Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 07, 2015 6:23 pm  

Jingle bells, jingle bells
The Butcher's got three names
Oh what fun he stalks all day shifting ego's to play his game.

From the butcher to JLM
the sicko switches again, and again
God knows what the 3rd name is
that it could be dirty den. YO !

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 07, 2015 8:09 pm  

bren2k wrote:

Conspiracy theorists are difficult to engage with when they take on the condescending, wall of noise superiority of Flat Stanley; a constant barrage of self-affirming nonsense lauded as 'proof' that they are right, together with a tendency to deride people as 'sheep' if they aren't instantly convinced - it's not a very inclusive presentation style and suggests more than a hint of anxiety and emotional distress. That perception is amplified if the theorist in question believes every conspiracy that's available to them - that suggests the opposite of what they would have you believe; that they have diligently researched the issue and come to a logical conclusion. Rather, it suggests that they're cynical to begin with, suspicious of authority/politics/religion - whatever - and will simply adopt any theory that paints those bodies in a negative light; it's called a monological belief system.

Personally, I'm certain that throughout human history, there have been events that power-brokers have engineered specifically to create a certain set of circumstances; I'm happy to hear other people's thoughts on that and to do my own reading around it. I'm certainly not happy though, to believe that every single event that has any sense of uncertainty attached to it is based on the covert actions of a government, military or corporate entity - that way lies madness, as this thread clearly demonstrates.

Among the first responses one usually hears whenever the question of conspiracy arises is: how is it possible for so many people to stay so silent for so long?

I like to give three good examples - the cases of John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy & Martin Luther King.

The first of the trio is particularly relevant since we have recently passed the 50th anniversary of that murder. Throughout the year there were as many as three dozen films, documentaries and major print media pieces devoted to what took place in Dealey Plaza.

When quizzed on the question of "Who killed JFK?" most people respond in one of two ways. Either they believe the official explanation (Lee Harvey Oswald did it) or there was a conspiracy involving X, Y & Z.

But this is completely bizarre because the OFFICIAL explanation, delivered in the late seventies by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, is that Oswald was most probably involved in a conspiracy. Since Bill Clinton signed the JFK Records Act into law following the furore kicked up by Oliver Stone's movie, "JFK", it's now possible to all but completely rule Oswald out entirely.

This begs two important questions - if (at the very least) Oswald was officially recognised as being one member of a conspiracy to kill the President - why does the mainstream media continue to uphold the findings of the Warren Commission (a verdict which is no longer valid)? Even more importantly - if Oswald was part of a conspiracy why, in the FORTY YEARS since the HSCA, have there been NO EFFORTS WHATSOEVER to track down and arrest his accomplices? We're not talking about the robbery of the school tuck-shop here - this is one of the biggest crimes of the century!

Which brings us nicely to Martin Luther King. Now, the King case is nowhere near as high-profile as JFK ("why?", is an interesting question for another debate). Ask most people to name King's killer and you'll be lucky to find 5% who'll respond with the name, "James Earl Ray". Virtually NO-ONE is aware of the fact that in the late nineties the King family won a major civil trial (in Memphis, no less!) at the end of which the jury decided that King was assassinated by agents acting on behalf of the United States Government and involving members of the local police department working in conjunction with the mob, FBI and military intelligence. The entire court transcript can be found on the Martin Luther King website (a decision which cost the family dearly, I might add). Throughout the trial NOT ONE of the major news channels or newspapers even bothered to send a reporter. After the verdict was read NOT ONE local or federal law enforcement body bothered to investigate the court's findings.

Now on to the case of Robert F. Kennedy. Like the King case, few people know the name of RFK's killer, Sirhan Sirhan. Unlike the JFK & King cases - even conspiracy theorists don't doubt that Sirhan Sirhan was present when RFK was murdered and that he fired a gun. So what's the issue? Well, it turns out that of the three cases I've listed proving the existence of a conspiracy is the easiest for RFK. Of the ninety or so eye-witnesses to the RFK killing every single one of them placed Sirhan Sirhan immediately in front of Kennedy. The exact distance is hotly debated. Some say as little as two feet. Some say as far as ten feet. But everyone agrees that Sirhan Sirhan was ONLY EVER in front of Kennedy. Yet in arguably the most exhaustive post-mortem report ever conducted (described by perhaps the finest American forensic scientist of the last fifty years, Cyril Wecht as "the best he's seen"), the equally esteemed California pathologist, Thomas Naguchi, stated that Kennedy was shot at "point blank range" and "from behind".

Did the California police department attempt to find this second gunman? On the contrary - they tried to sack their own pathologist!

What are we to make of the above? Is it conceivable that neither the media nor the various branches of law enforcement are aware of these facts? Is it conceivable that they believe it's no longer all that important to pursue the accomplices of the man who murdered one of the greatest presidents in American history, or those members of the government who plotted to kill the most famous and influential American civil rights leader - a man who was practically beatified last year?

I mean, I'm a pretty open minded individual - but if this is not convincing evidence of not just major conspiracy, but major conspiracy carried out in conjunction with ALL elements of government and the mainstream media I really don't know what is.

I'm always fascinated to hear what people think CIA Director, Richard Helms, meant when he said he had nearly a thousand active agents working in TV, print journalism and academia at the HSCA in 1978? Do they think the CIA just pays them for sitting there and doing nothing? Bear in mind this number has probably quadrupled today with all the spending that has been ploughed into covert activities.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 07, 2015 9:03 pm  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Jingle bells, jingle bells
The Butcher's got three names
Oh what fun he stalks all day shifting ego's to play his game.

From the butcher to JLM
the sicko switches again, and again
God knows what the 3rd name is
that it could be dirty den. YO !

I'm actually cringing for you. What a genuinely odd, weird man you really are.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 07, 2015 11:46 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

snip

It was those 3 killings, JFK, RFK and MLK (along with the JFK film) that really started me looking at such things from a different perspective.
It wasn't that I really researched the 3 killings in depth it's just that with all of them, but especially John & Robert Kennedy, things just didn't seem right and didn't seem to add up in the way we were told they should.
And then when you look at the 3 and add in the lies about Vietnam it starts to make sense in a bigger perspective.
But really it was JFK and I can remember vividly the first time I saw the zapruder film. I saw the film before I knew that much about it all and so just instantly assumed that the book depository was in front of Kennedy. When I found out it was behind I just couldn't understand how anyone, or any investigation, could think the final shot didn't come from the front.
Then of course the more I looked into it the more I found that didn't add up too.

Like Bren, I don't believe that everything is a conspiracy or hoax, I look at the evidence people put out and decide for myself, but I'm much more likely to believe them now than I was before JFK came out and it inspired me to look into it. And much much more suspicious of the media and its motives.

I think we could all, regardless of our views on conspiracies, agree on how biased and awful the media is.
Regardless of anyone's politics on here, the biased nature and sometimes outright made up nature of some recent stories in the media should concern everyone. The 2 that come to mind recently are the ones about Jeremy Corbyn at the cenotaph and The Sun making up the 1-in-5 Muslims, and their reporter lying about not having his ID checked when getting into Europe.

If they can do that to further their own agendas then they can do anything.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Tue Dec 08, 2015 11:37 am  

Him wrote:

It was those 3 killings, JFK, RFK and MLK (along with the JFK film) that really started me looking at such things from a different perspective.
It wasn't that I really researched the 3 killings in depth it's just that with all of them, but especially John & Robert Kennedy, things just didn't seem right and didn't seem to add up in the way we were told they should.
And then when you look at the 3 and add in the lies about Vietnam it starts to make sense in a bigger perspective.
But really it was JFK and I can remember vividly the first time I saw the zapruder film. I saw the film before I knew that much about it all and so just instantly assumed that the book depository was in front of Kennedy. When I found out it was behind I just couldn't understand how anyone, or any investigation, could think the final shot didn't come from the front.
Then of course the more I looked into it the more I found that didn't add up too.

Like Bren, I don't believe that everything is a conspiracy or hoax, I look at the evidence people put out and decide for myself, but I'm much more likely to believe them now than I was before JFK came out and it inspired me to look into it. And much much more suspicious of the media and its motives.

I think we could all, regardless of our views on conspiracies, agree on how biased and awful the media is.
Regardless of anyone's politics on here, the biased nature and sometimes outright made up nature of some recent stories in the media should concern everyone. The 2 that come to mind recently are the ones about Jeremy Corbyn at the cenotaph and The Sun making up the 1-in-5 Muslims, and their reporter lying about not having his ID checked when getting into Europe.

If they can do that to further their own agendas then they can do anything.

I've just watched the Garrison tapes on the unmediated history thread, what pisses me off is that there's so many theories regarding the killer shot. I believe the PTB invent alternative theories up and try to throw any keen researcher off the scent of what really happened, and that leads the researcher becoming puzzled and confused which can lead to a doubtful mind-set which the PTB set out to intend in the first place which is a type of mind control. At the end of the day the CIA's involvement in this case is so overwhelming it's stinks to high heaven. The CIA have a free role in society they're free to assassinate at free-will which is another subject with regard's of whom they've taken out, the list is endless.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Dec 09, 2015 6:41 am  

This could be a great thread with lots of discussion from both sides but Flat Stanley just keeps on ruining it

Regards

King James

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:26 am  

Lebron James wrote:

This could be a great thread with lots of discussion from both sides but Flat Stanley just keeps on ruining it

Regards

King James

It'd be even better if you could contribute more than a sentence to the topic.

Regards

Flat Stanley

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:17 am  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Typical naughty person bringing up the earths shape,You remind me of the typical big gob coward goading and antagonising at the rear of the crowd. If you keep on prodding that stick i'll spam your ficticious thread to bits with a barrage of NASA bullshit, so i'd stop the goading about the earths shape if i were you.

Some weeks ago before his previous persona got itself banned, I asked our dissembling friend a simple question: Why - if as he insists, the Earth is flat - does the Moon look 'upside down' from Australia .

It must be the hardest question in the world though for our Stanley, as one thing he will not do is directly answer it. There is no point in moving on to harder questions with someone who can't or won't respond to a simple straightforward question. Bearing in mind he raised the "flat earth" lunacy, not me.

You can learn a lot from his assertion that asking this very simple and un-loaded question is "goading". Although when his brain can't compute a reply, I suppose maybe it feels like it to poor Stan.

You have to laugh, though, at his vainglorious threat to spam the board. How arrogantly crass! Knock yourself out mate - spam as much as you want! Do you nuttily believe that the forum admins would be incapable of dealing with such asinine behaviour? I bet you do!

Take your puerile threatening post and stick it up yer jacksy.

And - answer the question.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:39 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Among the first responses one usually hears whenever the question of conspiracy arises is: how is it possible for so many people to stay so silent for so long?

I would've thought that the more likely question would be: how is it plausible for so many people to stay so silent for so long?

Your suggestion that the government, intelligence services, federal and local law enforcement, the judiciary and the media are co-conspirators is very difficult to take seriously; we're talking about hundreds of disparate individuals within very separate and distinct organisations - organisations who are often in opposition to each other - who have somehow got together at a lodge meeting and, over a secret handshake, agreed to conspire against the general public; and who appear to have done it not just once, but multiple times, and with great success.

Again - I point to the monological belief system theory; once you've convinced yourself that the above is possible, it becomes, as Psychologist Michael J. Wood described it, "the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system."

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:22 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Some weeks ago before his previous persona got itself banned, I asked our dissembling friend a simple question: Why - if as he insists, the Earth is flat - does the Moon look 'upside down' from Australia .

Firstly are you male or female or a child maybe ? i can't really work out the gender of your topsy turvy vitriolic abuse. Obviously knowing what gender you are i'd reply in a manner thats appropriate i reckon you're youthful so i'll treat you like one, great.

Secondly,just to let everybody know i'm again being challenged and goaded into a Geocentric debate, which obviously differs to the topic we're currently debatimg, I don't wish to divert this thread, If you want to debate me in the night sky thread it seems a perfect place to discuss this topic, i'd be willing divulge the globe conspiracy in there but i can guarentee you'll go crying to the mods again getting my posts deleted again because you cannot prove the spinning ball.

I'd love to have this debate regarding geocentrism it's my passion however its like debating with nursery kids the mud-slinging just over weigh's the debate, also the same old problem keeps arising. The previous debates i proved Geocentrism, and i could repeat, repeat and repeat more evidence and you'd continue your childish mud-slinging. I had you crying to the Mod's last time and i had post's removed which was also unfair and now your at it again trying to instigate a position of counjouring support against me and my differing views.

With regard to Australia's moon being semi circled upside down, it's a very simple answer to a very simple question, asked by a very simple person. It's all about perspective for example, If you for instance sit in the south east corner of your sitting room and use your lounge light as the moon imagine it being semi circled from upside down, where you're sat is Australia, now go and sit in the facing opposite corner the North West of the room we'll call that area Saudi Arabia to which you would observe the moon being semi circular from the top. It's all about perspective's which obviously you don't understand yet.

Now i've answered your repeated question i have countless video evdence which i didn't want to use or expose on this thread. I have a million and one decent questions to ask you about the bile that NASA dish out which i know you haven't got a cat in hell's chance of answering. i've a library of disinformation to expose but the ficticious Night Sky seems the best thread to dish this out not this one nice try child. All you have to do invite me to your ficticious thread but i'd wager a bout of childish goading followed by more mud slinging, then i'd ask myself is it really worth it, and to be honest i don't really think it is. I think the best option for me is to stay away from childish vitriol bullshit and use the old gracious Foe Button.