Ernest Hancock
Letters to the Editor • Conspiracies
Finding Black Holes
Finding Black Holes - in response to Mike Renzulli
Sir,
I understand your negativity concerning the vast number of hypotheses floating around in the ether which qualify under the general category of "paranoid conspiracy theories", the adjective may or may not be necessary.
However, I would also point out that by the nature of requiring complete evidence, you are also presuming some transparency in government. To many of us, that is, to anyone that isn\'t a statist, per se, that assumption ranks equally with your opinion of "conspiracy theories". It was Mayor Richard J. Daley who noted, in part, that his police were "there to preserve disorder." Many of us who lived in Chicago believe this to be the most accurate statement he ever made. It has been observed by many before me that to actually know what someone thinks and believes, you have to observe their actions, avoiding the attachment of any import to their words. Nothing is more true of politicians, whose behaviours are rampant with "promises" but whose deeds consistently serve those who pay for the election campaign.
Using your criteria for conspiracies, I suspect the discovery of black holes in space would not have happened. Why? The reason is that Black Holes have to be discovered by inference - as the Planets beyond Jupiter and Saturn have been similarly discovered. Astronomers, in their assiduous observations of planetary motions, discovered the gravitational perturbations of planets that, they surmised, could have only been caused by other celestial bodies not quite observed, as yet. Using this tool, the planets were eventually observed; as were the Black Holes discovered by inference.
One cannot see a "Black Hole", by definition. However, its impact on nearby bodies is quite clear - thus the necessary inference of "something of which we are not aware", eventually discovered to be collapsed stars.
I remember, as a child, watching the report of the "Magic Bullet" and knowing at the time that this was "voodoo forensics", having observed the physics of colliding bodies and the inferred law of energy conservation. However, one has to infer "something" because you saw what happened, but the "official" explanation did not account for the reality of physics or correspond with what you saw. Similarly, the reactions of people near the shooting did not correspond to what would be the reactions were the official version true. It is a matter of observation and common sense, that’s all.
Similarly, I was in the UK on 9/11. I\'ve seen buildings come down from weakened structural supports and I\'ve also seen buildings come down when they were "pulled". When I went home that evening, having watched the events on the internet, I told my wife that the towers were "pulled" - not being aware of any official explanations, as yet, just my observations from thousands of miles away.
The judgemental error that many "conspiracy theorists" make is that they want to attribute blame to "someone". This causes considerable controversy. I would contend that the fact that the government lies is simply a function of...well...government and the first point of establishing the playing field. The attribution of cause is not as relevant as determining that we are being played for fools. Whether or not the government believes that they are a law unto themselves is irrelevant in that their actions show them to behave as such.
It is, again, that you have to watch, observe, and know what you see. For example, it is not reasonable for the government to expect us to believe that Flight 93 "vapourised" when the Pan Am flight over Lockerbee, falling from a higher altitude, came down in identifiable pieces. Indeed different causes, but I think you can see the problem with the physics, there, to say nothing of the nature of titanium alloy physical science.
Similarly, the lack of aircraft pieces at the Pentagon on 9/11 would lead one to conclude that it was something else that caused that explosion and fire. One is prompted to ask why, but that is another issue.
Similarly, the housing bubble did not cause the financial disaster we have, today. Indeed, it participated, but the kick-off was the massive unloading of securitised debt instruments in Europe, far more massive than usual for the quarterly audit clear-out - a virtual deleveraging of bank Balance sheets. One has to ask why? From a Treasury standpoint, unless the banks were covered in put options, it is an incredibly irresponsible move, one that no self-respecting bank Treasurer would ever allow. And is that not curious?
One also find it convenient that the "mark to market" rule was instituted a few years ago, this rule is what condemned the Banks to failure, by the way, when otherwise, this massive off-loading would probably have been handled in the way that the South American debt repudiation of the early 70\'s was handled.
Sir, the problem with any government-issue explanation is that most everyone that isn\'t over-drugged, virtually asleep, or a complete dullard AND is not a rampant statist finds explanations from the state to be increasingly at odds with the reality they can see, irrespective of the attribution. Being a bit or more of a statist as you might be, you might take the opposite view.
I am perfectly happy with your comfort with the state. I hope you enjoy it. However, as Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.” Many of us presume that this, within the context of governments since 1912, means that Liberty, the cause for which many Americans died, is reserved by the state and more and more our share of this elusive quality is waning. To our mind, if I may say so, the New World Order generally means that the government controls the world and gives us the orders - which will mean simply a return to the Dark Ages culture. By the way, how comfortable are you with being part of the Third Estate?
Sir,
I understand your negativity concerning the vast number of hypotheses floating around in the ether which qualify under the general category of "paranoid conspiracy theories", the adjective may or may not be necessary.
However, I would also point out that by the nature of requiring complete evidence, you are also presuming some transparency in government. To many of us, that is, to anyone that isn\'t a statist, per se, that assumption ranks equally with your opinion of "conspiracy theories". It was Mayor Richard J. Daley who noted, in part, that his police were "there to preserve disorder." Many of us who lived in Chicago believe this to be the most accurate statement he ever made. It has been observed by many before me that to actually know what someone thinks and believes, you have to observe their actions, avoiding the attachment of any import to their words. Nothing is more true of politicians, whose behaviours are rampant with "promises" but whose deeds consistently serve those who pay for the election campaign.
Using your criteria for conspiracies, I suspect the discovery of black holes in space would not have happened. Why? The reason is that Black Holes have to be discovered by inference - as the Planets beyond Jupiter and Saturn have been similarly discovered. Astronomers, in their assiduous observations of planetary motions, discovered the gravitational perturbations of planets that, they surmised, could have only been caused by other celestial bodies not quite observed, as yet. Using this tool, the planets were eventually observed; as were the Black Holes discovered by inference.
One cannot see a "Black Hole", by definition. However, its impact on nearby bodies is quite clear - thus the necessary inference of "something of which we are not aware", eventually discovered to be collapsed stars.
I remember, as a child, watching the report of the "Magic Bullet" and knowing at the time that this was "voodoo forensics", having observed the physics of colliding bodies and the inferred law of energy conservation. However, one has to infer "something" because you saw what happened, but the "official" explanation did not account for the reality of physics or correspond with what you saw. Similarly, the reactions of people near the shooting did not correspond to what would be the reactions were the official version true. It is a matter of observation and common sense, that’s all.
Similarly, I was in the UK on 9/11. I\'ve seen buildings come down from weakened structural supports and I\'ve also seen buildings come down when they were "pulled". When I went home that evening, having watched the events on the internet, I told my wife that the towers were "pulled" - not being aware of any official explanations, as yet, just my observations from thousands of miles away.
The judgemental error that many "conspiracy theorists" make is that they want to attribute blame to "someone". This causes considerable controversy. I would contend that the fact that the government lies is simply a function of...well...government and the first point of establishing the playing field. The attribution of cause is not as relevant as determining that we are being played for fools. Whether or not the government believes that they are a law unto themselves is irrelevant in that their actions show them to behave as such.
It is, again, that you have to watch, observe, and know what you see. For example, it is not reasonable for the government to expect us to believe that Flight 93 "vapourised" when the Pan Am flight over Lockerbee, falling from a higher altitude, came down in identifiable pieces. Indeed different causes, but I think you can see the problem with the physics, there, to say nothing of the nature of titanium alloy physical science.
Similarly, the lack of aircraft pieces at the Pentagon on 9/11 would lead one to conclude that it was something else that caused that explosion and fire. One is prompted to ask why, but that is another issue.
Similarly, the housing bubble did not cause the financial disaster we have, today. Indeed, it participated, but the kick-off was the massive unloading of securitised debt instruments in Europe, far more massive than usual for the quarterly audit clear-out - a virtual deleveraging of bank Balance sheets. One has to ask why? From a Treasury standpoint, unless the banks were covered in put options, it is an incredibly irresponsible move, one that no self-respecting bank Treasurer would ever allow. And is that not curious?
One also find it convenient that the "mark to market" rule was instituted a few years ago, this rule is what condemned the Banks to failure, by the way, when otherwise, this massive off-loading would probably have been handled in the way that the South American debt repudiation of the early 70\'s was handled.
Sir, the problem with any government-issue explanation is that most everyone that isn\'t over-drugged, virtually asleep, or a complete dullard AND is not a rampant statist finds explanations from the state to be increasingly at odds with the reality they can see, irrespective of the attribution. Being a bit or more of a statist as you might be, you might take the opposite view.
I am perfectly happy with your comfort with the state. I hope you enjoy it. However, as Jefferson said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.” Many of us presume that this, within the context of governments since 1912, means that Liberty, the cause for which many Americans died, is reserved by the state and more and more our share of this elusive quality is waning. To our mind, if I may say so, the New World Order generally means that the government controls the world and gives us the orders - which will mean simply a return to the Dark Ages culture. By the way, how comfortable are you with being part of the Third Estate?