I still wish I understood why it's so important to establish the exact location of the debris. So far the "killtown" argument seems to be:
1. Establish that the FBI claimed the entire aircraft was buried.
2. Demand to see photographs of an entire aircraft removed from the ground.
3. If such photographs cannot be produced the FBI lied about 1 and then planted evidence on the scene.
To me it's a completely illogical argument. It's based on a straw man position, begs the question of the strawman, and then completely denies the antecedent.
1. If the plane was buried its recovery could be photographed.
creates the logical fallacy:
2. There were not enough photographs therefore the plane was not buried.
What's most confusing to me is how this fallacious argument is supposed to refute all the other sources of evidence surrounding the crash.
1. The rescue worker testimony
2. The flight data / tracking
3. The victim testimony / family member testimony
4. The forensic evidence / DNA recovery
How does not enough photographs of debris be enough evidence to turn rescue workers, the FBI the NTSB, the families, the victims, and the forensic scientists all into liars?
Last edited by Fangbeer; Feb 29 2012 at 05:44 AM.
A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep
“Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it… gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” - Milton Friedman