I'm not sure if this is the right thread or not to post this but here it is anyhow. This is one of those random questions that pop into my mind now and again. If you could know that absolute truth about any one event in history what would it be? It could be about area 52 What happened to Amelia Earhart JFK 9/11 ect... Off the top of my head I think I would like to know about a final days of Gengus khan and where he is buried. He might have been a warlord type ruler but he also did not tax the poor and helped his people to learn to write and read.
My college professor ingrained in me the knowledge that in history there is no Truth with a capital T. The victors write the history books. Two perspectives of same event can both be right even when contradicting each other. The history of the Civil War as taught to kids in public schools in the South. The history as written in Eastern European textbooks during the Cold War. History of wars by veterans and by conscientious objectors. History as changed by popular historical novels or one's own faulty memory, influenced by future events.
yeah, but that's because of historical record. The question specifically talks about the actual truth, as if you could witness it or something, and have all the relevant data. Of course there's still a judgement of analysis, but you get to make one entirely of your own rather than about the biases of your source that are then filtered into your own biases.
I don't particularly care about a lot of those popular mysteries. There actually not that important the bits that are missing. They're not really the most interesting thing. Especially Amelia Earheart. She crashed but they never found her. Big woop. It's unlikely to be that interesting. \Very probably just a more or less regular crash. People die without being found all the time, it doesn't mean anything weird is happening. And for the record, 9/11 is not really a mystery. 9/11 truthers are just riding an endorphine train. Some poor derelicts from Afghanistan or somewhere were talked into killing themselves to go to heaven because they didn't know any better. And because they were pissed off at things America did they don't want to talk about. No secret. I could go on and on. No, what really interests me most is usually people. Stalin, Hitler, Bismarck, Frederick the Great. There's a lot of fascinating people I would really love to understand better. And imagine the people we haven't hear about. The randos who might be highly intriguing who never quite made it into history or whose records were lost or destroyed. But also some events and contexts as well of course. Frankly I can't answer this question. I love history too much to be able to choose.
What happened to that Malaysian plane that just disappeared. And since I'm a Christian, it would be awesome to be with the disciples at the time when the risen Christ appeared to them after his death
sorry to rain on your totaly un-nuanced and un-informed conclusion without evidence. but if you are to dismiss the 9/11 debate you must explain the following things: 1. why did building 7 (WTC7) collapse without any plane hitting it. the official story is that a fire started on two floors but this would not cause the support structures to all simultaneously collapse. such a unique event wouldn't you say? never before has a fire randomly starting on two floors ever caused a skyscaper to callopse yet the WTC 7 was completely OMITTED in the 9/11 report. they did not investigate this building despite it apparently having had no reason at all to have fallen. but I'm betting you never even heard of that one in your incredibly in depth research right? 2. why did the plane that crashed into the pentagon disintagrate? that is litteraly impossible. a plane does not entirely disintigrate into nothing based on a hydrocarbon fire. absolutely absurd. 3. why have the leading investigators of the 9/11 comission report come out and said there was deliberate incompetance amoungst the team and that the investigation was not carried out in a full, conclusive or professional manner? I guess its just easy to point fingers at the boogie man and then bomb them right? 4. you want to talk motives? how about the fact that leading politicians at the time of 9/11 had a year previous been part of a conservative think tank "Project for the New American Century" in which they outlined in their manifesto that in order to acheive their goals they would require a "new pearl harbour" style incident. and lo and behold how did Mr Bush describe the events in interviews following the tragedy? I'll leave you to make an educated guess on that one. oh and the fact that right before the events Larry Silverstein took out a huge insurance boost on the structures and received a pay out of $4.55 billion the largest payout in history. lucky hunch? 5. the NORAD air defence response times in military exercises conducted a year previous in the year 2000 found that they could respond to any arial threat in roughly 2 minutes. yet on the day of september 11th 2001 it took them roughly an hour and a half to respond to the hijackings. oops, right? must have been a women pilot, amIright? but no that's fine, don't bother ever looking into an event. why would anyone do that when you can simply buy into the government line on the issue. why would the government lie to its citizens. its not like they need to win their approval for the most dispicable acts in history: war. they wouldnt want you to think the whole thing was just to switch oil sales back to the dollar would they? educate yourself. oh, and as for the original question of the thread. I don't really know what truth I would want. JFK or something I suppose
Okay, so I'm not saying there's no questions. But I don't believe it was a conspiracy. I will not debate this matter, because it is inappropriate for this thread. And please don't make insulting comments about how people haven't done their research. And I will not do it either, because my initial comment was a little too far I admit. There we go. Can we have a peaceful resolution please?
Spoiler: about 9/11 posts May I remind you that just like everything that comes from human lips, is subject to be a mere opinion and scientifically, these opinions =/= facts. For example, investigators were under a huge pressure. Bottom line is, they failed. Is it surprise that they accuse some other members of their team to be incompetent? I think not. And as ex-military, no army is perfect. What NORAD claimed in 2000 is just *bs* ego-boosting. That doesn't even apply to this date like certain tests have proved. Modern armies middle in politics, and it's important to make yourself look as strong and huge as possible. Because essentially that is what keeps the violence out. I'm not really interested in "truths" when it comes to historical events. But I would go to Rome, to the days when it collapsed. Just to see how a city almost size of a million citizens, changes so fast into population of 40 000. What happens, what people do etc.
well I think I was fairly justified in applying a critical tone to your post considering you threw the first slur at my position when claiming I was "just riding the endorphine train" I made absolutely certain I did not insult your character I insulted your research because if you believed I was just "riding an endorpine train" I felt you had not yet delved significantly into the issue as you were unable to represent my arguments in an accurate way. however, I will appologise for the general tone of my post I honestly didnt intend to come off so mean, I appologise for that. well I think the fact they completely failed to mention an entire building collapse in the report we can say their incompetance was past the level of tolerance. if you are comissioned by the government to investigate a tragedy of such a scale it is your absolute duty to dot every I and cross every T and many were willfuly omitting such huge events as the building 7 collapse? unacceptable. would you apply the same attitude to a murder investigation? if a government team was investigating a serial killer and they omitted one of the murders in the charges at court would we say "oh well they were under a lot of pressure." no we wouldn't. they are expected to work to a certain standard and instead of working towards finding a conclusion they worked around making the evidence fit a pre-determined conclusion. and let us not forget they initialy werent even going to investigate the crime untill wives of the dead campaigned them into a corner and forced them to throw together the commision to shut them up. so many holes in the investigation, just read it for yourself. also NORAD did npot just claim those times for "ego boosting". it would have been ilegal for them to do so. you can read up more on the NORAD incidents by googling "NORAD exercises 9/11" also I find it quite hypocritical that I'm under fire for criticising someone's research but it's apparently okay for this guy to reduce my entire argument to "rant about 9/11" last post, I promise. cheers
Until the Debate Room is active again, this thread WILL NOT disintegrate into an argumentative thread debating theories of contentious events.
The problem with all this is that mostly the truth about anything really doesn't change a lot. It'd be nice to be able to say I told you so to a few people but even if I have absolute iron clad proof about the JFK assassination, say, what does that change? Sure, people believe me. The world knows the truth. So what? It's a long time ago. JFK isn't coming back. Even something like 9/11 at this point has already had it's big effects. Nothing will change that now. You can't pull Sadam out of the ground. So I second the notion that we find out if there is a god and/or if there is any other life in the universe. I think some grand objective truth that there are no gods would do us a good chunk of good as a species. And on the off chance there is a god, well, at least we'd know which one and that's at least a good leg up. My bet is on God-Emperor of Mankind. Failing that; whether we are alone or not knowing one way or the other would be a great comfort. If we are all there is then we need to get our act together. If we aren't then we can begin trying to make contact.
Seconded. I would really like to know if I'm going to hell. So I can then be sure to direct my complaints to the man upstairs.
It was once posited that if a being was/were intelligent and wise enough to know all truths. It would switch itself off.
Makes sense. This brings it back to Plato's cave analogy. Once you know the truth, people would never believe you because doing so would mean they gave up on their lies.
The lottery numbers for next week. God, 9/11? I couldn't find a fuck to give with a microscope and a few billion years to look as it stands.
ONE? so hard. I have a few. What does the US government or UN know about aliens? What really happened to The Boy in the Box? Who died on The Walking Dead?
I would like to know the absolute truth about what makes a bestseller. There, @Aaron Smith, now it's about writing.
For instance... There was never a time in human history, until the advent of The Flat Earth Society, that humans believed the world to be flat. The only reason we believe today that earlier societies thought this is because of so-called histories written by Washington Irving, John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White.
