Difficult journey to Ghana Europe snow now here very intermittent connection speedtest 3kbps (sic) when working. Almost impossible post. Ghana Telecom privatised to Vodafone much worse. Try post tomorrow.
Allowed HTML - you can use:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Sure Clark, just like Bigfoot and Roswell.
For many links regarding Haiti see:
http://www.williambowles.info/index.html
http://www.creative-i.info/
All the more recent links ones concern the earthquake, of course. For information about the disasterous US policy towards Haiti, see older links.
Oops! Mentally delete “ones” please!
“While official lines should certainly be questioned, counter-claims need to be subject to exactly the same kind of rigourous scrutiny”
Precisely. No-one calls the Watergate revelations a “conspiracy theory” though that’s what it was. The point is, the official line is rarely subject to the rigorous scrutiny in the MSM that it used to be.
Chemtrails are an interesting point. There appears to be a pretty substantial body of evidence out there. There are videos of it happening. There are chemical analyses of the substances. There are the eyewitness reports of airline employees who claim to have seen the equipment. There is therefore a prima facie case for serious investigation.
It may turn out to be a load of nonsense of course, but rigorous investigation is required to establish that. The fact that it initially appears not to make any sense is neither here nor there. That just means we can’t imagine what the sense of it might be.
“starting from theory and then choosing what evidence to look for is back to front. Investigators should be gathering evidence – you never know where it will lead, or when it might cast light on some theory.”
Sure. And that is clearly what conspiracy theorists don’t get. They start from theory and then find the evidence. In fact, they often start from a moral judgment, then make a theory that fits that moral judgment, then find the evidence.
It sometimes goes like this:
People say, Osama bin Laden is bad, however that’s conventional thinking, the US is much worse, think about it. They probably did 9/11 because their corporations benefit. The towers were demolished. It had nothing to do with the planes that flew into them. The planes didn’t have any hijackers because a list of victims published by CNN didn’t include the hijackers. The buildings were blown up by bombs and demolished. Lots of people said they heard explosions. Why were there no explosions on the video recordings of the towers collapsing? Because they used silent thermite made in a US lab. Yes, I did say there were sounds of explosives because people said they heard them. Why were there no sounds on video? Because they used silent nanothermite. I said there were no sounds and yet there WERE sounds? Yes, that’s because we have eyewitnesses who said they heard them…etc…etc…
“what about Bigfoot and Roswell?”
Sorry Larry, never given either any serious attention so can’t really comment.
MJ,
Do you think this lady is a little bit crazy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FbLzTp5GRI
Angrysoba,
are you personally interested in challenging the MSM?
“That’s a cue for a song…”
It Says Here
It says here that the Unions will never learn
It says here that the economy is on the upturn
And it says here we should be proud
That we are free
And our free press reflects our democracy
Those braying voices on the right of the House
Are echoed down the Street of Shame
Where politics mix with bingo and tits
In a strictly money and numbers game
Where they offer you a feature
On stockings and suspenders
Next to a call for stiffer penalties for sex offenders
It says here that this year’s prince is born
It says here do you ever wish
That you were better informed
And it says here that we can only stop the rot
With a large dose of Law and Order
And a touch of the short sharp shock
If this does not reflect your view you should understand
That those who own the papers also own this land
And they’d rather you believe
In Coronation Street capers
In the war of circulation, it sells newspapers
Could it be an infringement
Of the freedom of the press
To print pictures of women in states of undress
When you wake up to the fact
That your paper is Tory
Just remember, there are two sides to every story
angrysoba: your analysis of how people arrive at a different interpretation of 911 bears no relation to reality, in my own particular case anyway.
For almost a year I was perfectly satisfied with the official account. It made perfect sense and I did not doubt it for one minute. My opinion changed very gradually, over a long period of time, and it was actually looking at the evidence closely that did it.
One of the first things that struck me was that important key evidence was either missing (eg black box recorders, the planes themselves) or wilfully and illegally destroyed (eg the rubble of the buildings).
That’s how it started. The only theory I started with was that the official account was correct. I had no predisposition toward thinking it was wrong. Realising it was probably wrong was a period of great anguish for me.
You ask us a lot of questions, angrysoba. You need to ask yourself some, starting with why are you so angry – so angry that you put the word in your alias.
There are lots of silly beliefs in the world – or to put it a little more modestly, lots of beliefs that seem to me to be silly. None of them worries me – people can think what they like, follow whatever drumbeat they please, and so long as they do not intrude upon me and mine I am happy to watch their parade pass by with its drums and bugles.
I think it unlikely that an alien spacecraft crashed at Roswell and the incident was covered up by US military for their own, ever nefarious, purposes. Perhaps there is a large primate previously unknown to zoologists wandering around the north American forests, but I’m not convinced. David Icke’s thesis that our political leaders are shape-shifting lizards from a distant galaxy is one where I think I’d like to have a little more evidence, but maybe that’s just me. It could be that there is a monster in Loch Ness, I don’t know. When I read in a newspaper that someone thinks that the Pope is the Antichrist I don’t feel obliged to make contact with that person and tell him that he is a moron and a nutjob. I just turn the page – there is other news. I don’t get angry about any of these ideas and they don’t lead me to insult anyone.
But you don’t just turn the page, angrysoba. You present as harbouring feelings of gross personal offence at certain opinions – opinions which on the other hand you describe as mere foolish drollery, naught better than ghosts, marvels and monsters. There is a striking asymmetry between your claimed perception of the weight of an argument, and the weight of your response to it. That sort of behaviour is often described as psychotic.
Physician, heal thyself.
PS: This makes post No. 101 on a blog from Craig which was merely an apology for not blogging. Is this a record?
Vronsky,
interesting observations about Angrysoba, though to be fair, I don’t think he’s mentioned Roswell or Bigfoot; it’s 911 that seems to upset him most.
I think there are a lot of comments here partly because we can comment without dragging the thread off-topic.
MJ,
good posts. I agree with you about the trivialisation of news and the decline in investigative journalism. Most news outlets are now owned by a few megacorporations. But people are increasingly turning to the Internet for their news.
Your experience on discovering the alternative 911 theories is very similar to my own. I felt shaken up for weeks.
Vronsky: Interesting point. One can see why the beliefs of others can be a problem, for instance, the mythical belief that Saddam Hussein had WMD, and if he didn’t, they must have been hidden or – even more ludicrously – given (!) to Iran. That sort of delusion leads to war, and allows war criminal leaders to get away with their lies.
Belief in sky-beings is all very well, heck, worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster (pesto be upon him) if that’s what you want to do. But it does harm the rational among us when the religiously deluded demand “faith schools” using our tax money to indoctrinate the young and malleable, and they grow up not even knowing there are alternatives to some fundamentalists’ point of view. (The certainly happened to me – I had no idea that anyone rejected the strict Biblical worldview until I was about 12.)
But if someone wants to believe in BigFoot, Nessie etc., fine – just don’t ask me to change my life to accommodate such beliefs. And if someone wants to believe in the Magic Arab conspiracy theory, where 19 non-practicing Muslims managed to defeat the most heavily defended air space in history and cause highly improbable spontaneous and complete collapses of buildings, and such a True Believer wants to ignore all inconvenient evidence to the contrary, fine. Just don’t expect me to support wars of aggression and occupation in a supposed response. And don’t expect me to be afraid, jumping from one foot to the other while peeing my pants, as Americans do, and as we British are now being called upon to do.
Troublingly, the above is exactly what is being expected of us, on the basis of the most risible conspiracy theory and flimsiest of evidence, that even the authors of which now denounce (eg, Farmer, who drafted the 9/11 Commission Report). And to question the Official Conspiracy Theory makes one a nut, of course, possibly cowardly and unpatriotic, because we should always rush, rush, rush to war. (At least, others should. The most enthusiastic supporters for war – particularly leaders – run like hell from it themselves.)
“I don’t think he’s mentioned Roswell or Bigfoot; it’s 911 that seems to upset him most.”
I wasn’t suggesting that he had (he probably will, though) but yeah, it’s 9/11. If you read the Sunstein paper linked to higher up the thread, you’ll see that that is all he’s worried about too – padded out with some faux scholarliness about conspiracy theories in general. He cites Popper and obviously hasn’t read him.
RODERICK RUSSELL ?” JUST TO ANSWER YOUR COMMENTS
DEFINITION OF TORTURE
The acknowledged definition of torture is- “torture means any act or omission by which pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.” It has been further defined as “One severe act such as threatening ones family members is usually enough to demonstrate mental torture, though usually there is a pattern.” A pattern of threats against ones family members ?” we have had 10 years of it!
Well, look on my earlier note on this blog (just above this one) and you will see a 10 year pattern of these threats clear enough; then go to the Wiki for specific back-up and note how much of it is independently witnessed. Torture beyond a doubt several times over, and also it is a hate crime.
WHY DID IT MOVE FROM SLANDER TO THREATS
I am just speculating here ?” because I don’t know. Here is what others have suggested.
What I was told by people who perhaps know more than I do is this: They don’t see it as a big deal since it only took a 30 second phone call to the MI*s (or CSIS) to get a professional defamation job going. They are actually annoyed that I should make such a big deal of it. My continuing to fight back apparently damages their reputation. They now see me as the person who is causing them a problem ?” and think how dare this peon cause us a problem. Is also possible that the MI*s exceeded the mandate they were given. Or perhaps there is a sadist, or a psychopath somewhere in this loop? I really don’t know the reason; I just know that it happened and that there is plenty of proof?
As for the professional slandering/defamation that started everything off ?” A Human Resource consultant suggested it is simple: they saw your decision to leave as rejection, and they decided to reject you. My wife thinks it was just caused by petty jealousies among Vancouver staff, and everything just ratcheted up from there.
It is not logical, but then the slandering wasn’t logical either. All I can say is click on the WIKI Chapter 2 and you will see precedent where this has happened to others in the UK. What does Liam Clark say on zerzetsen in the UK “It is a phenomenon I have witnessed many times before”. And one of the most common statements people often make is ?” I don’t know why they did it.
LARRY THE LIAR
I suspect Larry has another agenda. If you look at the final two paragraphs on my comment (above) of Jan 16 2.49AM, you will note that while Larry is keen to provide libelous statements, he doesn’t provide analysis or any evidence to back them up, just accusations from his own prejudices. You will note that he hasn’t responded to any of the questions I asked him ?” just made more libelous accusations. Larry doesn’t debate he just accuses. In fact he is doing just exactly what those who spread the lies would want someone to do. That’s why I would like to know who his employer is, or who his past employer was.
I welcome critical review, but Larry’s comments are just insults without analysis. Though based in St. Louis his writing style is Public School English, not American.
This is a very nasty personal situation that Larry is libeling on. Just step back and think how evil this really is. I think we need to know a little bit more about Larry, and what his agenda is? I think that if Larry is to continue in this vein, other bloggers, in view of the unusual situation, should demand of him that (a) he analyze every one of his points, (b) answer my question to him and (c) stop hiding behind anonymity and provide his contact details as I do.
Roderick : I suggest you totally ignore your antagonist on this blog, instead of responding. It works just fine for me 🙂
Glenn, You are right. Sorry
Roderick,
A note: Someone who writes, “a pedophile who harbored” — as St Louis Larry did — is probably American.
I mostly take an interest and all, but in this case can’t see why anyone would need to know anything beyond the fact that some mad people killed a lot of other people, of all ages, races and religions, and that our governments, instead of turning the other cheek, as they were begged to by relatives of the dead, used this as an excuse to unleash ‘Shock and Awe’ on a completely unconnected country.
What do you do with these people? You kick them out, well done America, shame on the UK. And yet today the Guardian front page tells us that Barack Obama is less popular than Charles Manson, and Obama himself is appearing at press conferences between Bush and Clinton. Oh dear.
“Ahh the Sunstein effect, the political sibling of the Streisand effect.”
Between that and “terrorosis” I must say this is an inventive place. 🙂
Roderick – I’m still waiting for your best two pieces of evidence of your torture claim.
Roderick, so you know, if I send President Obama a letter stating that the CIA is tapping my phone, that is not evidence that the CIA is tapping my phone.
Now you’re getting boring, Larry. I expect Roderick will get back to you in his own time, if he wants to. Have you nothing better to do?
Dreoilin, I agree with you that someone who writes, “a pedophile who harbored” is probably American. But I also think that whoever drafted Larry’s comment under Craig’s “Greek Orhodox Church Blog” (Jan 13th @ 6.21 AM) for him is probably English Public School educated. It is really that comment (the first one) that I was referring to. American’s don’t write in that style.
Larry,
you are on record as stating that you believe Roderick Russell to be mentally unwell, and that you would no longer make fun of him. You seem to have changed your mind.
EITHER – Mr Russell is unwell, in which case, what does your continued questioning tell us about you?
OR – Mr Russell has suffered abuse. Again, in this case, what does your derisive, aggressive questioning indicate about you?
How well do you think that understand your own motivation, Larry?
Roderick: No apology necessary, my friend. It’s easy to get caught up with people intent on nothing but mischief, particularly when the matter is so personal.
Clark: I think we understand the motivation well enough. And it’s been nothing but malicious all along, and not just towards Roderick.
Clark – I changed my mind.
Roderick,
it is interesting that you mention that post of Larry’s. I commented on it myself on the same thread, on Jan 13 12:00 PM, pointing out that it was very different from his previous posts. A post of his crossed with mine, and he had returned to form, ie most unpleasant. I’m pondering all this. Let’s see what he does next.
Roderick,
Have I become part of the evidence of your torture?
Perhaps you need to analyse the evidence better, in full colour.
So, Larry, how are you feeling?
Why in full colour, Larry?