Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:40 pm  

Charlie Sheen wrote:

You don't think it matters, and has consequences that still resonate to this day?

If the boot were on the other foot, certain parties would be saying 'get over it!'
Speculation to NO end, apart from an academic interest.
A waste of time ....

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:42 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Well, we could ponder the meaning of your miserable excuse for a life. Although I'm guessing few would wish to squelch into that quagmire of bitterness and self-loathing.

A considered response ... class!

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:01 am  

Charlie Sheen wrote:

You don't think it matters, and has consequences that still resonate to this day?

No. And what would YOU or the rest be able to do about it if you did know 'the truth'? It'd just be a hollow moral victory for time wasted apparently 'educating' yourselves for something which, in the grand scheme of things, means absolutely bugger all.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:38 am  

Odd thread. It should probably be pointed out that the idea that people until recently believed the earth was flat is one of those daft factoids that's virtually got the status of an urban myth.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:51 am  

Him wrote: I would say the earth is a hell of a lot closer to being spherical than it is to being flat. And here is the contradiction. I mean, it's completely irrational to waste endless bandwidth arguing about THE shape of the earth when you know it's indefinable (and this is just using Euclidean geometry). It doesn't matter how "close" something is to spherical - it's not. If someone paid you in monopoly money I doubt you would let them off because "it's closer to real money than rocks". As for JFK, I agree with Charlie Sheen. I think it does matter who shot him and why. Maybe the identities of the people who physically pulled the triggers aren't that important, but the people who organised it are. In the same way as the actual reasons for going into Iraq are important. They're about as important issues as you can get in my opinion. They're about our entire way of life. Which is why I don't believe every conspiracy that's floated but nor do I automatically discredit such thoughts. We know governments do secret things and can pull off secretive events. We know that the media is corrupt, in the sense of it doesn't just present with unbiased facts and information. It puts its own slant on it and selects facts and information it likes and ignores facts and information it doesn't like. So I don't blindly trust official sources of the media any more than I would trust Flat Stanley. They're both bullsh|tters. I look at a situation and decide whether it adds up. I try and find the other side of the story. I urge people to watch RT news channel occasionally, especially at the moment with the confrontation with the Russians. Again, don't believe it anymore or less than you would Sky News or the BBC, but it presents a different side to issues and often information that isn't presented to you by the regular media. Look at all sides, look at as much evidence and information as possible and then think about it for a while. In the case of JFK anyone who does that HAS to come to the conclusion that SOMETHING is wrong, even if you don't agree with various theories about it. The same goes for me with 9/11 and at least parts of Sandy Hook though I've only seen bits on that so far. I'm struggling to think of 2 bigger events since the end of the 2nd World War than JFK and 9/11. They both radically changed the world we live in both in a macro and micro sense. If, if it turns out those 2 events aren't how we've been told, then I think that's very very important and very relevant to myself and my family. If you are really serious about embarking upon research but you are struggling to find a reliable mode of inquiry then you could do worse than take a peek at the work of possibly the finest analyst I've seen - the late but indomitable Mae Brussell. Mae is bonafide proof that a regular person with no special sources of information can not only lift the veil of secrecy - but predict future events with a startling degree of accuracy. Before the age of 40 she was a Beverly Hills housewife with nary a political thought in her head. But Kennedy's murder shook her and when the Warren Commission whitewashed the case she embarked on a NINE YEAR odyssey of cross-filing and indexing the entire 26 volumes of the report. At the end she concluded it was an obvious conspiracy. But it was her revolutionary approach to research (concentrating not on the specifics such as bullet trajectories or autopsy reports but rather the locations of individuals in time and space as well as the connections which bound them together) which forged her reputation. It was this toolset which allowed her to know EXACTLY what happened in the Watergate hotel a WHOLE YEAR before Woodward & Bernstein touched the story. Moreover, she did what this celebrated pair never did - "follow the money" uncovering a rats nest of plots and counterplots. Brussell tracked the movements and activities of all those involved in the Kennedy case and it didn't come as any kind of surprise when she found those names linked time and again to suspicious events. In 1972 she took to the air and broadcast pretty much non-stop until her death in 1988. During that time she blew the lid on CIA's link-up with the former Nazi apparatus functioning in Europe under Rheinhard Ghelen, Otto Skorzeny & Otto von Bolshwing - as well as the activities of the SS in South America who the Americans were using to intimidate local governments as well as setting up multiple cocaine pipelines under the control of Klaus Barbie. She identified the key players involved in the collapse of the Vatican Bank and the subsequent murder of Roberto Calvi in London. She predicted an assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan ONE WEEK before he was shot by Hinkley AND named the plotters. She predicted the murder of Robert Kennedy and passed a note to his wife imploring her husband to take extra care in his visit to California. She predicted that congressman Larry McDonald was in fatal jeopardy over an impending lawsuit relating to his company, Western Goals, which had been compiling an illegal database on California activists - two weeks later his plane plunged into the ocean off the coast of Russia. She was one of only a handful of people I know of who realised that the Pentagon's head of planning FOR THIRTY YEARS, the mentor to Henry Kissinger, was none other than prisoner number 33 at the Dachau trials (an event which has been all but airbrushed from history), Hitler's former chief of staff, SS General Fritz Kramer. Her entire volume of work is simply breathtaking. And yet she was ostracised by many because she refused to gloss over the one subject which has been verboten in American politics since the end of WWII - America's close working relationship with not just a few former Nazis - but an entire legion of them. She absolutely slaughtered the likes of famed "Nazi hunters" such as Simon Wiesenthal who claimed to be hunting the perpetrators of the Holocaust when she could point to the likes of Josef Mengele, Otto von Bolshwing and Fritz Kramer publicly enjoying the good life without even bothering to change their names. Mae Brussell gave everyone a roadmap on how to interpret what are often complex and elusive events. And, believe it or not, it really isn't all that difficult - if you are interested. But before I give you the link let me make a few points. I believe people should make up their own minds on these matters. Believing what anyone says - without question - is a surefire way to disaster. However, discounting everything someone says because you don't agree with some small part of his or her research is equally silly. There has never been a researcher in this field who hasn't made mistakes. So don't be eager to discount - especially when they have plenty of successes. Talking specifically about Mae - you'll discover that she says many things which sound unbelievable. But keep an open mind until you've looked at her evidence. Suffice to say you won't find Simon Schama providing as many references. I STRONGLY advise people not to randomly select Brussell's broadcasts because out of their sequential context you'll either find them indecipherable or unbelievable - or both. I mean, her research is excellent with each broadcast coming with its hefty list of sources, additional reading material etc. etc. But you really need to start at episode one and continue sequentially. IIRC, there are over 800 episodes. I'm about halfway through and it's an absolutely riveting historical record. You never know what surprises are in store - like the episode in which she talks about how John Lennon called her out of the blue and pleaded with her to visit. Lennon became a major supporter and even funded her first article published in Paul Krassner's "The Realist" Magazine. Then there is the tragedy of Lennon's death and Brussell's determination to root out his killers who she identified years before Fenton Bressler stuck his nose in. I should say that despite being one of the bravest women I've known of (she routinely went in to bat defending the rights of prisoners in California's notorious penal system, faced down creeps such as Gordon Novel and assassin-for-hire Mitch Werbell (inventor of the terrorist's weapon of choice - the silenced MAC-10) etc. Brussell was terrorised by those whose work she uncovered. Her daughter died in a mysterious road accident, her son was driven insane when a "former" intelligence operative surreptitiously slipped a powerful hallucinogenic into his drink. Her home was broken into on several occasions. Whilst camping in Canada a rattlesnake was tossed into her tent. Eventually she succumbed to a condition she famously coined "[CIA] three week cancer". You can find a link to Brussell's site here. Some of the stuff on there (such as the Flouride link) shouldn't be confused with Brussell's work (she was dead long before it was posted). The site owner (who I discovered isn't connected to Brussell) sells all 800 episodes (plus accompanying research material - and there's A LOT of it) for a bargain sixty-odd quid (delivered in two or three days). If your budget can't stretch to that figure drop me a PM and I can arrange something. You might think her work is no longer relevant today - but I disagree entirely. The tools and techniques she used then are just as reliable now. Indeed, many of the names she was mentioning in the late eighties are senior players in geopolitical strategy today. Most researchers are lucky to make sense of events within five years of their occurrence. Brussell was THIRTY YEARS ahead of events. Below are four of her articles written for Paul Krassner's "The Realist" and Larry Flynt's "Rebel". Bear in mind BOTH came under enormous pressure to shut down operations immediately after Brussell joined. Indeed, both were lucky to escape with their lives. Why Was Martha Mitchell Kidnapped - written a YEAR before Woodward & Bernstein published their diluted story on Watergate which was later filmed as "All The President's Men". How Richard Nixon Actually Got Into Power Why is the Senate Watergate Committee Functioning as part of the cover-up Who Killed Congressman Larry McDonald? One final point which I feel obliged to mention. If you are really interested and plan to take an interest in Brussell work - BE WARNED that you aren't going to like what you find. There are some things that you really would rather not know.

Him wrote: I would say the earth is a hell of a lot closer to being spherical than it is to being flat. And here is the contradiction. I mean, it's completely irrational to waste endless bandwidth arguing about THE shape of the earth when you know it's indefinable (and this is just using Euclidean geometry). It doesn't matter how "close" something is to spherical - it's not. If someone paid you in monopoly money I doubt you would let them off because "it's closer to real money than rocks". As for JFK, I agree with Charlie Sheen. I think it does matter who shot him and why. Maybe the identities of the people who physically pulled the triggers aren't that important, but the people who organised it are. In the same way as the actual reasons for going into Iraq are important. They're about as important issues as you can get in my opinion. They're about our entire way of life. Which is why I don't believe every conspiracy that's floated but nor do I automatically discredit such thoughts. We know governments do secret things and can pull off secretive events. We know that the media is corrupt, in the sense of it doesn't just present with unbiased facts and information. It puts its own slant on it and selects facts and information it likes and ignores facts and information it doesn't like. So I don't blindly trust official sources of the media any more than I would trust Flat Stanley. They're both bullsh|tters. I look at a situation and decide whether it adds up. I try and find the other side of the story. I urge people to watch RT news channel occasionally, especially at the moment with the confrontation with the Russians. Again, don't believe it anymore or less than you would Sky News or the BBC, but it presents a different side to issues and often information that isn't presented to you by the regular media. Look at all sides, look at as much evidence and information as possible and then think about it for a while. In the case of JFK anyone who does that HAS to come to the conclusion that SOMETHING is wrong, even if you don't agree with various theories about it. The same goes for me with 9/11 and at least parts of Sandy Hook though I've only seen bits on that so far. I'm struggling to think of 2 bigger events since the end of the 2nd World War than JFK and 9/11. They both radically changed the world we live in both in a macro and micro sense. If, if it turns out those 2 events aren't how we've been told, then I think that's very very important and very relevant to myself and my family. If you are really serious about embarking upon research but you are struggling to find a reliable mode of inquiry then you could do worse than take a peek at the work of possibly the finest analyst I've seen - the late but indomitable Mae Brussell. Mae is bonafide proof that a regular person with no special sources of information can not only lift the veil of secrecy - but predict future events with a startling degree of accuracy. Before the age of 40 she was a Beverly Hills housewife with nary a political thought in her head. But Kennedy's murder shook her and when the Warren Commission whitewashed the case she embarked on a NINE YEAR odyssey of cross-filing and indexing the entire 26 volumes of the report. At the end she concluded it was an obvious conspiracy. But it was her revolutionary approach to research (concentrating not on the specifics such as bullet trajectories or autopsy reports but rather the locations of individuals in time and space as well as the connections which bound them together) which forged her reputation. It was this toolset which allowed her to know EXACTLY what happened in the Watergate hotel a WHOLE YEAR before Woodward & Bernstein touched the story. Moreover, she did what this celebrated pair never did - "follow the money" uncovering a rats nest of plots and counterplots. Brussell tracked the movements and activities of all those involved in the Kennedy case and it didn't come as any kind of surprise when she found those names linked time and again to suspicious events. In 1972 she took to the air and broadcast pretty much non-stop until her death in 1988. During that time she blew the lid on CIA's link-up with the former Nazi apparatus functioning in Europe under Rheinhard Ghelen, Otto Skorzeny & Otto von Bolshwing - as well as the activities of the SS in South America who the Americans were using to intimidate local governments as well as setting up multiple cocaine pipelines under the control of Klaus Barbie. She identified the key players involved in the collapse of the Vatican Bank and the subsequent murder of Roberto Calvi in London. She predicted an assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan ONE WEEK before he was shot by Hinkley AND named the plotters. She predicted the murder of Robert Kennedy and passed a note to his wife imploring her husband to take extra care in his visit to California. She predicted that congressman Larry McDonald was in fatal jeopardy over an impending lawsuit relating to his company, Western Goals, which had been compiling an illegal database on California activists - two weeks later his plane plunged into the ocean off the coast of Russia. She was one of only a handful of people I know of who realised that the Pentagon's head of planning FOR THIRTY YEARS, the mentor to Henry Kissinger, was none other than prisoner number 33 at the Dachau trials (an event which has been all but airbrushed from history), Hitler's former chief of staff, SS General Fritz Kramer. Her entire volume of work is simply breathtaking. And yet she was ostracised by many because she refused to gloss over the one subject which has been verboten in American politics since the end of WWII - America's close working relationship with not just a few former Nazis - but an entire legion of them. She absolutely slaughtered the likes of famed "Nazi hunters" such as Simon Wiesenthal who claimed to be hunting the perpetrators of the Holocaust when she could point to the likes of Josef Mengele, Otto von Bolshwing and Fritz Kramer publicly enjoying the good life without even bothering to change their names. Mae Brussell gave everyone a roadmap on how to interpret what are often complex and elusive events. And, believe it or not, it really isn't all that difficult - if you are interested. But before I give you the link let me make a few points. I believe people should make up their own minds on these matters. Believing what anyone says - without question - is a surefire way to disaster. However, discounting everything someone says because you don't agree with some small part of his or her research is equally silly. There has never been a researcher in this field who hasn't made mistakes. So don't be eager to discount - especially when they have plenty of successes. Talking specifically about Mae - you'll discover that she says many things which sound unbelievable. But keep an open mind until you've looked at her evidence. Suffice to say you won't find Simon Schama providing as many references. I STRONGLY advise people not to randomly select Brussell's broadcasts because out of their sequential context you'll either find them indecipherable or unbelievable - or both. I mean, her research is excellent with each broadcast coming with its hefty list of sources, additional reading material etc. etc. But you really need to start at episode one and continue sequentially. IIRC, there are over 800 episodes. I'm about halfway through and it's an absolutely riveting historical record. You never know what surprises are in store - like the episode in which she talks about how John Lennon called her out of the blue and pleaded with her to visit. Lennon became a major supporter and even funded her first article published in Paul Krassner's "The Realist" Magazine. Then there is the tragedy of Lennon's death and Brussell's determination to root out his killers who she identified years before Fenton Bressler stuck his nose in. I should say that despite being one of the bravest women I've known of (she routinely went in to bat defending the rights of prisoners in California's notorious penal system, faced down creeps such as Gordon Novel and assassin-for-hire Mitch Werbell (inventor of the terrorist's weapon of choice - the silenced MAC-10) etc. Brussell was terrorised by those whose work she uncovered. Her daughter died in a mysterious road accident, her son was driven insane when a "former" intelligence operative surreptitiously slipped a powerful hallucinogenic into his drink. Her home was broken into on several occasions. Whilst camping in Canada a rattlesnake was tossed into her tent. Eventually she succumbed to a condition she famously coined "[CIA] three week cancer". You can find a link to Brussell's site here. Some of the stuff on there (such as the Flouride link) shouldn't be confused with Brussell's work (she was dead long before it was posted). The site owner (who I discovered isn't connected to Brussell) sells all 800 episodes (plus accompanying research material - and there's A LOT of it) for a bargain sixty-odd quid (delivered in two or three days). If your budget can't stretch to that figure drop me a PM and I can arrange something. You might think her work is no longer relevant today - but I disagree entirely. The tools and techniques she used then are just as reliable now. Indeed, many of the names she was mentioning in the late eighties are senior players in geopolitical strategy today. Most researchers are lucky to make sense of events within five years of their occurrence. Brussell was THIRTY YEARS ahead of events. Below are four of her articles written for Paul Krassner's "The Realist" and Larry Flynt's "Rebel". Bear in mind BOTH came under enormous pressure to shut down operations immediately after Brussell joined. Indeed, both were lucky to escape with their lives. Why Was Martha Mitchell Kidnapped - written a YEAR before Woodward & Bernstein published their diluted story on Watergate which was later filmed as "All The President's Men". How Richard Nixon Actually Got Into Power Why is the Senate Watergate Committee Functioning as part of the cover-up Who Killed Congressman Larry McDonald? One final point which I feel obliged to mention. If you are really interested and plan to take an interest in Brussell work - BE WARNED that you aren't going to like what you find. There are some things that you really would rather not know.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:24 am  

King Street Cat wrote:

No. And what would YOU or the rest be able to do about it if you did know 'the truth'?

Who says they need to do anything beyond look after themselves? If the three million or so German Jews knew "the truth" about Hitler's intentions beforehand rather than taking the advice of bitter and twisted cynics such as yourself do you think one or two more might have been able to "do" something?

I don't even know why I'm wasting my time here.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:14 am  

Mugwump wrote:

And here is the contradiction. I mean, it's completely irrational to waste endless bandwidth arguing about THE shape of the earth when you know it's indefinable (and this is just using Euclidean geometry). It doesn't matter how "close" something is to spherical - it's not. If someone paid you in monopoly money I doubt you would let them off because "it's closer to real money than rocks".

But who has ever suggested that the earth is perfectly spherical? In the same way, I don't suppose Flat Stanley and his YouTube pals would argue that it is perfectly flat. The point is, it isn't flat, flattish, a bit flat or even vaguely flat - it's a sphere, however imperfect, and it's positively mental to argue otherwise.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:13 am  

Mugwump wrote:

If the three million or so German Jews knew "the truth" about Hitler's intentions beforehand

And there we have it. Another victory for Godwin's law.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:47 pm  

bren2k wrote:

But who has ever suggested that the earth is perfectly spherical? In the same way, I don't suppose Flat Stanley and his YouTube pals would argue that it is perfectly flat. The point is, it isn't flat, flattish, a bit flat or even vaguely flat - it's a sphere, however imperfect, and it's positively mental to argue otherwise.

The key point about Flat Stanley and his ilk is not just his delusional flat earth stuff. He actually seems to believe that the whole of science is bogus, there is no universe, there are no planets, let alone astronauts or space stations or craft sent by humans to explore other worlds. There are no GPS satellites, there is no South Pole - there is just a great ice wall beyond which it is (for unexplained reasons) impossible to pass. In this mindset, it is easily possible to dismiss entirely out of hand the hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur scientists and astronomers who have produced innumerable works and, in recent times, the literally millions of images from all around the Universe, as some great NASA hoax and conspiracy. They are all either part of the conspiracy, or ellse, "sheeple" (yes, he really does use that term), or "indoctrinated".

I find it strange to come across, in the 21st century, an apparently quite intelligent, quite literate person, who yet is so utterly delusional in the face of an almost infinite avalanche of fact and evidence. I mean, just take the current space mission of Tim Peake, for instance. This, and the coverage, involves scientists and ground stations around the globe, and tens of thousands of people, particularly at ESA, and of course the Russians who currently have the only means of transport to/from ISS, and who would, presumably, like nothing better than to show up NASA as fakers yet are perfectly amicable collaborators in the venture.

What I find weird is that you will actually find YouTube videos by just the same crew which post footage from the ISS with optical anomalies and say it is "proof" that alien craft surround the ISS and Earth, and that NASA deletes/blocks the footage to keep the existence of aliens from us. So, we have a non-existent ISS, which nevertheless does produce genuine images from its non-existent orbit of real alien craft.

And Stanley would see no issue with that.

The terrorism in Paris is seen in this light. Stanley just loves the phrase "false flag". The trouble is, sitting in his bunker doing nothing but watch dodgy videos by some real lunatics whom he hero-worships, he feels able to pontificate that Paris was a "false flag" - in other words, Islamist fundies did not slaughter the poor kids at the Bataclan - presumably the French did, as part of the New World Order or whatever it is. How offensive these knee-jerk false-flaggers' ramblings are to the parents and families of the victims, I can't even begin to imagine.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:34 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

The key point about Flat Stanley and his ilk is not just his delusional flat earth stuff. He actually seems to believe that the whole of science is bogus, there is no universe, there are no planets, let alone astronauts or space stations or craft sent by humans to explore other worlds. There are no GPS satellites, there is no South Pole - there is just a great ice wall beyond which it is (for unexplained reasons) impossible to pass. In this mindset, it is easily possible to dismiss entirely out of hand the hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur scientists and astronomers who have produced innumerable works and, in recent times, the literally millions of images from all around the Universe, as some great NASA hoax and conspiracy. They are all either part of the conspiracy, or ellse, "sheeple" (yes, he really does use that term), or "indoctrinated".

I find it strange to come across, in the 21st century, an apparently quite intelligent, quite literate person, who yet is so utterly delusional in the face of an almost infinite avalanche of fact and evidence. I mean, just take the current space mission of Tim Peake, for instance. This, and the coverage, involves scientists and ground stations around the globe, and tens of thousands of people, particularly at ESA, and of course the Russians who currently have the only means of transport to/from ISS, and who would, presumably, like nothing better than to show up NASA as fakers yet are perfectly amicable collaborators in the venture.

What I find weird is that you will actually find YouTube videos by just the same crew which post footage from the ISS with optical anomalies and say it is "proof" that alien craft surround the ISS and Earth, and that NASA deletes/blocks the footage to keep the existence of aliens from us. So, we have a non-existent ISS, which nevertheless does produce genuine images from its non-existent orbit of real alien craft.

And Stanley would see no issue with that.

The terrorism in Paris is seen in this light. Stanley just loves the phrase "false flag". The trouble is, sitting in his bunker doing nothing but watch dodgy videos by some real lunatics whom he hero-worships, he feels able to pontificate that Paris was a "false flag" - in other words, Islamist fundies did not slaughter the poor kids at the Bataclan - presumably the French did, as part of the New World Order or whatever it is. How offensive these knee-jerk false-flaggers' ramblings are to the parents and families of the victims, I can't even begin to imagine.

Good points.

I've often wondered what framework they employ to ensure that their 'evidence' can be tested, verified, and hold-up to scrutiny. They obviously don't employ the scientific method, which is really the only feasible way to try and understand anything. If they did we wouldn't be having this discussion. It's quite alarming to see how ever more complex their ideas have to be to try and fit evidence around an idea rather than let the evidence lead them to a conclusion. There are similarities between creationists and Falt-earthers in this respect. They have to invent complex realities to stop the foundations of their belief from crumbling. When it becomes too much of a struggle, they simply ignore it.

Hence you get Flat earth which has to lead to NASA hiding things to Governments covering things up then onto elaborate reasons for them to do so. Etc etc. It becomes exhausting as someone looking in to see how far the story has to bend to keep it intact. They don't seem to be aware of how ridiculous the idea has to be to be true. I suppose they are invested in their idea to the point that they simply can't sit back and look at it reasonably and rationally, which is dodgy ground when you are trying to formulate proof of a concept. The scientific method avoids this trap through peer review and the fact that everyone is free to test an idea and prove it wrong, and is encouraged to do so. Conspiracy theorists and flat-earthers struggle with this process because they themselves don't have that rigorous platform to try and test and disprove their own ideas before letting the rest of the public test it. They throw an idea out based around what 'evidence' they can find to fit instead of sitting on the fence and testing it themselves. When problems occur they become defensive and have to invent yet more reasons why other people don't see things the way they do.

Since this topic started I've been accused of being a shill and having multiple accounts to discredit. I've become a conspiracy theory of my own. I wish I was a shill, the extra income would be very welcome this time of year!

It does tell you a lot about the psyche of those people who peddle this stuff though.