiles from Russia
and/or China".
4 billion Watts oughtta be overkill for radio jamming but as for
weahter control, who knows ??
Using the Potty-test, this amount of power for the stated aim is
"insane" but is it insane enoguh to be related to an attmept at
weather control?
Doubtful, but plausible ...
Where does it end?
Regards, Ed
Not with 4 billion watts, nor with contructing a new building
number 7 - that much is for sure...
Regards,
Jones
