3 ms·
The site itself is not a conspiracy site. The article is written in a completely neutral point of view. It's your opinion that any conspiracy theories involvin
by WayneDB 15y ago
The site itself is not a conspiracy site. The article is written in a completely neutral point of view.
It's your opinion that any conspiracy theories involving the aforementioned subjects are quackery. If you think conspiracies never happen, you're wrong and if you believe that all of our institutions exist for the good of mankind you're even more wrong.
So, what was your point anyway? I was just pointing out that there's a theory that exists. Are you accusing me of some sort of subterfuge here?
- tzs 15y agoIt's not just his opinion that the article you linked to is quackery. It is fact. For instance, consider the stuff about the color of the flares, and red meaning distress and white meaning identification. That's all made up. In 1912 the internationally recognized distress signals at night were: 1. A gun or other explosive fired at intervals of about a minute, 2. flames on the vessel, 3. Flares of any color, used one at a time at short intervals, 4. A continuous sounding with any fog-signal apparatus.
- WayneDB 15y agoThose weren't the examples that were given to me. Even assuming you're right on that single fact, being incorrect on a single fact still isn't quackery.