I've no idea what JML32 alter ego The Butcher has coughed up. But i'd wager it's nothing to do with this Paris thread followed by a brain insult. I love this FOE BUTTON. :

J L M. It's not hard! You are a clown of the highest order.

I have no problem with people not believing conspiracy theories, they're a lot out there that are just plain bat5hit, and some like the JFK assassination, or opprration mockingbird are just about as open and shut as you can get, and have actually been proven. Yet people still greet people who relay this information with ridicule. As an example, Mugwump has named almost all his sources of information, yet almost nobody, except perhaps Cronus has tried to refute the evidence.
It isn't surprising though, whenever anyone suggests that almost everything a person thought that was true about his perception of society, or the world in general has all been a sham then they usually respond in a dismissive manner, and ignore the evidence that's in front of them. Religious people are a prime example of this.

I really don't mind people objecting to different theories about X, Y & Z. Covert actions are - by their very nature - designed to be opaque. It's the reason ten times as much resources are devoted to the cover story as the operation itself.

What I do object to is people who haven't the faintest idea about what they are talking about attacking others who have invested a considerable portion of their own precious time and energy researching events to a level which would be acceptable in an academic institution.

For instance - I have a rule of thumb regarding 9/11 which has never once let me down: The only people who deny the existence of some form of conspiracy either know next to nothing about the event or have some vested interest in supporting the official explanation.

Only in some topsy-turvy universe is it acceptable for people who haven't even read the official 9/11 Commission Report to claim those who have and don't believe it are delusional.

Which is why I don't bother engaging with such clowns - or I ask them to state clearly, prior to entering the debate, precisely what it would take for them to change their opinion - at which point they suddenly become very, very vague. What does this tell you?

I mean, I used to get pretty wound up about it. But now I just find it funny. I know I've done the hard grind. I have over a thousand books on the shelf behind me, heaven knows how much archived video and audio footage etc. etc. I'm not saying I know everything - but I'm more than satisfied that I know something about what I'm talking about.

My opinions are always flexible - which is precisely as it should be. It's the idiots clinging to a completely rigid explanation they don't even realise was disproven years ago who are in error.

The weird thing is - on at least three occasions I've caught out people who take great delight in ridiculing any and all conspiracies publicly espousing a completely different viewpoint in private. This leads me to believe that truth is far less important than social inclusion to these people. Which makes sense really when you consider how intelligence agencies try to muddy the waters. Bear in mind that it was the CIA which first emphasized the effectiveness of labeling people "conspiracy theorists" (see the first link in the Unmediated History Thread) as a means of combating the growing number of people who were dissatisfied with the Warren Commission (which means the joke is kind of on the people using it in a pejorative sense).

I wasn't always this way. For a good thirty years I WAS ONE of these clowns. Before embarking on any kind of serious research I've ALWAYS believed the official story (with the possible exception of JFK). And yet time and time again I've found that my faith in the official explanation was completely misplaced.

Well, I find this thread interesting.

It's certainly made me think about things and events.

The world is never black and white, it's always shades of grey.

Reading around a subject and empowering one's self to be better informed can never be a bad thing.

If you go right back to the first recognised socities, people have always looked to exploit each other, ancient Indian and Persian society is full of this, if we had the historical record to go right back to the Rift Valley, I would presume the same.

Let me add that whilst it's extremely difficult to acquire cast-iron proof of conspiracy and the identities of the conspirators in the immediate aftermath of an event - there are some very reliable indicators that something foul is afoot.

I mean, if the cops are already on the scene, or they were running drills at the location the same day, or the suspect is identified (with detailed biographical data) within minutes and/or filled full of lead before talking, or within the first twenty-four hours the news reports suddenly change from a bunch of conflicting stories to one single explanation repeated verbatim across all channels, or government officials are immediately calling for new legislation, or shares in companies somehow connected to the events show unusual activity in the week preceding, or the investigation is handed off to the military (or some government body which doesn't seem entirely relevant) or (in the really big cases) stories appear about the nuclear launch codes temporarily going "missing" etc. etc. etc. there's a good chance you are being lied to.

I don't have the time to explain why the above are good indicators but it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out.

People should trust their instincts. Sure, the senses are fallible - but human instinct is a remarkably reliable tool. If something doesn't feel right (like buildings collapsing in a curiously controlled fashion) then it probably isn't. Don't be put off by loudmouth fools labelling you "insane" because chances are you are the smartest person in the conversation.

One thing you absolutely shouldn't do is immediately revert back to orthodoxy the moment you encounter some piece of evidence which doesn't fit the pattern. Just because some small piece of a conspiracy turns out to be false - it doesn't mean everything else is false, too. And if it is false - deal with it and move on. Likewise, just because you are convinced by one conspiracy - don't automatically assume that all conspiracies are true. Deal with them on an individual basis and purely on their merits.

Finally, have some fun. It's a genuinely stimulating and rewarding exercise and if it gets you out of the habit of watching TV then you'll end up much the smarter because of it.

I'm still waiting for an answer from our enlightened ones...

What did all the conspiracy theorists do before the internet?

Mugwump wrote:I can't comment on 2 & 3 but there are much better sources than those you've quoted on the issue of Sandy Hook. I don't regard Jim Fetzer as a particularly reliable researcher. He did some good work years ago on the Kennedy case but ever since he became tied up with Veterans Today he's become pretty flaky. Bear in mind that the editor of Veterans Today, Gordon Duff, has openly admitted that the publication is "95% disinformation". To be honest i lost enthusiasm during the making of that post after uncovering the schitzoid, i just wanted to stop all dialogue so i hurriedly linked random sources just to end all correspondence. One of the most compelling video's by Wolfgang Halbig on Sandy Hook this documentary a fascinating watch. Wolfgang Halbig

Mugwump wrote:I can't comment on 2 & 3 but there are much better sources than those you've quoted on the issue of Sandy Hook. I don't regard Jim Fetzer as a particularly reliable researcher. He did some good work years ago on the Kennedy case but ever since he became tied up with Veterans Today he's become pretty flaky. Bear in mind that the editor of Veterans Today, Gordon Duff, has openly admitted that the publication is "95% disinformation". To be honest i lost enthusiasm during the making of that post after uncovering the schitzoid, i just wanted to stop all dialogue so i hurriedly linked random sources just to end all correspondence. One of the most compelling video's by Wolfgang Halbig on Sandy Hook this documentary a fascinating watch. Wolfgang Halbig

Personally I have no objection to people investigating things, reading as much as they want or can in an effort to better inform themselves about something. Who would object to that ... it's what makes us special ... the thirst for knowledge/answers/reasons etc etc .......
Also it is a powerful argument that someone who is very well read in something should hold more sway in a debate (on the face of it), they being an expert in the field shall we say, or certainly having expertise.
That much is fine.

So for instance, if some aspect of American foreign policy is being discussed and the machinations and possible subterfuge connected with it .... then I wouldn't dream of arguing the toss with Mugwump, because he has researched this field and I haven't.
Although having read so much about it, I would trust Mugwump to come up with sensible (and I mean sensible) conclusions.
And I should think, though don't know, that he has in this field.

However, just because someone is an expert in the subterfuge that goes on in this world, does not give them carte blanche to assert that almost everything has more meaning to it than the obvious.

By way of example in Mugwump's case these are two of the things he has said, and I am paraphrasing ....
'There is no way a jetliner could bring down a building as massive as a Trade Centre'. That being the presumption alternative theories naturally follow ... deliberate demolition and murder of American citizens for instance.
Seriously?

Another one was when the explosives detonated in the Chinese port area ... paraphrasing again from memory ...
'That was some explosion, I reckon it was done by one of these babies' ... shows a picture of a missile.
Did the Chinese complain?

So I am sort of saying ... if someone is putting themselves forward as an expert, if they come to unreasonable conclusions, are they a reliable expert?