Suspicious train derailments/ oil pipelines

[BelieveNothing]

An example would be the claim that the Boston Marathon bombings were a false flag carried out by a Government contracted security firm. Proof being pictures of a couple of guys with backpacks and hats bearing the logo of said security firm. Now, applying just a little bit of common sense, if this were true, do you think said operatives would have been wearing ball caps with the logo on them? Of course not, yet CT'ers ignore common sense.

As you pointed out, Ockham's razor, the simplest answer being the most likely:

Have you heard of reverse psychology?

How do you know for certain that the terrorists or, better yet, the producers and costume designers, did not decide to put these 'players' right out there in the open with their identifiable hats on simply to detract from any speculation or suspicion that they were in any way involved with the bombings.

Who would even question them?

Who would even suspect it? its too simple, too transparent, too out in the open.

Exactly.

This approach seems much more "simple" to me than what you are suggesting.

You do not know for a fact anymore than I do or those that you continue to label CT's, who was or was not involved.

(attack removed - fluffy)

[goatboy]

You do not know for a fact anymore than I do or those that you continue to label CT's, who was or was not involved.

I suppose you're right but without evidence to the contrary, which is most likely?

Is there a chance that it was a false flag. Of course, not much in life is 100% certain. However, it is so extremely unlikely that the chance of it being true is negligible. I could become the Prime Minister of Canada. It's a possibility but is so unlikely to happen as being a conclusion that is not even worth debating.

You provide me compelling reasons why any of what you claim is true, not some "evidence" put together by assuming a possibility is "evidence", ie:

How do you know for certain that the terrorists or, better yet, the producers and costume designers, did not decide to put these 'players' right out there in the open with their identifiable hats on simply to detract from any speculation or suspicion that they were in any way involved with the bombings.

This type of reasoning, making observations meet a pre-determined outcome, can be applied to every single event in history, to support any explanation someone may have for that event. The onus is on proving that the terrorists or costume designers were even associated to these men. Until that first step is taken, the point is without any merit. The same goes for any further loose association that are made between observations and some conclusion you may be trying to support.

[BelieveNothing]

However, it is so extremely unlikely that the chance of it being true is negligible.

IF you base your decision to discontinue a line of investigation based on the idea that "it is extremely unlikely" I posset to you, THAT is negligible.

In my opinion, all information is relevant.

This type of reasoning, making observations meet a pre-determined outcome, can be applied to every single event in history, to support any explanation someone may have for that event. The onus is on proving that the terrorists or costume designers were even associated to these men. Until that first step is taken, the point is without any merit. The same goes for any further loose association that are made between observations and some conclusion you may be trying to support.

I agree, however according to your psychology; if you were the investigator you would not bother to suspect or question these men in hats, because; they are extremely unlikely suspects.

All information is to be considered, nothing is seen by me as "irrelevant, non-consequential or moot.

What is interesting to me is that in the case of the Boston Marathon, our stance, our vantage points, are no different from one another, the only difference is our perception and our willingness to see all information as pertinent.

[goatboy]

IF you base your decision to discontinue a line of investigation based on the idea that "it is extremely unlikely" I posset to you, THAT is negligible.

In my opinion, all information is relevant.

I agree, however according to your psychology; if you were the investigator you would not bother to suspect or question these men in hats, because; they are extremely unlikely suspects.

All information is to be considered, nothing is seen by me as "irrelevant, non-consequential or moot.

What is interesting to me is that in the case of the Boston Marathon, our stance, our vantage points, are no different from one another, the only difference is our perception and our willingness to see all information as pertinent.

Why do you think I don;t consider some information pertinent. I didn't say I haven't considered the men in the baseball hats, I have just come to a different conclusion than you on their purpose of being there. I didn't discount them but used all the information available to me (both main stream media and CT websites), applied some common sense and critical thinking and came to my conclusion. If anything, you are filling in the blanks with suspicions, not information, and it is this "false flag information" to use some pertinent lingo, that is pushing you in the opposite direction to me. Are you confident that the information you are using (I'm guessing from the Internet, same as me as neither of us is, or was, there) is anymore reliable than the information I'm using?

[BelieveNothing]

Why do you think I don;t consider some information pertinent. I didn't say I haven't considered the men in the baseball hats

With regard to the men in the hats, it was my original understanding that you made the claim right off the bat in our dialogue that the men in the hats were too obvious and therefore "extremely unlikely".

My mistake, if I interpreted you incorrectly.

Why do you think I don;t consider some information pertinent. I didn't say I haven't considered the men in the baseball hats, I have just come to a different conclusion than you on their purpose of being there.

And this is ok. We do not need to agree.

If anything, you are filling in the blanks with suspicions, not information, and it is this "false flag information" to use some pertinent lingo, that is pushing you in the opposite direction to me

Incorrect.

I have stated and will state once again; It is my observation, perception, intuition, intelligence and logic that I use to arrive at my conclusions.

Are you confident that the information you are using (I'm guessing from the Internet, same as me as neither of us is, or was, there) is anymore reliable than the information I'm using?

I am of the mind that we have equal access to information and information in and of itself is reliable.

I am not a person who sits on the internet reading conspiracy websites, though they do come up when I am investigating answers to the questions that arrive through my perception of reality.

I do come across others that perceive as I do.

I do not have a problem with you percieving as you do, though I have a hard time understanding why you have a hard time allowing me to perceive as I do.

[BelieveNothing]

I have just come to a different conclusion than you on their purpose of being there.

What I find funny about this comment, is that I did not at any point during our dialogue state whether or not I perceive that the men in the hats were involved or not.

So somewhere, I cannot help but wonder, if there is not another individual whom you need to finish an argument with.

[Fancy]

Information in itself is not always reliable.

[BelieveNothing]

Information in itself is not always reliable.

What exactly do you mean by " information in itself is not always reliable?

When can we not rely on information?

[Fancy]

When it comes from blogs?

[BelieveNothing]

When it comes from blogs?

It seems to me that being receptive to all information is important to being a whole person, it is how we learn and grow.

We can rely on information to be what it is, information.

Though, not all information has the same value.

The value of information is up to your discernment.