Münchhausen trilemma

Let's go back to something more philosophical. I like this because it was named after a guy who pulled himself - and his horse - out of a swamp by his own hair.

Say you have a proposition and want to prove it is true. According to this trilemma, the only options we have are:
> circular arguments (where the premises prove each other)
> regressive arguments (where you prove the premises of the premises of the premises of the premises etc)
> axiomatic arguments (where you ultimately just kind of accept the premises as true despite a lack of proof)

Is this true? If so, is all knowledge logically invalid?

admin: Reminds me of the madman and the rational man. Nothing can be proven, but premises are considered true when there is other affirmation to that premise.
Bitter sweet, but true.

Imagine there are three men. One man see's a flying dragon, and the other two see a eagle.
Which one is the madman?

This is actually an interesting topic. Can someone here tell me what the nation of New Zealand is?