Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - silverhammermba

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a theory
« on: October 13, 2008, 02:46:11 AM »
Even if this forum is a noble effort to get people to question their beliefs, it still pisses me off. There can be no constructive discussion whatsoever when people like Tom Bishop get involved. Every argument devolves into wild speculation and gross defiance of Occam's razor on the part of the FEers and just rage on the part of the REers.

Not to mention that this entire forum is like backwards land. For some reason FET is the accepted norm here and us REers have to defend what is, in the real world, widely accepted scientific fact. Even Einstein, when he first came up with relativity, had to defend his new theory against the onslaught of skeptical physicists. Just because this is a FE forum doesn't mean you can go around starting every argument with "Assume FET is true...". That's no way to get the respect of unbelievers.

The only valid method is proof by contradiction:
1. Assume the Earth is round
2. We know X to be true
3. A round Earth cannot explain X
4. Therefore the Earth is not round

Once you do that, then you can start talking about all of this UA nonsense and whatnot.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Land Ho
« on: October 13, 2008, 02:16:08 AM »
Yeah. The air is less dense up there. And the way the light refracts combined with air pollution and the perspective of the observer makes the land invisible when you're too close to the water.

Oh wait, no. No flat Earth explanation makes sense. Good luck getting a decent response.

Cpt Bthimes was banned!? That is a real blow against the REers on this forum.

Anyway, the sinking ship effect cannot be explained by Tom's magical laws of perspective. His argument makes absolutely no sense. A handful of eyewitness accounts may seem compelling... until you realize that there are millions of eyewitness accounts from people who saw ship's hulls disappearing over the horizon.

Tom seems to think that ships' hulls are actually intelligent creatures that can tell whether or not you're looking at them through the proper FE-approve telescope and decide whether or not to show themselves accordingly.

What a magical world Tom must live in! When the hull of a ship is far enough that its apparent size is "beyond the resolution of the human eye" (i.e. less than one minute of a degree) the rest of the ship (which is the same distance away) somehow isn't! So the human eye is designed to selectively not see ships' hulls!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: What happened to the Monterey Bay thread?
« on: May 05, 2008, 08:27:13 AM »
ITT: I hate narcberry so much.

This is a completely valid argument against FE. The refraction has nothing to do with it because even without it in the equation, the direct result is that the Earth is round (but with a different diameter). As I have said numerous times before, FE defies the commonly accepted models for physics and geometry (i.e. perspective). Is it really so much to demand that some FEer stops arguing about the accuracy of the website's calculations and simply explains why we see such an effect at all?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Effects of Gravitation
« on: May 05, 2008, 08:19:21 AM »
Congratulations, eric bloedow, you have completely derailed the thread.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I'll give it a go!
« on: May 05, 2008, 08:07:18 AM »
I leave for a couple of weeks and narcberry comes back!? Ugh... now I'm depressed.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Why is a round earth so hard to believe?
« on: May 05, 2008, 08:04:46 AM »
I appreciate your curiosity, Cheesesack, but you're asking questions and proposing ideas that have been mentioned over and over and over again on these forums. You should probably use the search feature and read older threads to find answers to your question because most of the forum veterans don't bother answering the same questions repeatedly.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Hybrid Solar Eclipses...
« on: March 19, 2008, 10:18:16 PM »
I'm just calling this right now: if Tom ever posts in this thread it will be a very large post quoting ENaG excessively. That's usually how these threads go.

There have been tons of topics like this with completely valid points left unexplained by FEers. In the end they are always forgotten - and so FEers continue to not see the mountain of contrary evidence directly in front of them.

The Lounge / Re: Fictitious Forces
« on: March 19, 2008, 10:09:33 PM »
And that makes it okay? I'm sick of threads getting derailed in this manner. It'd be a lot easier to carry on a discussion if more people bothered putting down a complete response in their reply rather than some smart-ass, off-the-cuff retort.

The Lounge / Re: Fictitious Forces
« on: March 19, 2008, 10:06:00 PM »
As usual, TheEngineer is more content to mince words, point out typos, and make sarcastic and ambiguous responses rather than actually answer any questions in a direct and complete manner. Even if he's correct, it doesn't change the fact that he's only making the argument more drawn out and difficult to follow.

It almost freaks me out how far Tom will bend reality to maintain his narrow-minded views.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Shadow Object
« on: March 19, 2008, 12:26:35 AM »
Also, the question of vantage points was glossed over. That is, if the sun illuminates the moon in the FE model, then people in different parts of the world would see very different phases. Answers, people!

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Is the sun flat?
« on: March 19, 2008, 12:22:01 AM »
The Earth has life, for one.

And the other planets and moons do not? How do you know this?

Seriously, if it were clouds they would not be any kind of cloud that we know (considering how staggeringly predictable they are, especially).

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The all-new conspiracy theory!
« on: March 19, 2008, 12:14:59 AM »
If NASA has never been to space and simply fakes their data to win the space race/get funding/maintain the illusion of America's militaristic domination of space, then how would they know that the earth is flat?

NASA has never been to space therefore they cannot know that the Earth is flat.


Tom knows the Earth is flat, therefore Tom has been to space!

What was it like!?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Now here's an idea regarding the conspiracy
« on: January 21, 2008, 07:56:45 AM »
If conspiracy theory is acceptable, then we must also accept even the most obviously unacceptable theories as plausible due to conspiracy theories providing as much evidence as necessary.

Not as plausible, possible. But yes.

Well it seems to me that you are refuting Occam's razor.

I'm refuting it because it holds no substance in establishing actual fact. Using it in an argument for proof of a theory's incorrectness is silly.

Also, one must remember that the basis of science is assumption: we can never truly know all of the facts.

Science is based off of assumptions: we can never truly know the facts. Also, any theory could possibly be true. We agree on these points. However, the truth of most theories is mutually exclusive: FET and RET cannot both be entirely true. And just because every theory is possible doesn't mean that they're all equally possible. However, you keep insisting that the probability of a theory has nothing at all to do with its validity. I ask again, what then are your criteria for determining the superior theory in the case of mutual exclusiveness?

Unfairness is subjective.
You're avoiding my question. What is the  point of using an argument that you know no person can practically verify? That's where most of our problems come from on these forums: people refusing to accept the other side's arguments because they can't verify the evidence for themselves. FEers keep whining when REers are unable to produce repeatable evidence of the curvature of the horizon, etc. But then those same FEers seem completely fine with invoking the conspiracy as an explanation when it's even more impractical for any REer to confirm such evidence.

Answered in the post.  Whether such evidence is to be trusted or not is subjective, but that's true for most RE evidence, too.

The predominant theory of the shape of the earth is contradicted by Rowbotham's results, so it does not explain everything just fine if the results are to be believed.  Again, whether one chooses to believe the results is subjective, and anyone who claims to have duplicated the experiments and gotten similar results (as a couple here claim to have done) would have grounds for believing the earth to be flat, at least from his point of view.
Subjective, yes. But yet again, the two theories are not at all equal. RET has vast amounts of evidence supporting it - especially considering that without RET, most modern physics (which are capable of incredibly accurate predictions) would have to be scrapped. Also, what little evidence has been provided for FET has been strongly refuted with arguments that I have yet to see countered. The mere existence of possible contrary evidence is not justification for giving said evidence equal bearing as the mainstream theories.
When it comes to choosing which evidence is to be believed, there is a mote of subjectiveness involved - but simple rational thought and careful application of Occam's razor easily determine the most logical theory to support. Unless of course you don't believe in the use of Occam's razor and just choose whichever theory tickles your fancy at the time.

Lastly, someone with knowledge of High School physics and basic logic could point out the flaws in Rowbotham's theories. Whereas the ancient Greeks, with only basic trigonometry and observation, collected strong evidence that the Earth was round, calculated its size, and even the distance to the Sun with respectable accuracy (by today's standards).

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Now here's an idea regarding the conspiracy
« on: January 21, 2008, 12:53:39 AM »
That's not what I meant. When you start with the idea of the Earth actually being flat, whether you use Rowbotham as justification or other reasons, conspiracy is a logical piece that becomes added.

Yes, when you start with the idea of the Earth actually being flat. How do you justify starting at that point? By what authority can we assume that FET is true when the predominant theory of the shape of the Earth explains everything just fine?

And to put a finer point on my previous posts, the reason why conspiracy theory must be avoided is due to it being a (non-fallacious case of a) slippery slope. If conspiracy theory is acceptable, then we must also accept even the most obviously unacceptable theories as plausible due to conspiracy theories providing as much evidence as necessary.

I wouldn't say entirely. Perhaps to the capabilities of forum members it could apply, but in the grand scheme, it is in no way untestable or unobservable.

But are we not debating on a forum? Is it not entirely unfair then to use an argument the integrity of which cannot be practically verified by any member of the debate? What if I started off a point with "Well you just take your super collider and..."? My argument may be sound, but no one on these forums has access to a super collider so it makes no sense for me to use it as evidence for my assertions. But with a conspiracy it's even worse because the nature of the conspiracy is assumed to be actively hidden from the public - thus very difficult to research.

Assumption of what? That the Earth is flat? When did I say I assumed such?

Well it seems to me that you are refuting Occam's razor. Also, one must remember that the basis of science is assumption: we can never truly know all of the facts.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: what would convice you
« on: January 21, 2008, 12:29:41 AM »

I have asked this before. The question was largely ignored when I asked it. TheEngineer was the only FEer to seriously reply. Most REers said that a trip to Antarctica to verify the existence of the ice wall would convince them of FET.

How could anything convince me that the earth is round when I already know that it's flat?
Your scientific ignorance is so obnoxiously apparent. A true scientist knows that he can never "know" anything about our universe. The best we can ever do is theorize - and to take a theory as absolute irrefutable truth is frankly ridiculous. If you cannot possibly be swayed to the other side, why debate? Debate without uncertainty is not debate - it's just stupid people yelling at each other.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The FE sun is impossible
« on: January 21, 2008, 12:24:53 AM »
I didn't read all 21 pages of this thread.

Anyway, I still don't get Tom's argument. The sun shines like a spot light... but it also shines in all directions. So the argument is that the more perpendicular the rays of light are to the Earth, the less they are distorted? How do we go from distortion to a strictly cut off circular area of light? Also, I'm sure that if we map the day/night cycle onto FE's distorted model of the Earth, the lit portions would definitely not be circular in the least. I'm going to try to whip up a drawing. Alright, done!

I took the two reference pictures from which is, of course, part of the conspiracy. But you'd be a fool to try to refute these day/night cycles. They can be easily verified by anyone with traveling experience and/or overseas acquaintances. The crudely drawn lines are simply estimations of the day/night divide for two different times. Notice how difficult they are to explain via hand-waving and pseudoscience.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Alfred Russel Wallace
« on: January 20, 2008, 11:57:52 PM »
Regardless, we do seem to be straying a little to close to ad hominem fallacy. Wallace may have been a plagiarizing, greedy, spiritualist jerk - but that seems somewhat irrelevant to the fidelity of his observational skills. One might argue that Wallace did have a financial benefit to faking the experiment, but considering that it was a competition (judged by a third party) it seems highly unlikely that Wallace's character would be a problematic factor.

As for the plagiarism, one would think that Darwin would be Wallace's harshest critic if your claims are true. However, evidence from Darwin's writing seems to state quite clearly the exact opposite. Also, Dogplatter, you keep stressing that Wallace claims he discovered in a hallucination what it had taken 20 years for Darwin to develop. You seem to forget that Wallace had been studying nature in Brazil and other locations for 10 years before his 'hallucination' - and that Darwin used some of Wallace's publications in his research!

And regarding the original line of discussion: one single, vague reference to an FE book by Wallace is hardly definitive evidence (especially when vast amounts of RE evidence are so easily written off as nothing).

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Whence Cometh the Wind? An Answer to Raa
« on: January 20, 2008, 11:32:05 PM »
But isn't this completely unrelated to the model that most FEers stand by? I was under the impression that this forum was for discussing one particular flat Earth theory, not just any non-round theory.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor
« on: January 04, 2008, 03:10:27 PM »
Yes, they have made it clear that they welcome opposing viewpoints from any members of the scientific community. No, they have not claimed to have undeniable proof.  You say they came to you by confronting mainstream science.  I say they expressed their opinion in a controlled environment and then you came to tell them they're wrong.  You (the REers in general) are the evangelists.  You are knocking on the door.

Well I resent being grouped in with all REers. You shouldn't do so because your counterpoint does not apply to me at all. You say that I "came to tell them they're wrong" which is exactly what I have not been doing (at least more recently). I, unlike many REers, realize that I don't need to come and prove the FES wrong. Why? Because the Flat Earth Society are the ones with burden of proof! That's why I've been starting all of these threads challenging the FEers to demonstrate the validity of their own theory rather than saying over and over and over again "there isn't actually evidence for RET", "all of the evidence for RET is fake", "how do you know that the Earth is round?" You get it? You're arguing for my position, Mongrelman!

And as far as contrary evidence goes, I refer you to Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot:
Quote from: Bertrand Russell
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
Though Russell is addressing religion, the parable applies just as well to FET. Even though there is no contrary evidence for FET (that is, any evidence that an FEer will accept) it still has the burden of proof. As I have stated before, only once FET exceeds RET in its explanation of reality will the burden of proof shift. So long as FET inadequately explains reality or even explains reality just as much as RET, the currently accepted view will be held.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Now here's an idea regarding the conspiracy
« on: January 04, 2008, 02:48:03 PM »
To say that the logical progression of thought demands conspiracy is ridiculous. The existence of a conspiracy is only demanded if the basis of its existence is undeniably true. In our case, that would be FET. So unless you can prove that the Earth is flat (without the conspiracy) then there is absolutely no rational "demand" for the conspiracy in the first place. It's circular logic.

It doesn't bring things to a standstill; it simply showcases much the point of many FEers and many others on this site. You are forced to rely on the information you are spoon-fed. You cannot choose what you're taught in the beginning and come to accept it as fact. The problem lies in that you cannot know for sure whether or not that's actually the case.

Okay, it's sort of fun to think about it hypothetically. But even though you cannot know for sure whether or not the conspiracy is real, I'd say that that's hardly a justification for assuming its existence when it comes to the real world. Are you familiar with Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot? Look it up, the argument is entirely applicable to such a conspiracy theory as we are discussing.

And if you do live by probability as you claim, explain to me what basis you have for assumption when there is a lack of conclusive evidence. I know that I don't going around trying to convince people of things that I think are highly unlikely as that directly translates to a high probability of me lying to them. Probability and truth cannot be equivalent (as one is theoretical and one is absolute), but with no evidence what else does one have?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: New Revised Flat Earth FAQ!
« on: January 01, 2008, 11:28:12 PM »
Wow, I'm surprised I learned a bit from the new f.a.q.

What the hell is this antimoon? I've never heard it mentioned and it frankly sounds like more backwards logic.

Do most FEers now believe that spaceflight is possible? This is completely new to me. Has there been any debate about why the stars exhibit gravitational pull but not anything else? (I suppose FEers say they're made out of a special kind of matter or something?)

Thank you so much for saying that the cause of sinking ships is unknown. Though I would phrase it differently as "the theory of the vanishing point" is a bit vague and misleading. Perhaps simply:
Unknown.  It is speculated that the laws of perspective operate differently.
Since the only attempted explanation I've heard is from Tom Bishop or Rowbotham, neither of which are very credible.

Also for the motives of the conspiracy, I don't think that they are entirely decided. Your answer seems very definite, but I've never seen this topic sufficiently discussed to call it a solid explanation. The most apparent problem I can think of is that most countries do not have a space program as robust or as well-funded us NASA thus removing the incentive for much of the world. Also, a global conspiracy seems like way too much effort to go through when its simply an excuse for a tax hike.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor
« on: January 01, 2008, 11:07:59 PM »
Mongrelman, good points but I still disagree.

If the FES were to develop another site where they made it perfectly clear that REers were not welcome to join, only then would I not care if they assumed RET had the burden of proof. Such is not the case though.

Position - be it physical as in your analogy of evangelists, or electronic as in the case of this forum - is utterly irrelevant. FET is a scientific theory as it is a theory regarding the nature of reality. You say that the FEers "did not come to me". Wrong, they did. Even though I joined this FES forum to debate the theory, it was through the act of formally establishing FET via this website that the FES confronted the mainstream scientific community. Since I am in agreement with the mainstream community, then I was one of those people confronted. I'm pretty sure that the FES has made it clear that they want to spread their theory and convince more people of its truth. Even though they are not pursuing this evangelically in the physical sense of going out and forcing FET upon people, they are doing so scientifically simply by believing in and trying to prove a theory that contradicts the mainstream scientific view.

The FES has made it clear that this forum is open to anyone, thus any member of the scientific community. So long as they maintain this view point, the burden of proof necessarily lies on them.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Now here's an idea regarding the conspiracy
« on: January 01, 2008, 10:47:17 PM »
Or it could be that, you know, conspiracy thing. It helps to know what it means and you can then understand how details would be hard to come by or confirm.

To suggest that the FES should know about a conspiracy is just illogical. Just because through their beliefs, they need to infer and invoke conspiracy does not mean that they know intimate details and other such information.

Okay, my bad. The FEers don't keep it intentionally vague, as a conspiracy it is highly difficult to know anything specific about it thus one can always attribute any contrary evidence to the conspiracy. Either way, it's still just as all-powerful. And I'm not suggesting that the FES should know specifics about the conspiracy, I'm suggesting that the FES cannot rely on the existence of the conspiracy if they want to get any respect from rational, scientific-minded people or want to actually hold logical, productive debate.

I haven't fully thought about whether or not reliance on the conspiracy is fallacious, but it certainly damages rational debate. The explanation is simple: if one is to logically accept conspiracy theories as bases for other theories then it becomes possible to generate evidence for practically any theory - even those that are obviously flawed. To allow conspiracy in debate is to adopt an entirely un-skeptical view - to believe (or support) everything. I suppose that my point is that when you're trying to debate an issue, you have to establish rational guidelines for what can or cannot be allowed as evidence and that allowing conspiracy to enter into it instantly brings everything to a standstill.

Oh, and your "it violates Occam's Razor" is silly. Occam's Razor is not a law, but merely a practice in applying probabilities. I doubt that anyone here will argue that an FE and the conspiracy involving space agencies is something that's probable.

Occam's razor isn't a law, nor is it a practice in applying probabilities. Though probability could be used as a justification for the principle, the idea is simply to minimize assumption. Logically, as assumption decreases and evidence increases, theories become more accurate to reality. Are you really saying that you don't apply Occam's razor? If so, then I'm afraid that we'll be able to make very little progress in any debate. I must ask you, if nobody here believes that conspiracy or FET are probable then why the hell would you ever go around arguing that they're the truth!?

No. Since 2000 B.C. Man has mistakenly in believing the earth to be a globe due to nothing more than a few observations and blind assumptions. The Conspiracy is simply the manifestation of that belief into NASA's hoax. NASA used the globe as the model of the earth since everyone, including the hoaxers themselves, had honestly believed the earth to be a globe for thousands of years. In fact, the Conspirators to this day likely still believe that the earth is a globe.

Since NASA has never been to space, no one knows what shape the earth truly takes.

If one believes that the Earth is truly a globe, then it really isn't necessary to make a conspiracy is it? If I believed something to be true, rather than spreading the word through secrecy and subterfuge I'd just openly help people to realize what is obviously true. I think that saying there's a conspiracy trying to trick people into thinking the Earth is round sort of implies that the conspirators know the Earth is flat or at least do not presume to know the true shape (in which case, why the hell are they conspiring about it?).

Lastly, I'm pretty sure that the human race has discovered many truths without having to look at them.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Occam's Razor
« on: December 31, 2007, 09:39:31 AM »
This 'proof' removes the burden of proof from the RE'ers, just as it removed the burden of proof from those who think matter is composed of atoms, and who think that atoms are composed of specific particles.

Bullshit.  That is circular reasoning.  That "proof" is what you can use in your defense of a RE on a forum that sees things from a FE perspective.  Since it's the REers' view that is the unorthodox one here, it is up to the REers to demonstrate why their model is the correct one.  Because of the nature of this site, the burden of proof sits squarely on the REers' shoulders.

If that wasn't the case, every REer here could just say "We know the earth is round from rigorous experimentation so we don't need to prove it!"

I disagree strongly. Regardless of circular reasoning, the burden of proof lies on FET which is so far completely unable of explaining the universe.

You talk about the burden of proof on this forum as though there are different levels of it!? Are you crazy? You're trying to prove FET - a scientific theory. And you're talking about different scopes of burden of proof as though making your own forum for something suddenly allows you to assume its validity. Since you're trying to prove a scientific theory, when you deal with burden of proof you must take into account the entire scientific community to establish the burden (hint: most scientists think the Earth is round). You don't seem to understand how science works at all.

When the big bang theory was being developed, the proponents didn't go around attacking the other theories of the universe's development, trying to prove them wrong. What they did was they tried to find evidence that only the big bang theory could explain. That's how you do it. If a theory is accepted by the community, then you never actually try to disprove that theory - you simply come up with new theories that explain reality better. Thus the old theories are sort of disproved automatically when the more accurate theory is adopted. A good case of this was when Einstein came up with special relativity as a replacement for Newton's laws of gravity. He didn't go around to other scientists saying "Well prove to me that gravity is correct!" Instead he looked for evidence that only special relativity could explain. Once such evidence was found, gravity was automatically abandoned since it was clearly not as accurate a theory.

So it's insane that you think just because we're on a FE forum that you don't have to prove anything about your theory. Even if FET explained reality as well as RET (which it doesn't) then you'd still have to find evidence for why FET is more accurate (which has yet to happen). If I make forum about how I think that Big Foot exists then I can't assume that he does and say that all evidence of Big Foot's non-existence is faked.

Edit: oops, it was general relativity.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Now here's an idea regarding the conspiracy
« on: December 31, 2007, 09:10:00 AM »
The conspiracy could be less then a century old. They don't need to fake any evidence, only evidence regarding earth. They don't need to silence any person, only those with ways of proving the truth. They don't need to manipulate any government, only those that can reach space.

Oh but the conspiracy is all-powerful. The FEers intentionally keep the specifications of the conspiracy vague so that they can use it as an argument in any situation. I assure you, if the FEers were to say that the conspiracy started in 1867 (or whatever) and then you found some evidence from 1865 that showed that the Earth was round then all of a sudden the FEers would be saying how the conspiracy actually started in 1864. Or, they could even say that the conspiracy created false evidence and dated it as 1865 so that people wouldn't suspect. So the conspiracy can account for any discrepancy from any period in time. And since the conspiracy can silence those "with ways of proving the truth" then you can claim that any person in the past was an ardent FEer who was silenced by the conspiracy. Thus the conspiracy can silence any person.

You see what I mean? The conspiracy isn't technically all-powerful, but the FEers are always stretching their views on how powerful the conspiracy is so that they can continue to use it as a tool for their ridiculous theory! Since one can always find more evidence against FET, the FEers can continue changing their minds about the influence of the conspiracy indefinitely. Hence omnipotence.

jimztar, the link works for me. And Tom, where are you!?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Now here's an idea regarding the conspiracy
« on: December 28, 2007, 09:46:48 PM »
But we're not talking just any conspiracy, we're talking about an age-old all-powerful worldwide conspiracy. A conspiracy so powerful that they can fake any evidence, silence any person, manipulate any government. With that kind of power comes invulnerability to rational debunking. Such a conspiracy theory is not a legitimate theory because it is essentially impossible to prove or disprove.

Little conspiracy theories such as those regarding assassinations aren't a problem because they are not all-powerful and thus possible to verify.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6