SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
This one is obvious!
Conspiracy - Are Some Theories Accurate?
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
This one is obvious!
musterion
Well-known member
I managed to sit through this one. It's all a prank. He can not be serious.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Personal anecdote on cancer:
My mom was diagnosed with a golf ball sized tumor. Who knows how long it had been growing. She had a good bodyweight and was quite active for her age.
Two years later AFTER TREATMENTS, she was cancer free. But she was a shell of herself, frail, weak, with a weak mind and very little will to live.
Who knows how long she could have lived WITH cancer and how good her quality of life may have been without treatment.
If I was diagnosed with cancer, I doubt that I would undergo the normal treatment. I would eat raw, continue to exercise, and live as long as I could, as well as I could.
I thought the same thing. I lost an uncle, Tim, to non-hodgekins lymphoma at the age of 58. He lived ten years after diagnosis but the treatments didn't help IMO. He hated them too. If I get it I might wait or weigh my options, but prayer would be my first response. I think they have found cures but we'll never get them, only the elite get the real cures. :idunno:
musterion
Well-known member
Didn't even know who she is until the video. She doesn't have a brow ridge. I've never been nearly the manliest man - she's in better muscular shape than I am - but even I have a near-Frankenstein brow ridge and high, wide sloping forehead (gets worse as I lose hair). She doesn't. Everything else about her can be explained by fanatical exercise, and natural variations we all have...some men have wider hips than others, or narrower shoulders...some women have naturally wider shoulders or narrower than average hips...prominent or receding chins, bigger or smaller jawlines. That's just the genetic roll of the dice we all were born with.
So you're indecisive?
I'd answer that's not quite, but almost as funny as the flat earth bit. So there's that. Intelligence is a good indicator of independent and critical thinking. The better educated you are the more likely you are to be that sort of person.
Who would have conducted those studies again? More seriously, I recall a study several years ago that came to the conclusion that around a third of undergraduates didn't significantly increase that capacity, which is a far cry from your note.
There is a good bit of speculation as to why a significant minority don't advance at the undergraduate level. Some suggest the sheer numbers of people being allowed into universities is the problem. We've created schools with lower standards that let a lot of people into the system who wouldn't have been able to gain entrance in decades prior. This, in turn, has produced an education in many state and private institutions, that isn't aimed at developing what Bloom's Taxonomy would note as a higher level questioning and consideration. A lot more rote knowledge being confused with a serious education.
Not the case in law schools or in any accredited graduate school, but it's a problem at the lower levels.
One has nothing to do with the other.
I'm not generally in the habit of attempting to make the case for someone else absent a retainer. Or, it's up to you to substantiate your claims with reason and authority. I noted one I recalled...went back and, bless NPR, they had it online here.
Your feet are smelly. Same level of evidence, but I'm betting mine at least has a chance of being correct.
I'm a lawyer. I don't have to prove my critical thinking chops. They're established, first by entrance into a good and accredited school via the LSAT and my academic background, supported by my passing the bar and subsequent career in the field. Any of those are prima facie evidence in contravention of your goofery in chief. Anything else?
Nah, but let's see what you believe does the trick.
Of course not. But are dishonest politicians the rule? And are they dishonest in a more meaningful way than most of their constituency?
If there are dishonest politicians wouldn't that stand to reason without the new angle? Is it your belief that a reasonable acceptance of the notion that some politicians are dishonest and/or corrupt should immediately become, without argument or reason in support, the rule?
Because if it isn't the rule it's a cautionary note, but nothing more.
If they are dishonest politicians they'd have to, or you'd be asking, "Are there dishonest people who are also politicians?"
To gather intelligence, on both enemies and allies and to use that intelligence to the benefit of our nation and interests.
Supra. Or, no, though it is certainly true that in collecting intelligence we seek to understand what is true and what isn't and to, where it serves our interests, mislead our enemies or competitors in ways that provide an advantage. Sometimes men have done unscrupulous things with that power. So a healthy skepticism is reasonable.
That you haven't made the point you mean to yet.
Are you suggesting that as the rule for either government or politicians? If so you need to find a way to make that case. So far you've mostly managed a very badly handled Venn Diagram.
Which hasn't been established except as you assumption and which isn't a) a politician or b) the government.
Actually, I would expect an intelligence agency to be as transparent as they had to be to do their job and not much more.
Way too general to be meaningful. For instance, an honest politician might very well aid an intelligence agency in misleading an enemy. Nothing in that would be untoward or unethical. It could even serve the good, as has been the case in most wars.
No, but I can't say it would surprise me to discover that some elements of the agency had done that at some point in their history. But if you know about it then they didn't do it very well.
Needs context.
No, each assertion should be approached on its own merits. Almost everything PJ is peddling here is rationally unsustainable. I don't know what your particular ox is in that regard.
No, it would be "looney" to assume anything not established as a rational rule. Better to look at claims, arguments, and data in support on a case by case.
He said it to Reagan and the point was regarding misinformation aimed at confounding the Soviets, our chief enemy at that point in time. Not as nefarious when you understand the context.
Not something I've written. It depends on the evidence and claims. .
To say something you haven't established to attempt a point isn't credible. To say several things that haven't been argued to do it aren't either, supra.
Not a leftist. And the only thing I like about Wiki is found in links supporting claims. It's not a source I largely use for much more than finding other, more authoritative links.
And when was I talking about MK Ultra anyway?
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yes, good point. I was going to mention that there's no difference between the open trannies and these Hollywood actresses. They have the same physical markers.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I don't see how Stephen Hawking lived 50 years with ALS.
It's awful fishy to me...
It's awful fishy to me...
5 minutes
MANKIND AND THE EARTH ARE RESERVED FOR THE WRATH OF GOD
On the tragedy of Gary Webb, here's a link to a really good treatment by a fellow journalist.
From the article:
And while his suicide is open to speculation (two shot victims are rare) he wasn't shot in the back of his head. By accounts he was depressed and with good reason. Webb had to sell his home shortly before his death because he couldn't find work with a paper and his ex-wife said the suicide was consistent with how his mental state appeared to her prior to the act.
From the article:
And while his suicide is open to speculation (two shot victims are rare) he wasn't shot in the back of his head. By accounts he was depressed and with good reason. Webb had to sell his home shortly before his death because he couldn't find work with a paper and his ex-wife said the suicide was consistent with how his mental state appeared to her prior to the act.
A Conspiracy History of the World, Andy Thomas
My Words : I find this whole thing very interesting but especially the moon landings that were obviously Fake. That starts at 52 minutes if you want to skip ahead to it.
From Video Description : Andy Thomas at the Open Mind conference 2013. Andy Thomas is one of the UK's leading researchers into unexplained mysteries and cover-ups and is the author of many books, including the acclaimed The Truth Agenda and his newest title Conspiracies: The Facts - The Theories - The Evidence, which has just been published in the UK, USA and Canada. Andy is founder of Changing Times, which holds events on mysteries and truth issues, and also runs Vital Signs Publishing, which produced Geoff Stray's influential book Beyond 2012, edited by Andy. Andy extensively writes and lectures in Britain and around the world, and has made many radio and TV appearances on both mainstream and alternative shows.
Andy Thomas explores the alternative history of humankind, as seen through the eyes of those who continually question the establishment version of events -- often with good reason. Conspiracies and secret societies with occult agendas may have been influencing our civilisation for centuries, their influence felt from as far back as the Roman Empire, the Gunpowder Plot and the World Wars, to JFK, the Moon landings, Princess Diana, 9/11 and the 'New World Order'. Andy ties it all together in a fascinating and comprehensive overview.
Documentary
My Words : I find this whole thing very interesting but especially the moon landings that were obviously Fake. That starts at 52 minutes if you want to skip ahead to it.
From Video Description : Andy Thomas at the Open Mind conference 2013. Andy Thomas is one of the UK's leading researchers into unexplained mysteries and cover-ups and is the author of many books, including the acclaimed The Truth Agenda and his newest title Conspiracies: The Facts - The Theories - The Evidence, which has just been published in the UK, USA and Canada. Andy is founder of Changing Times, which holds events on mysteries and truth issues, and also runs Vital Signs Publishing, which produced Geoff Stray's influential book Beyond 2012, edited by Andy. Andy extensively writes and lectures in Britain and around the world, and has made many radio and TV appearances on both mainstream and alternative shows.
Andy Thomas explores the alternative history of humankind, as seen through the eyes of those who continually question the establishment version of events -- often with good reason. Conspiracies and secret societies with occult agendas may have been influencing our civilisation for centuries, their influence felt from as far back as the Roman Empire, the Gunpowder Plot and the World Wars, to JFK, the Moon landings, Princess Diana, 9/11 and the 'New World Order'. Andy ties it all together in a fascinating and comprehensive overview.
Documentary
One possible theory of what brought down the three buildings all on the same several hours of 9/11.
You should research Thermite and/or Electro-hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel device. They wouldn't use commercially available explosives as a demolition company would use.
There were military explosives available in the 90s that can change the molecular structure in a cloud created around a structure. The electrically charged cloud crushes steel to dust.
totse.com | CIA's METC Explosives - 9-11 Research
You should research Thermite and/or Electro-hydrodynamic Gaseous Fuel device. They wouldn't use commercially available explosives as a demolition company would use.
There were military explosives available in the 90s that can change the molecular structure in a cloud created around a structure. The electrically charged cloud crushes steel to dust.
totse.com | CIA's METC Explosives - 9-11 Research
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I concur
The Jew Conspiracy - Jesuit Vatican Lies :
From Video : Blaming the Jews is a popular "truther" theory with no evidence. The ones who enslaved Humanity are the same ones behind the Heliocentric deception. Their steps can be traced back from the Roman Empire to the Vatican, Jesuits and Black Nobility. They want us focused on endless theories, symptoms and escape-goats leading us nowhere. We cannot fight the enemy if we don't know who they are.
27 minutes
From Video : Blaming the Jews is a popular "truther" theory with no evidence. The ones who enslaved Humanity are the same ones behind the Heliocentric deception. Their steps can be traced back from the Roman Empire to the Vatican, Jesuits and Black Nobility. They want us focused on endless theories, symptoms and escape-goats leading us nowhere. We cannot fight the enemy if we don't know who they are.
27 minutes