Discussion:
Do conspiracies exist?
Add Reply
Enquiring minds want to know
2014-07-07 16:46:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/

"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies. A
dictionary will define a conspiracy as the act of two or more people
coming together to plot to do something that is illegal.

"The truth is the world is full of conspiracy. If there was no such
thing as conspiracies governments would not need Intelligence
Agencies, which they themselves, sit behind closed doors and secretly
plot on how to infiltrate another government illegally to gather
intelligence they have no legal right to obtain. Those people who
reject conspiracies as real just have not thought the issue through,
or they simply don’t want to believe that there are people in the
world who plot the enslavement or destruction of others. If this is
your belief I ask you where did Communism come from? How did Hitler
rise to power???

"In fact conspiracies are part of every day life. People conspire with
work associates to get a better position over someone else.
Politicians conspire all the time to win public favour and also for
their own personal gain. Many events which happened let’s say 20 years
ago are being exposed such as the government sponsored human radiation
experiments in the USA. The CIA MK Ultra mind control program which
was exposed in the late 1970?s is another example of a cabal of people
conspiring in secret to implement an agenda which the public would not
approve. Plots and actions are exposed all the time.

"Conspiracies are a fact of life.??Conspiracies exist all over the
place. The question is not if conspiracies exist, for if they did not,
we would not have that word in the dictionary. The question becomes,
is there such a thing as a conspiracy to control the entire world and
enslave the people in a fuedalistic and socialistic order? Also if
there is in fact such a thing is it provable? Well the answer to both
questions is a resounding YES! "



...........................
Enquiring minds want to know

The pharmaceutical industry is based on myths and lies
http://www.pharmamyths.net/

Institutional Corruption of Pharmaceuticals and the Myth of Safe and
Effective Drugs
http://www.pharmamyths.net/files/JLME_ARTICLE_2013.pdf

Big Pharma Pockets $711 Billion in Profits by Price-Gouging Taxpayers
and Seniors
http://healthcareforamericanow.org/2013/04/08/pharma-711-billion-profits-price-gouging-seniors/

Pharmaceutical Companies Spent 19 Times More On Self-Promotion Than
Basic Research: Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/09/pharmaceutical-companies-marketing_n_1760380.html
Francis Lee
2014-07-07 17:43:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Francis Lee
2014-07-07 17:49:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
<snip>

No proof offered of the existence of any conspiracies.
Shoe-Chucker 2
2014-07-07 19:48:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
<snip>
No proof offered of the existence of any conspiracies.
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
Yes, he was told an airliner w/o transponder was headed towards D.C.

Dick Did Nothing... He let it happen.
and then he goes on with those wild WMD. lies.
Was he still working for Halliburton.
that's a government conspiracy.
--
Karma ; what a concept!
Francis Lee
2014-07-07 20:22:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-08 08:41:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Enquiring minds want to know
2014-07-08 22:33:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 03:41:48 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?

Surely it is reasonable to assume that the reason it is kept from
public scrutiny is due to the fact that it is incriminating.

See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.

Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.

Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/



Enquiring minds want to know

The pharmaceutical industry is based on myths and lies
http://www.pharmamyths.net/
Francis Lee
2014-07-08 23:16:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 03:41:48 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
Surely it is reasonable to assume that the reason it is kept from
public scrutiny is due to the fact that it is incriminating.
See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Without proof, all you have is an agenda.

Without proof, allegations of conspiracies are chiefly psychological
or socio-political in origin.

Without proof, all you have is the manifestation of a thought
disorder, such as paranoid disposition, ranging in severity to
diagnosable mental illness.

A real conspiracy is evidenced by provable facts.
Enquiring minds want to know
2014-07-09 00:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 03:41:48 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
Surely it is reasonable to assume that the reason it is kept from
public scrutiny is due to the fact that it is incriminating.
See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Without proof, all you have is an agenda.
We know that NORAD was stood down.
Who was ultimately responsible if not Dick Cheney?
Post by Francis Lee
Without proof, allegations of conspiracies are chiefly psychological
or socio-political in origin.
There are facts and facts - highly likely, probably, possible and
impossible.

If it can be shown there was some sort of negligence in a system, then
this is an issue.
Post by Francis Lee
Without proof, all you have is the manifestation of a thought
disorder, such as paranoid disposition, ranging in severity to
diagnosable mental illness.
But if there is actual proof, provable in a court of law, then it is a
conspiracy that nobody has been prosecuted.

Most people live in denial that conspiracies exist.

Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies."
Post by Francis Lee
A real conspiracy is evidenced by provable facts.
Not really.
I would say that there are conspiracies going on everywhere.


"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt


Too often the explanation given to the public is plausible
deniability.

Plausible deniability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
"The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a
formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or
responsibility for any damnable actions ..."



--
Enquiring minds want to know

Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
Francis Lee
2014-07-09 03:01:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:59:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 03:41:48 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
Surely it is reasonable to assume that the reason it is kept from
public scrutiny is due to the fact that it is incriminating.
See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Without proof, all you have is an agenda.
We know that NORAD was stood down.
"We" know nothing of the kind. Otherwise, you'd have cited proof.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Who was ultimately responsible if not Dick Cheney?
No one. It never happened because you can't prove that it did.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
Without proof, allegations of conspiracies are chiefly psychological
or socio-political in origin.
There are facts and facts - highly likely, probably, possible and
impossible.
False.

Facts, by definition, are things that are indisputably the case.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
If it can be shown there was some sort of negligence in a system, then
this is an issue.
Nothing is wrong with the system.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
Without proof, all you have is the manifestation of a thought
disorder, such as paranoid disposition, ranging in severity to
diagnosable mental illness.
But if there is actual proof, provable in a court of law, then it is a
conspiracy that nobody has been prosecuted.
You haven't produced any proof. All you're doing is blowing hot air.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Most people live in denial that conspiracies exist.
Conspiracies do not exist without proof.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies."
Nonsense website. No proof presented whatsoever regarding the
existence of any conspiracy anywhere.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
A real conspiracy is evidenced by provable facts.
Not really.
Yes, really.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
I would say that there are conspiracies going on everywhere.
And you have produced no proof of that.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
At best, a statement without proof.

By the way, there are no records of Roosevelt having made such a
statement, and this is most likely a misquotation of the widely
reported comment he made in a speech at the Citadel (23 October 1935):

". . . Yes. We are on the way back — not by mere chance, not by a
turn of the cycle. We are coming back more soundly than ever before
because we planned it that way, and don’t let anybody tell you
differently. "

FDR was referring to recovery of the economy.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Too often the explanation given to the public is plausible
deniability.
Plausible deniability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
"The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a
formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or
responsibility for any damnable actions ..."
Without proof, there is no conspiracy.
Bob Officer
2014-07-08 23:25:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 03:41:48 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
you have Zero proof Cheney did anything at all. That right just
because a person made up something doesn't mean it is true at all.
Remember a conspiracy theory is based upon a prior conclusion. It is
circular reasoning a logical fallacy, Carole. An Error in thinking.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Surely it is reasonable to assume <snip>
The problem is the prior assumption. there was never any evidence
Cheney did anything at all.

You might as well said "Person X" did such and such and there during
'Event Y' is no record of it. You are making an prior assumption that
'Person X' had anything to do with the 'Event Y'.

I can make the same absurd assumption and commit the same logical
fallacy by asking: "are you still are having sex with your 85 year
old neighbor" or "do you still beat your dog."

That's how the rest of the world views you and every other Conspiracy
Theorist utter stupidity.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
carole's misandry
2014-07-09 00:20:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 03:41:48 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
you have Zero proof Cheney did anything at all. That right just
because a person made up something doesn't mean it is true at all.
Remember a conspiracy theory is based upon a prior conclusion. It is
circular reasoning a logical fallacy, Carole. An Error in thinking.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Surely it is reasonable to assume <snip>
The problem is the prior assumption. there was never any evidence
Cheney did anything at all.
You might as well said "Person X" did such and such and there during
'Event Y' is no record of it. You are making an prior assumption that
'Person X' had anything to do with the 'Event Y'.
I can make the same absurd assumption and commit the same logical
fallacy by asking: "are you still are having sex with your 85 year
old neighbor" or "do you still beat your dog."
That's how the rest of the world views you and every other Conspiracy
Theorist utter stupidity.
carole <-- an idiot, and her own words have made her so.
--
From: Martin <***@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: All the world's problems caused by men ...not women.
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 09:40:25 +0200


On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:01:50 -0700 (PDT), carole
Post by Bob Officer
Did I forget most criminals are men. Generally, men dominate the
world through brute force, bullshit and bluff.
[You are] just upset that because you have a problem with personal
hygiene (witness your eternal problems with body odour and athletes
foot) [and] you can't get a man.
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-09 01:00:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
If there is some dark, dastardly conspiracy afoot, there will be
evidence. No person or organization can be 100% efficient at hiding
the evidence.
As of my writing this, no one has been able to produce any
evidence that shows Cheney was part of any conspiracy to keep NORAD
down and out for any amount of time.
With this lack of evidence, someone can claim you and I, along
with the cast of 'Jersey Boys,' kept NORAD down and out on September
11th. The evidence for such a claim is as plentiful as it is for
Cheney's having done so.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Surely it is reasonable to assume that the reason it is kept from
public scrutiny is due to the fact that it is incriminating.
More plausible is that evidence proving the conspiracy does not
exist. And it is impossible to offer something that doesn't exist.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.
Wanting to review evidence of your claims and requesting you, or
any other theorist, provide the evidence isn't bending over backwards
or jumping through hoops. And there is no way to make that equate to
demonizing anybody.
If you want to believe Cheney conspired with anyone and kept
NORAD down and out, fine. It's your *right* to believe it. But don't
get upset when people ask you to offer evidence, that can be verified,
that proves the claim.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proving the claim.
This will require evidence.
By way of example:
For decades the tobacco companies conspired with each other to
claim nicotine is not addictive and that tobacco is safe. People
claimed it was a conspiracy of lies. They presented the evidence and
the conspiracy was proved.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Enquiring minds want to know
2014-07-09 01:09:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
If there is some dark, dastardly conspiracy afoot, there will be
evidence. No person or organization can be 100% efficient at hiding
the evidence.
As of my writing this, no one has been able to produce any
evidence that shows Cheney was part of any conspiracy to keep NORAD
down and out for any amount of time.
With this lack of evidence, someone can claim you and I, along
with the cast of 'Jersey Boys,' kept NORAD down and out on September
11th. The evidence for such a claim is as plentiful as it is for
Cheney's having done so.
Then who did keep NORAD down dumb-arse?
If a system is put in place for the sake of national security and
prevent something happening, who or what made the situation happen
when it was told to stand down?

All you are doing is providing plausible deniability.



Plausible deniability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
"The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a
formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or
responsibility for any damnable actions ..."
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Surely it is reasonable to assume that the reason it is kept from
public scrutiny is due to the fact that it is incriminating.
More plausible is that evidence proving the conspiracy does not
exist. And it is impossible to offer something that doesn't exist.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt

Cover stories abound and are created by agencies to throw people off
the track and keep thing hidden and confused.
This is standard MO and is not a valid excuse to prevent
accountability for such situations.

Enquiring minds want to know

Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.
Wanting to review evidence of your claims and requesting you, or
any other theorist, provide the evidence isn't bending over backwards
or jumping through hoops. And there is no way to make that equate to
demonizing anybody.
If you want to believe Cheney conspired with anyone and kept
NORAD down and out, fine. It's your *right* to believe it. But don't
get upset when people ask you to offer evidence, that can be verified,
that proves the claim.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proving the claim.
This will require evidence.
Bullshit ...this is the reason there is government, to run the country
and be accountable. It is not up to the individual to need to query
the government and when that happens there has been some serious
breakdown in processes.

Wake up dumbarse.
Post by Francis Lee
For decades the tobacco companies conspired with each other to
claim nicotine is not addictive and that tobacco is safe. People
claimed it was a conspiracy of lies. They presented the evidence and
the conspiracy was proved.
Obviously there was some sort of coverup by tobacco industry.




Enquiring minds want to know

Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt


Plausible deniability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
"The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a
formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or
responsibility for any damnable actions ..."


MEDIA MIND CONTROL , DISINFORMATION AND ATTACKS
http://www.arkenterprises.com/disinfo.html
Bob Officer
2014-07-09 02:45:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
If there is some dark, dastardly conspiracy afoot, there will be
evidence. No person or organization can be 100% efficient at hiding
the evidence.
As of my writing this, no one has been able to produce any
evidence that shows Cheney was part of any conspiracy to keep NORAD
down and out for any amount of time.
With this lack of evidence, someone can claim you and I, along
with the cast of 'Jersey Boys,' kept NORAD down and out on September
11th. The evidence for such a claim is as plentiful as it is for
Cheney's having done so.
Then who did keep NORAD down dumb-arse?
Do you even understand what NORAD is, Carole?
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
If a system is put in place for the sake of national security and
prevent something happening, who or what made the situation happen
when it was told to stand down?
who said that it "was told to stand down"?
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
All you are doing is providing plausible deniability.
Conjecture is useless without any evidence.

<snip>
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Francis Lee
2014-07-09 03:29:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
If there is some dark, dastardly conspiracy afoot, there will be
evidence. No person or organization can be 100% efficient at hiding
the evidence.
As of my writing this, no one has been able to produce any
evidence that shows Cheney was part of any conspiracy to keep NORAD
down and out for any amount of time.
With this lack of evidence, someone can claim you and I, along
with the cast of 'Jersey Boys,' kept NORAD down and out on September
11th. The evidence for such a claim is as plentiful as it is for
Cheney's having done so.
Then who did keep NORAD down dumb-arse?
Do you even understand what NORAD is, Carole?
I doubt that she does.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
If a system is put in place for the sake of national security and
prevent something happening, who or what made the situation happen
when it was told to stand down?
who said that it "was told to stand down"?
she can't identify that person.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
All you are doing is providing plausible deniability.
Conjecture is useless without any evidence.
carole never presents any evidence.

she just doesn't get it.
Francis Lee
2014-07-09 03:13:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
If there is some dark, dastardly conspiracy afoot, there will be
evidence. No person or organization can be 100% efficient at hiding
the evidence.
As of my writing this, no one has been able to produce any
evidence that shows Cheney was part of any conspiracy to keep NORAD
down and out for any amount of time.
With this lack of evidence, someone can claim you and I, along
with the cast of 'Jersey Boys,' kept NORAD down and out on September
11th. The evidence for such a claim is as plentiful as it is for
Cheney's having done so.
Then who did keep NORAD down dumb-arse?
NORAD wasn't kept down. You've produced no proof that it was.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
If a system is put in place for the sake of national security and
prevent something happening, who or what made the situation happen
when it was told to stand down?
It was never told to stand down.
You have produced no proof that it was.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
All you are doing is providing plausible deniability.
There is no plausible denial without proof that something happened.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Cover stories abound and are created by agencies to throw people off
the track and keep thing hidden and confused.
Calling something a "cover story" without proof of what the story
covered up is nonsense.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
This is standard MO and is not a valid excuse to prevent
accountability for such situations.
There is nothing to account for without proof that it happened in the
first place.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proving the claim.
This will require evidence.
Bullshit ...this is the reason there is government, to run the country
and be accountable.
And the government is accoutable for what it does when there is proof
of what it has done.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
It is not up to the individual to need to query
the government and when that happens there has been some serious
breakdown in processes.
The individual alleging a conspiracy has the burden of proving that a
conspiracy existed. That has always been the case.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
The only dumbarse entrenched in paranoia here is you, carole.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
For decades the tobacco companies conspired with each other to
claim nicotine is not addictive and that tobacco is safe. People
claimed it was a conspiracy of lies. They presented the evidence and
the conspiracy was proved.
Obviously there was some sort of coverup by tobacco industry.
There was evidence that showed the conspiracy existed. Without that
evidence, there would have been no coverup.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
There are no records of Roosevelt having made such a statement, and
this is most likely a misquotation of the widely reported comment he
made in a speech at the Citadel (23 October 1935):

". . . Yes. We are on the way back — not by mere chance, not by a
turn of the cycle. We are coming back more soundly than ever before
because we planned it that way, and don’t let anybody tell you
differently. "

FDR was referring to recovery of the economy.
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-09 09:27:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
If there is some dark, dastardly conspiracy afoot, there will be
evidence. No person or organization can be 100% efficient at hiding
the evidence.
As of my writing this, no one has been able to produce any
evidence that shows Cheney was part of any conspiracy to keep NORAD
down and out for any amount of time.
With this lack of evidence, someone can claim you and I, along
with the cast of 'Jersey Boys,' kept NORAD down and out on September
11th. The evidence for such a claim is as plentiful as it is for
Cheney's having done so.
Then who did keep NORAD down dumb-arse?
You've yet to establish that it was kept down. But pretending for
the moment that it was, there are others within the chain of command
with the authority to do so.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
If a system is put in place for the sake of national security and
prevent something happening, who or what made the situation happen
when it was told to stand down?
All you are doing is providing plausible deniability.
Pointing out that you've not offered any evidence is only
pointing out that you've not offered any evidence.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Plausible deniability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
"The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a
formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or
responsibility for any damnable actions ..."
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Surely it is reasonable to assume that the reason it is kept from
public scrutiny is due to the fact that it is incriminating.
More plausible is that evidence proving the conspiracy does not
exist. And it is impossible to offer something that doesn't exist.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Roosevelt never said that. But you are free to cite when he did.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Cover stories abound and are created by agencies to throw people off
the track and keep thing hidden and confused.
This is standard MO and is not a valid excuse to prevent
accountability for such situations.
So once again you prove my claim correct. To the conspiracy
theorist, the lack of proof *is* the proof.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
No matter how often you post that, he will never have said it.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.
Wanting to review evidence of your claims and requesting you, or
any other theorist, provide the evidence isn't bending over backwards
or jumping through hoops. And there is no way to make that equate to
demonizing anybody.
If you want to believe Cheney conspired with anyone and kept
NORAD down and out, fine. It's your *right* to believe it. But don't
get upset when people ask you to offer evidence, that can be verified,
that proves the claim.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proving the claim.
This will require evidence.
Bullshit
I wish I could just claim something as BS when it proves me
wrong. Sadly, my mind is wired correctly, so I can't.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
...this is the reason there is government, to run the country
and be accountable. It is not up to the individual to need to query
the government and when that happens there has been some serious
breakdown in processes.
The people are to hold the government accountable. But to simply
cry out that Cheney kept NORAD down and out without evidence that he
did so will never work.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
For decades the tobacco companies conspired with each other to
claim nicotine is not addictive and that tobacco is safe. People
claimed it was a conspiracy of lies. They presented the evidence and
the conspiracy was proved.
Obviously there was some sort of coverup by tobacco industry.
It was a conspiracy among the companies. And it was proved.
Now it's your turn to prove the conspiracy you claim exists or
admit there is none. Your choice.
--
"Mass genocide is the most exhausting practice one can engage in.
Next to soccer."
Bob Officer
2014-07-09 13:17:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:27:15 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Roosevelt never said that. But you are free to cite when he did.
This is one of carole's problems. She allows the possibility of false
citation and out of context citations to color her thought processes.
Even when presented with a direct source of the quote, a published
hand written letter in a photo archive of hand written letters,
carole will continue to use the post edited and out of context
citation.

There is overly used quotation from an Atlantic Magazine about John
Ioannidis, The author of the magazine article, not Ioannidis says
that "Scientific studies are up to 90% false". But really isn't any
of citing Ioannidis work at all.
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Cover stories abound and are created by agencies to throw people off
the track and keep thing hidden and confused.
This is standard MO and is not a valid excuse to prevent
accountability for such situations.
So once again you prove my claim correct. To the conspiracy
theorist, the lack of proof *is* the proof.
<play tada.wav>
Tada!
</play>
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
No matter how often you post that, he will never have said it.
The fallacy of a lie repeated, make the lie true.
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.
Wanting to review evidence of your claims and requesting you, or
any other theorist, provide the evidence isn't bending over backwards
or jumping through hoops. And there is no way to make that equate to
demonizing anybody.
If you want to believe Cheney conspired with anyone and kept
NORAD down and out, fine. It's your *right* to believe it. But don't
get upset when people ask you to offer evidence, that can be verified,
that proves the claim.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proving the claim.
This will require evidence.
Bullshit
I wish I could just claim something as BS when it proves me
wrong. Sadly, my mind is wired correctly, so I can't.
The main point of all civilized debate is the claimant must also show
the proof. Even our own flawed judicial system is based on the
claimant being required to prove his claim.
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
...this is the reason there is government, to run the country
and be accountable. It is not up to the individual to need to query
the government and when that happens there has been some serious
breakdown in processes.
The people are to hold the government accountable. But to simply
cry out that Cheney kept NORAD down and out without evidence that he
did so will never work.
She will ever realize that point, because of CT depends on this mal
function of thinking process
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
When she seems to lose any debate she turns to insults.
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
For decades the tobacco companies conspired with each other to
claim nicotine is not addictive and that tobacco is safe. People
claimed it was a conspiracy of lies. They presented the evidence and
the conspiracy was proved.
Obviously there was some sort of coverup by tobacco industry.
It was a conspiracy among the companies. And it was proved.
Now it's your turn to prove the conspiracy you claim exists or
admit there is none. Your choice.
She has none. Because she is a true believer. A true believe holds
dogma to be true even in the face of contradictory evidence. In the
specific case of CT, the fact there is Contradictory Evidence or even
No Evidence proves the Conspiracy
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-10 09:26:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:27:15 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Roosevelt never said that. But you are free to cite when he did.
This is one of carole's problems. She allows the possibility of false
citation and out of context citations to color her thought processes.
Even when presented with a direct source of the quote, a published
hand written letter in a photo archive of hand written letters,
carole will continue to use the post edited and out of context
citation.
Not a good sign.
Post by Bob Officer
There is overly used quotation from an Atlantic Magazine about John
Ioannidis, The author of the magazine article, not Ioannidis says
that "Scientific studies are up to 90% false". But really isn't any
of citing Ioannidis work at all.
I've seen her post the quote. I've been waiting to see it again
to ask her for a full cite. Not that I expect her to provide one.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Cover stories abound and are created by agencies to throw people off
the track and keep thing hidden and confused.
This is standard MO and is not a valid excuse to prevent
accountability for such situations.
So once again you prove my claim correct. To the conspiracy
theorist, the lack of proof *is* the proof.
<play tada.wav>
Tada!
</play>
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
No matter how often you post that, he will never have said it.
The fallacy of a lie repeated, make the lie true.
A true sign of desperation.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.
Wanting to review evidence of your claims and requesting you, or
any other theorist, provide the evidence isn't bending over backwards
or jumping through hoops. And there is no way to make that equate to
demonizing anybody.
If you want to believe Cheney conspired with anyone and kept
NORAD down and out, fine. It's your *right* to believe it. But don't
get upset when people ask you to offer evidence, that can be verified,
that proves the claim.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proving the claim.
This will require evidence.
Bullshit
I wish I could just claim something as BS when it proves me
wrong. Sadly, my mind is wired correctly, so I can't.
The main point of all civilized debate is the claimant must also show
the proof. Even our own flawed judicial system is based on the
claimant being required to prove his claim.
The prosecution is charged with proving guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Until that has been done, the defendant is presumed innocent.
If the prosecution is unable to provide evidence of guilt, the
jury will have to return a verdict of not guilty.
Usenet isn't a court of law, which is fortunate for Carole. If it
were, she would have failed to prove her case and Big Pharma would be
found not guilty.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
...this is the reason there is government, to run the country
and be accountable. It is not up to the individual to need to query
the government and when that happens there has been some serious
breakdown in processes.
The people are to hold the government accountable. But to simply
cry out that Cheney kept NORAD down and out without evidence that he
did so will never work.
She will ever realize that point, because of CT depends on this mal
function of thinking process
I've noticed Carole, et al., firmly believe that if they make the
claim enough times, people will blindly believe them.
I've never seen it work, but still they try.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
When she seems to lose any debate she turns to insults.
I can't understand why CTs think insulting others will win
someone over.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
For decades the tobacco companies conspired with each other to
claim nicotine is not addictive and that tobacco is safe. People
claimed it was a conspiracy of lies. They presented the evidence and
the conspiracy was proved.
Obviously there was some sort of coverup by tobacco industry.
It was a conspiracy among the companies. And it was proved.
Now it's your turn to prove the conspiracy you claim exists or
admit there is none. Your choice.
She has none. Because she is a true believer. A true believe holds
dogma to be true even in the face of contradictory evidence. In the
specific case of CT, the fact there is Contradictory Evidence or even
No Evidence proves the Conspiracy
Exactly.
--
Always follow your dream!
Unless it's the one where you're at work in your underwear during a
fire drill.
Bob Officer
2014-07-10 13:30:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 04:26:21 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:27:15 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Roosevelt never said that. But you are free to cite when he did.
This is one of carole's problems. She allows the possibility of false
citation and out of context citations to color her thought processes.
Even when presented with a direct source of the quote, a published
hand written letter in a photo archive of hand written letters,
carole will continue to use the post edited and out of context
citation.
Not a good sign.
Really carole has been using a misquotation and out of context
citation of thomas jefferson. When shown the links to the book of
published letters and link to the original letters image in the
National Archives she still refuses to stop using the misattributed
text.

When carole reads a popular press magazine, she doesn't determine who
words are in the headline and who is writing the article and which
are his or her words and the words which are direct citation of the
subject.

Thus she ends up with a false belief that John Ioannidis actually
made the statement up to 90% of all studies are false. And when
countered with a direct citation from John Ioannidis that he never
said or wrote that claim, she calls it proof of a conspiracy to
silence dissent.

It is "Not a Good Sign"
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
There is overly used quotation from an Atlantic Magazine about John
Ioannidis, The author of the magazine article, not Ioannidis says
that "Scientific studies are up to 90% false". But really isn't any
of citing Ioannidis work at all.
I've seen her post the quote. I've been waiting to see it again
to ask her for a full cite. Not that I expect her to provide one.
She has never read the actual article because it is "too technical"
and carole doesn't do technical. She rants about the dumbed-down
science, and then refuses to read anything which isn't dumbed-down to
her level. She even puts down people which are "merely technicians".
because the have no original thoughts.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Cover stories abound and are created by agencies to throw people off
the track and keep thing hidden and confused.
This is standard MO and is not a valid excuse to prevent
accountability for such situations.
So once again you prove my claim correct. To the conspiracy
theorist, the lack of proof *is* the proof.
<play tada.wav>
Tada!
</play>
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
No matter how often you post that, he will never have said it.
The fallacy of a lie repeated, makes the lie true.
A true sign of desperation.
It is really that, isn't.
I am really glad carole crossposted this thread. It has been fun.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.
Wanting to review evidence of your claims and requesting you, or
any other theorist, provide the evidence isn't bending over backwards
or jumping through hoops. And there is no way to make that equate to
demonizing anybody.
If you want to believe Cheney conspired with anyone and kept
NORAD down and out, fine. It's your *right* to believe it. But don't
get upset when people ask you to offer evidence, that can be verified,
that proves the claim.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proving the claim.
This will require evidence.
Bullshit
I wish I could just claim something as BS when it proves me
wrong. Sadly, my mind is wired correctly, so I can't.
The main point of all civilized debate is the claimant must also show
the proof. Even our own flawed judicial system is based on the
claimant being required to prove his claim.
The prosecution is charged with proving guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Until that has been done, the defendant is presumed innocent.
If the prosecution is unable to provide evidence of guilt, the
jury will have to return a verdict of not guilty.
Usenet isn't a court of law, which is fortunate for Carole. If it
were, she would have failed to prove her case and Big Pharma would be
found not guilty.
But carole's actions of attempting to use fallacies and misleading
people would have her behind bars for contempt.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
...this is the reason there is government, to run the country
and be accountable. It is not up to the individual to need to query
the government and when that happens there has been some serious
breakdown in processes.
The people are to hold the government accountable. But to simply
cry out that Cheney kept NORAD down and out without evidence that he
did so will never work.
She will ever realize that point, because of CT depends on this mal
function of thinking process
I've noticed Carole, et al., firmly believe that if they make the
claim enough times, people will blindly believe them.
I've never seen it work, but still they try.
Way back in day, in high school when they actually taught public
speaking and debate, we had one or two days a week for the 1st
quarter which covered uses of major fallacies, how to recognized them
and counter them and how to avoid using them ourselves. Yes I was one
of those people with boxes and boxes of 3x4 reference cards
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
When she seems to lose any debate she turns to insults.
I can't understand why CTs think insulting others will win
someone over.
IT is a bully tactic. it only re-enforces like minded people.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
For decades the tobacco companies conspired with each other to
claim nicotine is not addictive and that tobacco is safe. People
claimed it was a conspiracy of lies. They presented the evidence and
the conspiracy was proved.
Obviously there was some sort of coverup by tobacco industry.
It was a conspiracy among the companies. And it was proved.
Now it's your turn to prove the conspiracy you claim exists or
admit there is none. Your choice.
She has none. Because she is a true believer. A true believer holds
dogma to be true even in the face of contradictory evidence. In the
specific case of CT, the fact there is Contradictory Evidence or even
No Evidence proves the Conspiracy
Exactly.
carole has shown that she has real trouble when it comes to the word
belief and knowledge. She wants to use them interchangeably. The
problem is she fails to understand beliefs are dogmatic in nature.
Carved in stone unchanging, un flexible and usually un-testible.
Dogma is held to be true without any evidence (usually because
someone stated it was just so) or held to be true in the face of
contradictory evidence.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-11 09:21:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 04:26:21 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:27:15 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Roosevelt never said that. But you are free to cite when he did.
This is one of carole's problems. She allows the possibility of false
citation and out of context citations to color her thought processes.
Even when presented with a direct source of the quote, a published
hand written letter in a photo archive of hand written letters,
carole will continue to use the post edited and out of context
citation.
Not a good sign.
Really carole has been using a misquotation and out of context
citation of thomas jefferson. When shown the links to the book of
published letters and link to the original letters image in the
National Archives she still refuses to stop using the misattributed
text.
When carole reads a popular press magazine, she doesn't determine who
words are in the headline and who is writing the article and which
are his or her words and the words which are direct citation of the
subject.
Thus she ends up with a false belief that John Ioannidis actually
made the statement up to 90% of all studies are false. And when
countered with a direct citation from John Ioannidis that he never
said or wrote that claim, she calls it proof of a conspiracy to
silence dissent.
With CTs like Carole, everything is proof of the conspiracy. If
it's evidence that tends to support the claim, well, it's proof.
If the evidence shows the claim to be false, well that PROVES the
conspiracy is true, since there would be no need to manufacture
evidence showing it's false if it were false.
And the claim will be that the evidence is manufactured, though
each CT may word it differently.
Post by Bob Officer
It is "Not a Good Sign"
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
There is overly used quotation from an Atlantic Magazine about John
Ioannidis, The author of the magazine article, not Ioannidis says
that "Scientific studies are up to 90% false". But really isn't any
of citing Ioannidis work at all.
I've seen her post the quote. I've been waiting to see it again
to ask her for a full cite. Not that I expect her to provide one.
She has never read the actual article because it is "too technical"
and carole doesn't do technical. She rants about the dumbed-down
science, and then refuses to read anything which isn't dumbed-down to
her level. She even puts down people which are "merely technicians".
because the have no original thoughts.
That is fascinating.
This allows her to instantly disregard anyone who may take the
time to explain where she was and is in error.
Plus they will be pawns of the conspiracy.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Cover stories abound and are created by agencies to throw people off
the track and keep thing hidden and confused.
This is standard MO and is not a valid excuse to prevent
accountability for such situations.
So once again you prove my claim correct. To the conspiracy
theorist, the lack of proof *is* the proof.
<play tada.wav>
Tada!
</play>
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
No matter how often you post that, he will never have said it.
The fallacy of a lie repeated, makes the lie true.
A true sign of desperation.
It is really that, isn't.
I am really glad carole crossposted this thread. It has been fun.
I recently re-joined alt.conspiracy after being gone for several
years. Once it was full of really fascinating conspiracies. The
government was spending millions upon millions to fire Sputnik lasers
at Nancy Luff, while an alien race was causing grief for Gary Stollman
who thought taking David Horowitz hostage while on TV would help.
After a while, the really interesting conspiracy rants faded away
and race based posts became prevalent.
I hold that each racist that posted had, and has, the right to be
racist and post their racist beliefs. However, they get very old very
quickly and I left the group.
The group doesn't have much going on now. There's a guy, Ernie,
who claims he's cured baldness, but has yet to offer anything valid to
support, let alone prove, his claim. And you've dealt with Thomas.
Thomas is, if nothing else, entertaining. He claims Hitler wasn't
Hitler, but a British spy and that Eva Braum was in reality Unity
Mitford.
Also, the Nazca lines were carved, yes carved, into the plateau
millions of years ago. It's so obvious because someone at some point
after 1939 did some graffiti and wrote "Henry."

[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proving the claim.
This will require evidence.
Bullshit
I wish I could just claim something as BS when it proves me
wrong. Sadly, my mind is wired correctly, so I can't.
The main point of all civilized debate is the claimant must also show
the proof. Even our own flawed judicial system is based on the
claimant being required to prove his claim.
The prosecution is charged with proving guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Until that has been done, the defendant is presumed innocent.
If the prosecution is unable to provide evidence of guilt, the
jury will have to return a verdict of not guilty.
Usenet isn't a court of law, which is fortunate for Carole. If it
were, she would have failed to prove her case and Big Pharma would be
found not guilty.
But carole's actions of attempting to use fallacies and misleading
people would have her behind bars for contempt.
Most probably she would first be warned, then reprimanded, then
issued a fine, and then cited with contempt.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
...this is the reason there is government, to run the country
and be accountable. It is not up to the individual to need to query
the government and when that happens there has been some serious
breakdown in processes.
The people are to hold the government accountable. But to simply
cry out that Cheney kept NORAD down and out without evidence that he
did so will never work.
She will ever realize that point, because of CT depends on this mal
function of thinking process
I've noticed Carole, et al., firmly believe that if they make the
claim enough times, people will blindly believe them.
I've never seen it work, but still they try.
Way back in day, in high school when they actually taught public
speaking and debate, we had one or two days a week for the 1st
quarter which covered uses of major fallacies, how to recognized them
and counter them and how to avoid using them ourselves. Yes I was one
of those people with boxes and boxes of 3x4 reference cards
I attended High School in Poland. The one thing Communism got
right was education. No matter what you wanted to pursue as a career,
you would learn as much as possible about everything.
I don't know about the other bloc nations, but in Poland, one had
to be FLUENT in at least one foreign language to graduate high school.
English, being the international language of business, was the most
common. I chose Italian just to be different.
Anyway, I was encouraged to join the Polish equivalent of the
debate team. By encouraged I mean told I would join, there was no way
to decline.
I didn't enjoy it, and as a result, I wasn't very good. Yes, I
could give my arguments and offer cites when requested. But there was
no passion behind it.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
When she seems to lose any debate she turns to insults.
I can't understand why CTs think insulting others will win
someone over.
IT is a bully tactic. it only re-enforces like minded people.
I note she hasn't bothered to offer a retort to my adopting her
standard of using insults.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
For decades the tobacco companies conspired with each other to
claim nicotine is not addictive and that tobacco is safe. People
claimed it was a conspiracy of lies. They presented the evidence and
the conspiracy was proved.
Obviously there was some sort of coverup by tobacco industry.
It was a conspiracy among the companies. And it was proved.
Now it's your turn to prove the conspiracy you claim exists or
admit there is none. Your choice.
She has none. Because she is a true believer. A true believer holds
dogma to be true even in the face of contradictory evidence. In the
specific case of CT, the fact there is Contradictory Evidence or even
No Evidence proves the Conspiracy
Exactly.
carole has shown that she has real trouble when it comes to the word
belief and knowledge. She wants to use them interchangeably. The
problem is she fails to understand beliefs are dogmatic in nature.
Carved in stone unchanging, un flexible and usually un-testible.
Dogma is held to be true without any evidence (usually because
someone stated it was just so) or held to be true in the face of
contradictory evidence.
It becomes a religion to them in that sense. There is no way to
prove or disprove any religion. Even the religion of ancient Greece
can't be proved or disproved.
One could hike to the top of Mount Olympus and note the lack of
any gods, but anyone who might still follow the religion would explain
it away as, "They're gods. When they saw you coming, they hid
themselves from your view. Duh!"
--
"Pulled pork tacos.
"Greasy, messy, pulled pork tacos."
-- Chuck Bryant
Bob Officer
2014-07-11 22:09:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 04:21:17 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 04:26:21 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:27:15 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Roosevelt never said that. But you are free to cite when he did.
This is one of carole's problems. She allows the possibility of false
citation and out of context citations to color her thought processes.
Even when presented with a direct source of the quote, a published
hand written letter in a photo archive of hand written letters,
carole will continue to use the post edited and out of context
citation.
Not a good sign.
Really carole has been using a misquotation and out of context
citation of thomas jefferson. When shown the links to the book of
published letters and link to the original letters image in the
National Archives she still refuses to stop using the misattributed
text.
When carole reads a popular press magazine, she doesn't determine who
words are in the headline and who is writing the article and which
are his or her words and the words which are direct citation of the
subject.
Thus she ends up with a false belief that John Ioannidis actually
made the statement up to 90% of all studies are false. And when
countered with a direct citation from John Ioannidis that he never
said or wrote that claim, she calls it proof of a conspiracy to
silence dissent.
With CTs like Carole, everything is proof of the conspiracy. If
it's evidence that tends to support the claim, well, it's proof.
If the evidence shows the claim to be false, well that PROVES the
conspiracy is true, since there would be no need to manufacture
evidence showing it's false if it were false.
And the claim will be that the evidence is manufactured, though
each CT may word it differently.
Post by Bob Officer
It is "Not a Good Sign"
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
There is overly used quotation from an Atlantic Magazine about John
Ioannidis, The author of the magazine article, not Ioannidis says
that "Scientific studies are up to 90% false". But really isn't any
of citing Ioannidis work at all.
I've seen her post the quote. I've been waiting to see it again
to ask her for a full cite. Not that I expect her to provide one.
She has never read the actual article because it is "too technical"
and carole doesn't do technical. She rants about the dumbed-down
science, and then refuses to read anything which isn't dumbed-down to
her level. She even puts down people which are "merely technicians".
because the have no original thoughts.
That is fascinating.
This allows her to instantly disregard anyone who may take the
time to explain where she was and is in error.
Plus they will be pawns of the conspiracy.
Health and bioscience has been explained to her on MHA over and over
again. Several people have ended up with enough educational links
they are now about to see most of alternative healths false claims
when they see them. Most of them are pretty good as playing spot the
fallacy game.

I a way Carole has been good for MHA. The conartist and Shills left
unwilling to support her and one by one they were exposed as people
basically trying to sell products of dubious value, and left. I hope
she provides ample examples of why CT is generally nonsense, for your
group as well.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Cover stories abound and are created by agencies to throw people off
the track and keep thing hidden and confused.
This is standard MO and is not a valid excuse to prevent
accountability for such situations.
So once again you prove my claim correct. To the conspiracy
theorist, the lack of proof *is* the proof.
<play tada.wav>
Tada!
</play>
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
No matter how often you post that, he will never have said it.
The fallacy of a lie repeated, makes the lie true.
A true sign of desperation.
It is really that, isn't.
I am really glad carole crossposted this thread. It has been fun.
I recently re-joined alt.conspiracy after being gone for several
years. Once it was full of really fascinating conspiracies. The
government was spending millions upon millions to fire Sputnik lasers
at Nancy Luff, while an alien race was causing grief for Gary Stollman
who thought taking David Horowitz hostage while on TV would help.
After a while, the really interesting conspiracy rants faded away
and race based posts became prevalent.
I hold that each racist that posted had, and has, the right to be
racist and post their racist beliefs. However, they get very old very
quickly and I left the group.
The group doesn't have much going on now. There's a guy, Ernie,
who claims he's cured baldness, but has yet to offer anything valid to
support, let alone prove, his claim. And you've dealt with Thomas.
I recall seeing Ernie from AUK.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Thomas is, if nothing else, entertaining. He claims Hitler wasn't
Hitler, but a British spy and that Eva Braum was in reality Unity
Mitford.
Wow, I didn't realize Thomas was a Nazi Denier.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Also, the Nazca lines were carved, yes carved, into the plateau
millions of years ago. It's so obvious because someone at some point
after 1939 did some graffiti and wrote "Henry."
LOL.. They are not carved... and the photos have that well
documented.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proving the claim.
This will require evidence.
Bullshit
I wish I could just claim something as BS when it proves me
wrong. Sadly, my mind is wired correctly, so I can't.
The main point of all civilized debate is the claimant must also show
the proof. Even our own flawed judicial system is based on the
claimant being required to prove his claim.
The prosecution is charged with proving guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt. Until that has been done, the defendant is presumed innocent.
If the prosecution is unable to provide evidence of guilt, the
jury will have to return a verdict of not guilty.
Usenet isn't a court of law, which is fortunate for Carole. If it
were, she would have failed to prove her case and Big Pharma would be
found not guilty.
But carole's actions of attempting to use fallacies and misleading
people would have her behind bars for contempt.
Most probably she would first be warned, then reprimanded, then
issued a fine, and then cited with contempt.
here she is just laughed at, and if you're interested carole has
posted her nonsense in non-USENET forums. she got laughed at there ,
too.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
...this is the reason there is government, to run the country
and be accountable. It is not up to the individual to need to query
the government and when that happens there has been some serious
breakdown in processes.
The people are to hold the government accountable. But to simply
cry out that Cheney kept NORAD down and out without evidence that he
did so will never work.
She will ever realize that point, because of CT depends on this mal
function of thinking process
I've noticed Carole, et al., firmly believe that if they make the
claim enough times, people will blindly believe them.
I've never seen it work, but still they try.
Way back in day, in high school when they actually taught public
speaking and debate, we had one or two days a week for the 1st
quarter which covered uses of major fallacies, how to recognized them
and counter them and how to avoid using them ourselves. Yes I was one
of those people with boxes and boxes of 3x4 reference cards
I attended High School in Poland. The one thing Communism got
right was education. No matter what you wanted to pursue as a career,
you would learn as much as possible about everything.
I don't know about the other bloc nations, but in Poland, one had
to be FLUENT in at least one foreign language to graduate high school.
English, being the international language of business, was the most
common. I chose Italian just to be different.
Anyway, I was encouraged to join the Polish equivalent of the
debate team. By encouraged I mean told I would join, there was no way
to decline.
I didn't enjoy it, and as a result, I wasn't very good. Yes, I
could give my arguments and offer cites when requested. But there was
no passion behind it.
I have read that about Poland. I also read the explanation of why.
During WW2 the German's imprisoned and exterminated 1,000s of well
educated people and craftsmen. The russians din't help matter much
either. The end goal of the german war machine was to create a
nations of virtual serfs to serve the true masters, pure blood
Germans. The russians had the communism, where the masses supported
the "party elite". Post WW2 saw Poland a nation with very few
educated or skilled people (in comparison, always to the rest of
Europe) The drive (it was a drive) to produce teachers, engineers and
technicians would be the number one priority. Public speaking (and
debate) techniques are used by teachers to instruct students. Face it
a teacher that stuttered mumbled and faltered would be a poor teacher
and wouldn't stir the interest of the students very well.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
When she seems to lose any debate she turns to insults.
I can't understand why CTs think insulting others will win
someone over.
IT is a bully tactic. it only re-enforces like minded people.
I note she hasn't bothered to offer a retort to my adopting her
standard of using insults.
She has a different take on it, in few days she will stop the insults
and in a month or three she will get offended at one of your insults
and act the injured party. Carole is very predictable.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
For decades the tobacco companies conspired with each other to
claim nicotine is not addictive and that tobacco is safe. People
claimed it was a conspiracy of lies. They presented the evidence and
the conspiracy was proved.
Obviously there was some sort of coverup by tobacco industry.
It was a conspiracy among the companies. And it was proved.
Now it's your turn to prove the conspiracy you claim exists or
admit there is none. Your choice.
She has none. Because she is a true believer. A true believer holds
dogma to be true even in the face of contradictory evidence. In the
specific case of CT, the fact there is Contradictory Evidence or even
No Evidence proves the Conspiracy
Exactly.
carole has shown that she has real trouble when it comes to the word
belief and knowledge. She wants to use them interchangeably. The
problem is she fails to understand beliefs are dogmatic in nature.
Carved in stone unchanging, un flexible and usually un-testible.
Dogma is held to be true without any evidence (usually because
someone stated it was just so) or held to be true in the face of
contradictory evidence.
It becomes a religion to them in that sense. There is no way to
prove or disprove any religion. Even the religion of ancient Greece
can't be proved or disproved.
One could hike to the top of Mount Olympus and note the lack of
any gods, but anyone who might still follow the religion would explain
it away as, "They're gods. When they saw you coming, they hid
themselves from your view. Duh!"
Yes, our self deception forces us to create gods in our image,
doesn't it? That why ignorant people create silly gods. Hypocrites
create hypocritical/two faced gods and smart people abandon the need
for gods, and doesn't waste their time.

Science has no need for dogma or faith, everything in science is
testable and subject to being challenged. Indeed where religion
avoids and refuses to be tests, science embraces it and challenges
itself. Every answer is subject to being challenged. In Math we learn
the works: "Show your work". It wasn't so much getting the right
answer but doing the work correctly, building one process before the
other.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-12 09:07:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:09:57 -0700, Bob Officer <*.*@*.*> wrote:

[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
It is really that, isn't.
I am really glad carole crossposted this thread. It has been fun.
I recently re-joined alt.conspiracy after being gone for several
years. Once it was full of really fascinating conspiracies. The
government was spending millions upon millions to fire Sputnik lasers
at Nancy Luff, while an alien race was causing grief for Gary Stollman
who thought taking David Horowitz hostage while on TV would help.
After a while, the really interesting conspiracy rants faded away
and race based posts became prevalent.
I hold that each racist that posted had, and has, the right to be
racist and post their racist beliefs. However, they get very old very
quickly and I left the group.
The group doesn't have much going on now. There's a guy, Ernie,
who claims he's cured baldness, but has yet to offer anything valid to
support, let alone prove, his claim. And you've dealt with Thomas.
I recall seeing Ernie from AUK.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Thomas is, if nothing else, entertaining. He claims Hitler wasn't
Hitler, but a British spy and that Eva Braum was in reality Unity
Mitford.
Wow, I didn't realize Thomas was a Nazi Denier.
He's not denied any of the atrocities, but he does claim that
Hitler was blond (because Joseph Goebbels' children are blond), and
that Eva did not die in the bunker because there is video of her in a
two piece swim suit.
Thomas holds that all two piece suits are bikinis, despite the
mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Also, the Nazca lines were carved, yes carved, into the plateau
millions of years ago. It's so obvious because someone at some point
after 1939 did some graffiti and wrote "Henry."
LOL.. They are not carved... and the photos have that well
documented.
I know, but he is *unable* to accept this.

[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
But carole's actions of attempting to use fallacies and misleading
people would have her behind bars for contempt.
Most probably she would first be warned, then reprimanded, then
issued a fine, and then cited with contempt.
here she is just laughed at, and if you're interested carole has
posted her nonsense in non-USENET forums. she got laughed at there ,
too.
Well, that just proves her claims valid then. After all, they
wouldn't laugh unless she was spot on.
That's the logic she'll use.

[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Way back in day, in high school when they actually taught public
speaking and debate, we had one or two days a week for the 1st
quarter which covered uses of major fallacies, how to recognized them
and counter them and how to avoid using them ourselves. Yes I was one
of those people with boxes and boxes of 3x4 reference cards
I attended High School in Poland. The one thing Communism got
right was education. No matter what you wanted to pursue as a career,
you would learn as much as possible about everything.
I don't know about the other bloc nations, but in Poland, one had
to be FLUENT in at least one foreign language to graduate high school.
English, being the international language of business, was the most
common. I chose Italian just to be different.
Anyway, I was encouraged to join the Polish equivalent of the
debate team. By encouraged I mean told I would join, there was no way
to decline.
I didn't enjoy it, and as a result, I wasn't very good. Yes, I
could give my arguments and offer cites when requested. But there was
no passion behind it.
I have read that about Poland. I also read the explanation of why.
During WW2 the German's imprisoned and exterminated 1,000s of well
educated people and craftsmen. The russians din't help matter much
either. The end goal of the german war machine was to create a
nations of virtual serfs to serve the true masters, pure blood
Germans. The russians had the communism, where the masses supported
the "party elite". Post WW2 saw Poland a nation with very few
educated or skilled people (in comparison, always to the rest of
Europe) The drive (it was a drive) to produce teachers, engineers and
technicians would be the number one priority. Public speaking (and
debate) techniques are used by teachers to instruct students. Face it
a teacher that stuttered mumbled and faltered would be a poor teacher
and wouldn't stir the interest of the students very well.
That's a very good description of post WW2 Poland. At least from
what I was told. I wasn't there until well after the war was over, of
course.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
When she seems to lose any debate she turns to insults.
I can't understand why CTs think insulting others will win
someone over.
IT is a bully tactic. it only re-enforces like minded people.
I note she hasn't bothered to offer a retort to my adopting her
standard of using insults.
She has a different take on it, in few days she will stop the insults
and in a month or three she will get offended at one of your insults
and act the injured party. Carole is very predictable.
Ah, she's setting herself up to be the victim. Since she can't
use anything scientifically valid, pity is all she has.

[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
carole has shown that she has real trouble when it comes to the word
belief and knowledge. She wants to use them interchangeably. The
problem is she fails to understand beliefs are dogmatic in nature.
Carved in stone unchanging, un flexible and usually un-testible.
Dogma is held to be true without any evidence (usually because
someone stated it was just so) or held to be true in the face of
contradictory evidence.
It becomes a religion to them in that sense. There is no way to
prove or disprove any religion. Even the religion of ancient Greece
can't be proved or disproved.
One could hike to the top of Mount Olympus and note the lack of
any gods, but anyone who might still follow the religion would explain
it away as, "They're gods. When they saw you coming, they hid
themselves from your view. Duh!"
Yes, our self deception forces us to create gods in our image,
doesn't it?
It's more probable a result of the "god part" of the brain. We
are wired to believe in a god of some sort.
Of course, even that is in question.
Post by Bob Officer
That why ignorant people create silly gods. Hypocrites
create hypocritical/two faced gods and smart people abandon the need
for gods, and doesn't waste their time.
Science has no need for dogma or faith, everything in science is
testable and subject to being challenged. Indeed where religion
avoids and refuses to be tests, science embraces it and challenges
itself. Every answer is subject to being challenged. In Math we learn
the works: "Show your work". It wasn't so much getting the right
answer but doing the work correctly, building one process before the
other.
Reminds me of DeVry and learning to code. We were supposed to
design a flow chart and write our code from it, which makes sense.
There were three of us who would code the programs, then make the
flow charts to ensure it matched the programs. Often there was extra
coding that, while causing no harm, wasn't needed.
But, with ours, the program followed the flow chart every time.
And having some of the text flash on and off just made it look cooler
(that was my excuse, and it worked for some reason).
--
Heartbreak is a burden to us all. Pity the man with two.
Bob Officer
2014-07-12 16:53:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 04:07:10 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
It is really that, isn't.
I am really glad carole crossposted this thread. It has been fun.
I recently re-joined alt.conspiracy after being gone for several
years. Once it was full of really fascinating conspiracies. The
government was spending millions upon millions to fire Sputnik lasers
at Nancy Luff, while an alien race was causing grief for Gary Stollman
who thought taking David Horowitz hostage while on TV would help.
After a while, the really interesting conspiracy rants faded away
and race based posts became prevalent.
I hold that each racist that posted had, and has, the right to be
racist and post their racist beliefs. However, they get very old very
quickly and I left the group.
The group doesn't have much going on now. There's a guy, Ernie,
who claims he's cured baldness, but has yet to offer anything valid to
support, let alone prove, his claim. And you've dealt with Thomas.
I recall seeing Ernie from AUK.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Thomas is, if nothing else, entertaining. He claims Hitler wasn't
Hitler, but a British spy and that Eva Braum was in reality Unity
Mitford.
Wow, I didn't realize Thomas was a Nazi Denier.
He's not denied any of the atrocities, but he does claim that
Hitler was blond (because Joseph Goebbels' children are blond), and
that Eva did not die in the bunker because there is video of her in a
two piece swim suit.
Thomas holds that all two piece suits are bikinis, despite the
mountain of evidence to the contrary.
a true believer?
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Also, the Nazca lines were carved, yes carved, into the plateau
millions of years ago. It's so obvious because someone at some point
after 1939 did some graffiti and wrote "Henry."
LOL.. They are not carved... and the photos have that well
documented.
I know, but he is *unable* to accept this.
Just as he accepts a cartoon drawn as proof of expanding earth, and
refuses to look at the evidence of a recent subduction in Bandha Aceh
area.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
But carole's actions of attempting to use fallacies and misleading
people would have her behind bars for contempt.
Most probably she would first be warned, then reprimanded, then
issued a fine, and then cited with contempt.
here she is just laughed at, and if you're interested carole has
posted her nonsense in non-USENET forums. she got laughed at there ,
too.
Well, that just proves her claims valid then. After all, they
wouldn't laugh unless she was spot on.
That's the logic she'll use.
I know.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Way back in day, in high school when they actually taught public
speaking and debate, we had one or two days a week for the 1st
quarter which covered uses of major fallacies, how to recognized them
and counter them and how to avoid using them ourselves. Yes I was one
of those people with boxes and boxes of 3x4 reference cards
I attended High School in Poland. The one thing Communism got
right was education. No matter what you wanted to pursue as a career,
you would learn as much as possible about everything.
I don't know about the other bloc nations, but in Poland, one had
to be FLUENT in at least one foreign language to graduate high school.
English, being the international language of business, was the most
common. I chose Italian just to be different.
Anyway, I was encouraged to join the Polish equivalent of the
debate team. By encouraged I mean told I would join, there was no way
to decline.
I didn't enjoy it, and as a result, I wasn't very good. Yes, I
could give my arguments and offer cites when requested. But there was
no passion behind it.
I have read that about Poland. I also read the explanation of why.
During WW2 the German's imprisoned and exterminated 1,000s of well
educated people and craftsmen. The russians din't help matter much
either. The end goal of the german war machine was to create a
nations of virtual serfs to serve the true masters, pure blood
Germans. The russians had the communism, where the masses supported
the "party elite". Post WW2 saw Poland a nation with very few
educated or skilled people (in comparison, always to the rest of
Europe) The drive (it was a drive) to produce teachers, engineers and
technicians would be the number one priority. Public speaking (and
debate) techniques are used by teachers to instruct students. Face it
a teacher that stuttered mumbled and faltered would be a poor teacher
and wouldn't stir the interest of the students very well.
That's a very good description of post WW2 Poland. At least from
what I was told. I wasn't there until well after the war was over, of
course.
One of my friends wife is a geographer. and geography glasses I took
back in the 70s is much more interesting after you get beyond the 1st
year university class. It is an overlooked 'science', because it
tends to be less exact in its predictions of results. However a
geographer predicted the down fall of the Soviet Union, in the exact
manner it happened. HE also predicted the downfall date could be
extended by excessive militarism of the US, and end up bringing the
US economically down also. The excessive military build up and
spending in the late 1980s did just that. Billions of borrowed
dollars expended on military projects which were late reduced in size
or cut completely. Does everyone realize the money spent on a
Battleship wasn't wanted to back in service by the US Navy, was
wasted. (We are talking about nearly a billion dollars now and still
growing because of the interest rates.) The repair work for the
turret explosion was over well 100million dollars, and the Navy
didn't have the problem safety (InServ) inspection for the vessel
when it was placed back in service. <sigh off on a interesting
tangent on a Saturday morning.>
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
When she seems to lose any debate she turns to insults.
I can't understand why CTs think insulting others will win
someone over.
IT is a bully tactic. it only re-enforces like minded people.
I note she hasn't bothered to offer a retort to my adopting her
standard of using insults.
She has a different take on it, in few days she will stop the insults
and in a month or three she will get offended at one of your insults
and act the injured party. Carole is very predictable.
Ah, she's setting herself up to be the victim. Since she can't
use anything scientifically valid, pity is all she has.
and no one on MHA seems to have expressed any pity for her.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
carole has shown that she has real trouble when it comes to the word
belief and knowledge. She wants to use them interchangeably. The
problem is she fails to understand beliefs are dogmatic in nature.
Carved in stone unchanging, un flexible and usually un-testible.
Dogma is held to be true without any evidence (usually because
someone stated it was just so) or held to be true in the face of
contradictory evidence.
It becomes a religion to them in that sense. There is no way to
prove or disprove any religion. Even the religion of ancient Greece
can't be proved or disproved.
One could hike to the top of Mount Olympus and note the lack of
any gods, but anyone who might still follow the religion would explain
it away as, "They're gods. When they saw you coming, they hid
themselves from your view. Duh!"
Yes, our self deception forces us to create gods in our image,
doesn't it?
It's more probable a result of the "god part" of the brain. We
are wired to believe in a god of some sort.
Of course, even that is in question.
It seems to be part of the culture, doesn't it. The human need to
create a worshipable prime cause?
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
That why ignorant people create silly gods. Hypocrites
create hypocritical/two faced gods and smart people abandon the need
for gods, and doesn't waste their time.
Science has no need for dogma or faith, everything in science is
testable and subject to being challenged. Indeed where religion
avoids and refuses to be tests, science embraces it and challenges
itself. Every answer is subject to being challenged. In Math we learn
the works: "Show your work". It wasn't so much getting the right
answer but doing the work correctly, building one process before the
other.
Reminds me of DeVry and learning to code. We were supposed to
design a flow chart and write our code from it, which makes sense.
There were three of us who would code the programs, then make the
flow charts to ensure it matched the programs. Often there was extra
coding that, while causing no harm, wasn't needed.
But, with ours, the program followed the flow chart every time.
And having some of the text flash on and off just made it look cooler
(that was my excuse, and it worked for some reason).
LOL...
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-12 22:52:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Sat, 12 Jul 2014 04:07:10 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
It is really that, isn't.
I am really glad carole crossposted this thread. It has been fun.
I recently re-joined alt.conspiracy after being gone for several
years. Once it was full of really fascinating conspiracies. The
government was spending millions upon millions to fire Sputnik lasers
at Nancy Luff, while an alien race was causing grief for Gary Stollman
who thought taking David Horowitz hostage while on TV would help.
After a while, the really interesting conspiracy rants faded away
and race based posts became prevalent.
I hold that each racist that posted had, and has, the right to be
racist and post their racist beliefs. However, they get very old very
quickly and I left the group.
The group doesn't have much going on now. There's a guy, Ernie,
who claims he's cured baldness, but has yet to offer anything valid to
support, let alone prove, his claim. And you've dealt with Thomas.
I recall seeing Ernie from AUK.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Thomas is, if nothing else, entertaining. He claims Hitler wasn't
Hitler, but a British spy and that Eva Braum was in reality Unity
Mitford.
Wow, I didn't realize Thomas was a Nazi Denier.
He's not denied any of the atrocities, but he does claim that
Hitler was blond (because Joseph Goebbels' children are blond), and
that Eva did not die in the bunker because there is video of her in a
two piece swim suit.
Thomas holds that all two piece suits are bikinis, despite the
mountain of evidence to the contrary.
a true believer?
Considering how I, and others, have exposed the flaws in his
reasoning and he insists on continuing to believe, yes.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Also, the Nazca lines were carved, yes carved, into the plateau
millions of years ago. It's so obvious because someone at some point
after 1939 did some graffiti and wrote "Henry."
LOL.. They are not carved... and the photos have that well
documented.
I know, but he is *unable* to accept this.
Just as he accepts a cartoon drawn as proof of expanding earth, and
refuses to look at the evidence of a recent subduction in Bandha Aceh
area.
He dismisses anything that challenges his view of things.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
But carole's actions of attempting to use fallacies and misleading
people would have her behind bars for contempt.
Most probably she would first be warned, then reprimanded, then
issued a fine, and then cited with contempt.
here she is just laughed at, and if you're interested carole has
posted her nonsense in non-USENET forums. she got laughed at there ,
too.
Well, that just proves her claims valid then. After all, they
wouldn't laugh unless she was spot on.
That's the logic she'll use.
I know.
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Way back in day, in high school when they actually taught public
speaking and debate, we had one or two days a week for the 1st
quarter which covered uses of major fallacies, how to recognized them
and counter them and how to avoid using them ourselves. Yes I was one
of those people with boxes and boxes of 3x4 reference cards
I attended High School in Poland. The one thing Communism got
right was education. No matter what you wanted to pursue as a career,
you would learn as much as possible about everything.
I don't know about the other bloc nations, but in Poland, one had
to be FLUENT in at least one foreign language to graduate high school.
English, being the international language of business, was the most
common. I chose Italian just to be different.
Anyway, I was encouraged to join the Polish equivalent of the
debate team. By encouraged I mean told I would join, there was no way
to decline.
I didn't enjoy it, and as a result, I wasn't very good. Yes, I
could give my arguments and offer cites when requested. But there was
no passion behind it.
I have read that about Poland. I also read the explanation of why.
During WW2 the German's imprisoned and exterminated 1,000s of well
educated people and craftsmen. The russians din't help matter much
either. The end goal of the german war machine was to create a
nations of virtual serfs to serve the true masters, pure blood
Germans. The russians had the communism, where the masses supported
the "party elite". Post WW2 saw Poland a nation with very few
educated or skilled people (in comparison, always to the rest of
Europe) The drive (it was a drive) to produce teachers, engineers and
technicians would be the number one priority. Public speaking (and
debate) techniques are used by teachers to instruct students. Face it
a teacher that stuttered mumbled and faltered would be a poor teacher
and wouldn't stir the interest of the students very well.
That's a very good description of post WW2 Poland. At least from
what I was told. I wasn't there until well after the war was over, of
course.
One of my friends wife is a geographer. and geography glasses I took
back in the 70s is much more interesting after you get beyond the 1st
year university class. It is an overlooked 'science', because it
tends to be less exact in its predictions of results. However a
geographer predicted the down fall of the Soviet Union, in the exact
manner it happened. HE also predicted the downfall date could be
extended by excessive militarism of the US, and end up bringing the
US economically down also. The excessive military build up and
spending in the late 1980s did just that. Billions of borrowed
dollars expended on military projects which were late reduced in size
or cut completely. Does everyone realize the money spent on a
Battleship wasn't wanted to back in service by the US Navy, was
wasted. (We are talking about nearly a billion dollars now and still
growing because of the interest rates.) The repair work for the
turret explosion was over well 100million dollars, and the Navy
didn't have the problem safety (InServ) inspection for the vessel
when it was placed back in service. <sigh off on a interesting
tangent on a Saturday morning.>
Wow :)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
When she seems to lose any debate she turns to insults.
I can't understand why CTs think insulting others will win
someone over.
IT is a bully tactic. it only re-enforces like minded people.
I note she hasn't bothered to offer a retort to my adopting her
standard of using insults.
She has a different take on it, in few days she will stop the insults
and in a month or three she will get offended at one of your insults
and act the injured party. Carole is very predictable.
Ah, she's setting herself up to be the victim. Since she can't
use anything scientifically valid, pity is all she has.
and no one on MHA seems to have expressed any pity for her.
She'll get none from me either.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
[...]
Post by Bob Officer
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
carole has shown that she has real trouble when it comes to the word
belief and knowledge. She wants to use them interchangeably. The
problem is she fails to understand beliefs are dogmatic in nature.
Carved in stone unchanging, un flexible and usually un-testible.
Dogma is held to be true without any evidence (usually because
someone stated it was just so) or held to be true in the face of
contradictory evidence.
It becomes a religion to them in that sense. There is no way to
prove or disprove any religion. Even the religion of ancient Greece
can't be proved or disproved.
One could hike to the top of Mount Olympus and note the lack of
any gods, but anyone who might still follow the religion would explain
it away as, "They're gods. When they saw you coming, they hid
themselves from your view. Duh!"
Yes, our self deception forces us to create gods in our image,
doesn't it?
It's more probable a result of the "god part" of the brain. We
are wired to believe in a god of some sort.
Of course, even that is in question.
It seems to be part of the culture, doesn't it. The human need to
create a worshipable prime cause?
It is interesting how every culture has some sort of deity, or
deities. This may be a result of the "god part," or it could be a
result of learned behavior when humans were in a closer knit
community.

[...]
--
"Mass genocide is the most exhausting practice one can engage in.
Next to soccer."
2017-08-05 21:52:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Anon
2017-08-07 10:49:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
?
Well hell yes.

All mainstream news is designed to lead people astray and put a spin
on things other than inform.

Good on Trump for calling them out.

When reaons are given for why things happen, that aren't true, then it
is a conspiracy.
ie "Assad has to go". This is commonly quoted mantra by many
politicians. But why does Assad have to go? There has never been given
any real explanation. He's some sort of tyrant?

Saddam Hussein was supposed to have been a tyrant -- he also had to
go. Now look at Iraq, it has been bombed into a very poor state with
DU, instructure wrecked and a lot of bad things happening to that
country, a lot of sanctions and with 1 million deaths. How has that
helped the world?

So this is spin and lies from mainstream media.
Same with medicine, all pharmaceutical spin.
The economy - with increasing divergence between the haves and
have-nots.
etc.

In Australia there are increasing homeless people, and those living
under housing stress, due to either high mortgage or high rents.
This is growing but governments don't do anything because they don't
want to upset the rich who rent houses, or those who have expensive
properties going up each year in value.


--
Anonymous

"George Orwell understood the whistleblower’s dilemma well when he
said: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will
hate those that speak it.” And that is where the concept of cognitive
dissonance comes in, being willfully blind or ignorant when being
confronted by new truths."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/big-pharma-dangerous-drugs-and-drug-insured-patients/5485012

Upton Sinclair once said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand
something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
http://www.globalresearch.ca/big-pharma-and-the-money-making-business-of-medicine/5485017?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles
Propaganda - nobody does it better than America
http://tinyurl.com/d5xqmra
"Over the years, I have had the privilege of meeting and having
discussions with people who came to America from countries known for
their adherence to totalitarianism: China, Russia, and former east
European satellites of the Soviet Union. When we discussed how the
state managed to control public opinion under totalitarianism, these
people would usually produce a weary, knowledgeable, cynical smile and
point out that propaganda in those countries was really done quite
incompetently.
If you really want to know propaganda, they said, you need to study
American propaganda technique. According to them, it is, undeniably,
the best in the world."

"The expatriates explained that bad propaganda uses obvious
terminology that anyone can see through. ...American propaganda,
however, is much cleverer. American propaganda, they patiently
explained, relies entirely on emotional appeals. It doesn’t depend on
a rational theory that can be disproved: it appeals to things no one
can object to."

Big Pharma Big Money : Documentary on the Money and Corruption of Big
Pharmaceutical Companies

2.50.55


"I saw hundreds of patients in my practice who were totally unaware
that their drug could cause permanent tardive dyskinesia, dementia,
brain damage, permanent drug-induced disabilities, temporary or
permanent sexual dysfunction, akathisia, violence, aggression,
homicidality, suicidality, Parkinsonism, depression, mania, psychotic
reactions, atrophy (shrinkage) of the brain, diabetes, obesity,
insomnia, hyperlipidemia, loss of IQ points, loss of memory, etc, etc,
all of which they or their physicians could have read about in the
pharmacy’s prescription handouts or in the PDR (Physician’s Desk
Reference).
http://www.globalresearch.ca/big-pharma-and-the-money-making-business-of-medicine/5485017?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles


http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/09/29/feel-good-hoax-how-us-propaganda-works-in-the-syrian-war/
"‘Feel Good Hoax’: How US Propaganda Works in the Syrian War
September 29, 2016 By 21wire 1 Comment

21st Century Wire says…

One thing is certain about the War on Syria: the propaganda war being
waged by the west and all of its agencies, from government to
corporate media, to charities and third sector NGOs – is much larger
and more pernicious than anything seen in modern history."

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

Wyatt Vixson
2014-07-09 13:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:27:15 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
<snip>
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Bullshit
I wish I could just claim something as BS when it proves me
wrong. Sadly, my mind is wired correctly, so I can't.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
Best to-the-point retorts to date.
The Other Guy
2014-07-09 18:05:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 09:56:37 -0400, Wyatt Vixson <*~***@.~*> wrote:


DAMN, yet another matching sock pops up.







To reply by email, lose the Ks...


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Yet Another Guy
2014-07-09 19:07:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:05:36 -0700, The Other Guy
Post by The Other Guy
DAMN, yet another matching sock pops up.
Good thing you can read headers.

But how can you tell he's not a DCDA* ?

*(Dick Cheney Disinformation Agent)
Lu
2014-07-09 21:42:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yet Another Guy
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:05:36 -0700, The Other Guy
Post by The Other Guy
DAMN, yet another matching sock pops up.
Good thing you can read headers.
But how can you tell he's not a DCDA* ?
*(Dick Cheney Disinformation Agent)
Your headers tell us that you are Carole, a major source of disinformation on
Usenet.



--
Lu
Yet Another Guy
2014-07-09 22:00:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lu
Post by Yet Another Guy
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:05:36 -0700, The Other Guy
Post by The Other Guy
DAMN, yet another matching sock pops up.
Good thing you can read headers.
But how can you tell he's not a DCDA* ?
*(Dick Cheney Disinformation Agent)
Your headers tell us that you are Carole, a major source of disinformation on
Usenet.
Really? My hears say I'm carole??

Hint:
1) how many hours am I away from GMT?
2) how many hours is carole away from GMT?

From: Yet Another Guy <*~***@.~*>
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Do conspiracies exist?
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 15:07:07 -0400


From: Enquiring minds want to know <***@bigpond.com>
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.conspiracy,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Do conspiracies exist?
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000
Yet Another Guy
2014-07-09 22:02:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yet Another Guy
Post by Lu
Post by Yet Another Guy
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:05:36 -0700, The Other Guy
Post by The Other Guy
DAMN, yet another matching sock pops up.
Good thing you can read headers.
But how can you tell he's not a DCDA* ?
*(Dick Cheney Disinformation Agent)
Your headers tell us that you are Carole, a major source of disinformation on
Usenet.
Really? My hears say I'm carole??
headers
Post by Yet Another Guy
1) how many hours am I away from GMT?
2) how many hours is carole away from GMT?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Do conspiracies exist?
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 15:07:07 -0400
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.conspiracy,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Do conspiracies exist?
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000
Lu
2014-07-09 23:55:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yet Another Guy
Post by Lu
Post by Yet Another Guy
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:05:36 -0700, The Other Guy
Post by The Other Guy
DAMN, yet another matching sock pops up.
Good thing you can read headers.
But how can you tell he's not a DCDA* ?
*(Dick Cheney Disinformation Agent)
Your headers tell us that you are Carole, a major source of disinformation on
Usenet.
Really? My hears say I'm carole??
Sorry about that and sorry for the insult. Guess I should have paid more
attention to the inconsistencies between your and her headers. I am not as
good as others here when it comes to reading headers. Wish I was.
Post by Yet Another Guy
1) how many hours am I away from GMT?
2) how many hours is carole away from GMT?
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Do conspiracies exist?
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 15:07:07 -0400
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.conspiracy,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Do conspiracies exist?
Date: Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000
--
Lu
Yet Another Guy
2014-07-10 00:14:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lu
Post by Lu
Post by Yet Another Guy
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:05:36 -0700, The Other Guy
Post by The Other Guy
DAMN, yet another matching sock pops up.
Good thing you can read headers.
But how can you tell he's not a DCDA* ?
*(Dick Cheney Disinformation Agent)
Your headers tell us that you are Carole, a major source of disinformation
on Usenet.
Really? My headers say I'm carole??
Sorry about that and sorry for the insult. Guess I should have paid more
attention to the inconsistencies between your and her headers. I am not as
good as others here when it comes to reading headers. Wish I was.
No problem, my friend.
No offense taken. ;-)
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-10 09:25:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yet Another Guy
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:05:36 -0700, The Other Guy
Post by The Other Guy
DAMN, yet another matching sock pops up.
Good thing you can read headers.
But how can you tell he's not a DCDA* ?
*(Dick Cheney Disinformation Agent)
First guess is because there is no such thing in reality.
--
You might be a king or a little street sweeper,
but sooner or later you dance with the reaper.
Bob Officer
2014-07-09 22:44:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:05:36 -0700, in misc.health.alternative, The
Post by The Other Guy
DAMN, yet another matching sock pops up.
No he isn't a sock...
and so far not disagreeable.

I used to read AC a while ago...
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-10 09:25:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Wyatt Vixson
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:27:15 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
<snip>
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Bullshit
I wish I could just claim something as BS when it proves me
wrong. Sadly, my mind is wired correctly, so I can't.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
Best to-the-point retorts to date.
Thanks.
--
When the world ends, there'll be no more air.
That's why it's important to pollute the air now. Before it's too
late. :)
Blind Freddie
2014-07-11 01:11:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:27:15 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
If there is some dark, dastardly conspiracy afoot, there will be
evidence. No person or organization can be 100% efficient at hiding
the evidence.
As of my writing this, no one has been able to produce any
evidence that shows Cheney was part of any conspiracy to keep NORAD
down and out for any amount of time.
With this lack of evidence, someone can claim you and I, along
with the cast of 'Jersey Boys,' kept NORAD down and out on September
11th. The evidence for such a claim is as plentiful as it is for
Cheney's having done so.
Then who did keep NORAD down dumb-arse?
You've yet to establish that it was kept down. But pretending for
the moment that it was, there are others within the chain of command
with the authority to do so.
I don't recall any enquiry and anybody being hauled across the coals
for it. So it was covered up, part of the plan to have NORAD stand
down to allow the planes to hit the twin towers. Otherwise the planes
would have been blasted out of the sky after a warning.
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
If a system is put in place for the sake of national security and
prevent something happening, who or what made the situation happen
when it was told to stand down?
All you are doing is providing plausible deniability.
Pointing out that you've not offered any evidence is only
pointing out that you've not offered any evidence.
Oh I think there is plenty of evidence.
Just go to any of the 911 websites and you will see a WHOLE HEAP of
irregularities and inconsistencies that have never been explained to
anybody's satisfaction.
The whole think stinks to high heaven of a psyop (you do understand
the meaning of that word hopefully) to blame terrorists / Iraq /
whoever and a reason to go to war against them. Also a reason for
tighter controls over people's freedoms and a change from habeus
corpus to guilty until proven innocent.
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Plausible deniability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
"The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a
formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or
responsibility for any damnable actions ..."
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Surely it is reasonable to assume that the reason it is kept from
public scrutiny is due to the fact that it is incriminating.
More plausible is that evidence proving the conspiracy does not
exist. And it is impossible to offer something that doesn't exist.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Roosevelt never said that. But you are free to cite when he did.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Cover stories abound and are created by agencies to throw people off
the track and keep thing hidden and confused.
This is standard MO and is not a valid excuse to prevent
accountability for such situations.
So once again you prove my claim correct. To the conspiracy
theorist, the lack of proof *is* the proof.
"Rule out the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how unlikely,
is the truth."

A person needs to be able to read between the lines.
Evidence can be disappeared.
A person has to often rely on the lay of the land, things that have
gone on beforehand and things that happen afterwards, to work out a
likely scenario.


Of course the pawn will only go along with "approved" information or
theories and pooh-pooh anything else.

Note the marks of the disinformation agent.


MEDIA MIND CONTROL , DISINFORMATION AND ATTACKS
http://www.arkenterprises.com/disinfo.html

"5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for
'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe
JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain
for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic
discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would
either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply
ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly
conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out
of their way to focus as they do. "


So the fact that you rubbish conspiracy theories already marks you as
a disinformation agent dumb-arse.

So don't push your luck.
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
No matter how often you post that, he will never have said it.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.
Wanting to review evidence of your claims and requesting you, or
any other theorist, provide the evidence isn't bending over backwards
or jumping through hoops. And there is no way to make that equate to
demonizing anybody.
If you want to believe Cheney conspired with anyone and kept
NORAD down and out, fine. It's your *right* to believe it. But don't
get upset when people ask you to offer evidence, that can be verified,
that proves the claim.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proving the claim.
This will require evidence.
Bullshit
I wish I could just claim something as BS when it proves me
wrong. Sadly, my mind is wired correctly, so I can't.
Conspiracies are the order of the day.
They occur in big business, the robber barons of old plotted behind
the scenes. They would either buy out their competitors, join up with
them or eliminate them. They used dirty tricks and deception to claw
their way to the top, treading on anything and anybody that got in
their way.

I refer you back to the link at the beginning of this thread.
It might be a good time for you to read it.

Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
...this is the reason there is government, to run the country
and be accountable. It is not up to the individual to need to query
the government and when that happens there has been some serious
breakdown in processes.
The people are to hold the government accountable. But to simply
cry out that Cheney kept NORAD down and out without evidence that he
did so will never work.
I think Cheney was responsible ultimately.
There may have been people or units under him more directly involved,
but he would have been the ultimate authority.
you can speculate on who was responsible but it makes no difference to
the fact that it WAS STOOD DOWN.
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
My rant and that of many others who still have a few braincells that
haven't been fossilised by fluoride in the drinking water, and
mindless pap coming through the mass media, is that things don't add
up. From there comes the speculation and it is perfectly legitimate to
speculate when things don't add up -- except of course, if you're a
TOTAL MINDLESS DUMB-ARSE.
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
For decades the tobacco companies conspired with each other to
claim nicotine is not addictive and that tobacco is safe. People
claimed it was a conspiracy of lies. They presented the evidence and
the conspiracy was proved.
Obviously there was some sort of coverup by tobacco industry.
It was a conspiracy among the companies. And it was proved.
Now it's your turn to prove the conspiracy you claim exists or
admit there is none. Your choice.
There are lots of conspiracies going on everywhere.
Only an idiot would think otherwise.



Blind Freddie

A brief history of FDA raids against providers of natural health
products
https://thebovine.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/a-brief-history-of-fda-raids-against-providers-of-natural-health-products/

Tyranny in the USA: The true history of FDA raids on healers, vitamin
shops and supplement companies
http://www.naturalnews.com/021791.htm

The FDA is Running an Extortion Racket
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/11/13/the-fda-is-running-an-extortion-racket.aspx
"The FDA has been targeting supplement makers for some time, claiming
it’s all in the interest of public safety. But it doesn’t take much
investigation to realize what’s really going on: the FDA isn’t
interested in protecting you -- they’re interested in protecting the
pharmaceutical industry."
The Other Guy
2014-07-11 02:11:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blind Freddie
I don't recall any enquiry and anybody being hauled across the coals
for it. So it was covered up, part of the plan to have NORAD stand
down to allow the planes to hit the twin towers. Otherwise the planes
would have been blasted out of the sky after a warning.
There is PLENTY of reality that YOU don't recall!

There was NO stand-down, and no conspiracy.
Radical Muslim terrorists did 9-11.

THAT is reality!






To reply by email, lose the Ks...


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
The Other Guy
2014-07-11 02:14:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blind Freddie
Oh I think there is plenty of evidence.
Just go to any of the 911 websites
JUST because there is a website DOESN'T MEAN that a theory
or claim is real!

ANYONE can put up a website without ANY proof or backing.
ONLY dumbasses like you believe the crap that's available,
because you're TOO FUCKING STUPID to understand how to test
the claims of the morons.





To reply by email, lose the Ks...


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Bob Officer
2014-07-11 02:18:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:11:50 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Blind
Post by Wyatt Vixson
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 04:27:15 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:09:41 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 20:00:09 -0500, "K Wills (Shill #3)"
Post by Francis Lee
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:33:50 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
And your proof that Cheney did so is where?
For any *true* conspiracy theorist, the lack of proof *is* the
proof. Only a very well organized conspiracy could ever prevent any
evidence of itself from being found.
Unless, of course, the conspiracy *wants* evidence to be found.
Why lock evidence away and not use it to show what happened?
If there is some dark, dastardly conspiracy afoot, there will be
evidence. No person or organization can be 100% efficient at hiding
the evidence.
As of my writing this, no one has been able to produce any
evidence that shows Cheney was part of any conspiracy to keep NORAD
down and out for any amount of time.
With this lack of evidence, someone can claim you and I, along
with the cast of 'Jersey Boys,' kept NORAD down and out on September
11th. The evidence for such a claim is as plentiful as it is for
Cheney's having done so.
Then who did keep NORAD down dumb-arse?
You've yet to establish that it was kept down. But pretending for
the moment that it was, there are others within the chain of command
with the authority to do so.
I don't recall any enquiry and anybody being hauled across the coals
for it.
Some where did you look for information on any inquiry?
Post by Wyatt Vixson
So it was covered up, part of the plan to have NORAD stand
down to allow the planes to hit the twin towers. Otherwise the planes
would have been blasted out of the sky after a warning.
So you automatically assume if you didn't read about, then you assume
it didn't happen?
Post by Wyatt Vixson
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
If a system is put in place for the sake of national security and
prevent something happening, who or what made the situation happen
when it was told to stand down?
All you are doing is providing plausible deniability.
Pointing out that you've not offered any evidence is only
pointing out that you've not offered any evidence.
Oh I think there is plenty of evidence.
The lack of you knowing something isn't evidence, it is ignorance.
Post by Wyatt Vixson
Just go to any of the 911 websites and you will see a WHOLE HEAP of
irregularities and inconsistencies that have never been explained to
anybody's satisfaction.
And you know these so-called 9/11 web sites are accurate, how?
Post by Wyatt Vixson
The whole think stinks to high heaven of a psyop (you do understand
the meaning of that word hopefully) to blame terrorists / Iraq /
whoever and a reason to go to war against them. Also a reason for
tighter controls over people's freedoms and a change from habeus
corpus to guilty until proven innocent.
You are stupid beyond belief and I am sure everyone in alt.cospriacy
thank you for demonstrating the logical inconsistencies deeply
embedded in the disfunctional mind of a conspiracy theorist's mind.
Post by Wyatt Vixson
"Rule out the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how unlikely,
is the truth."
A quote from a fictional character again? Don't you recall the last
time you used this. There is no rule which requires anything a
fictional character says in a fictional story must be true.
Post by Wyatt Vixson
A person needs to be able to read between the lines.
Don't you think a person should be able to read and understand what
they are reading before they try to read between the lines?


<snip>
Post by Wyatt Vixson
I think Cheney was responsible ultimately.
Then you have no understanding of the law, carole. The Vice President
is not responsible by law. He can not give or issue any orders unless
the president is incapacitated or dead.
Post by Wyatt Vixson
There may have been people or units under him more directly involved,
but he would have been the ultimate authority.
you can speculate on who was responsible but it makes no difference to
the fact that it WAS STOOD DOWN.
Where is that fact documented. I want to see the actual printed
order, with proper headers.

<snip of more nonsense spewed by carole>
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Peter Bowditch
2014-07-11 03:56:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Blind Freddie
I don't recall any enquiry and anybody being hauled across the coals
for it. So it was covered up, part of the plan to have NORAD stand
down to allow the planes to hit the twin towers. Otherwise the planes
would have been blasted out of the sky after a warning.
What was the last time the US military shot down a passenger plane?
Think Persian Gulf. Think enormous embarrassment about the mistake.

Is there anything you don't believe, Carole?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Blog at http://peterbowditch.com/wp/
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
I'm @RatbagsDotCom on Twitter
Bob Officer
2014-07-11 04:15:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:56:11 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Peter
Post by Peter Bowditch
Post by Blind Freddie
I don't recall any enquiry and anybody being hauled across the coals
for it. So it was covered up, part of the plan to have NORAD stand
down to allow the planes to hit the twin towers. Otherwise the planes
would have been blasted out of the sky after a warning.
What was the last time the US military shot down a passenger plane?
Think Persian Gulf. Think enormous embarrassment about the mistake.
Is there anything you don't believe, Carole?
Users in alt.conspiracy are thanking her for the prime example of why
conspiracy theorist are generally the less intelligent people.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Bob Officer
2014-07-11 04:44:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 13:56:11 +1000, in misc.health.alternative, Peter
Post by Peter Bowditch
Post by Blind Freddie
I don't recall any enquiry and anybody being hauled across the coals
for it. So it was covered up, part of the plan to have NORAD stand
down to allow the planes to hit the twin towers. Otherwise the planes
would have been blasted out of the sky after a warning.
What was the last time the US military shot down a passenger plane?
Think Persian Gulf. Think enormous embarrassment about the mistake.
Is there anything you don't believe, Carole?
maybe, the story about purple unicorn in your lower garden?
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Bob Officer
2014-07-11 04:13:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 10 Jul 2014 23:26:30 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Norad
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:11:50 +1000, Blind Freddie aka Stupid Carole
<snip>
Post by Blind Freddie
I think Cheney was responsible ultimately.
You have presented no proof to support your thinking on Cheney.
Even worse, carole doesn't have an inkling about how the American
government is organized. Cheney as VP had Zero authority to order
NORAD to stand down. the VP has Zero authority to do anything, unless
the president is incapacitated or dead.

Even when Ronald Reagan was shot in a failed assassination attempt,
he was not considered incapacitated at any time. The VP Bush was
never in charge or in control.
Post by Blind Freddie
There may have been people or units under him more directly involved,
but he would have been the ultimate authority.
You have presented no proof that anyone near Cheney was involved the
way you claim.
She can't because the possibility never happened. Cheney never had
any authority to issue any orders to the military. In the Table of
command, there is no mention of the VP in the 'Chain of Command'.
Every person in the military is fully aware of their place in Chain
of Command, least the burden of command be shifted to them and they
could be found in dereliction of duty.
Post by Blind Freddie
My rant and that of many others who still have a few braincells that
haven't been fossilised by fluoride in the drinking water, and
mindless pap coming through the mass media, is that things don't add
up.
Your rant is not supported by any credible evidence.
Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in drinking water.
Post by Blind Freddie
From there comes the speculation and it is perfectly legitimate to
speculate when things don't add up -- except of course, if you're a
TOTAL MINDLESS DUMB-ARSE.
Speculation is not proof. The mindless dumb-arse is someone like
you, who claims speculation without proof is reality.
and an ignorance of what they are ranting about.
Post by Blind Freddie
There are lots of conspiracies going on everywhere.
Without proof thereof, they exist only in your imagination.
Post by Blind Freddie
Only an idiot would think otherwise.
Only an idiot would suggest that her imagination is reality.
You lose, stupid.
Compared to the real world, Carole lives in a fantasy land, where
fictional character's utterances become true, and were false
citations change the fabric of history.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-11 09:26:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:11:50 +1000, Blind Freddie
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

[...]
Post by Blind Freddie
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Then who did keep NORAD down dumb-arse?
You've yet to establish that it was kept down. But pretending for
the moment that it was, there are others within the chain of command
with the authority to do so.
I don't recall any enquiry and anybody being hauled across the coals
for it. So it was covered up, part of the plan to have NORAD stand
down to allow the planes to hit the twin towers. Otherwise the planes
would have been blasted out of the sky after a warning.
There has been no enquiry and no one has been hauled across the
coals for my sneaking into the Senate and eating a tuna fish salad on
rye bread while Chuck Grassley (R-Ia) was speaking.
Clearly there is a MASSIVE cover up involving all levels of
government, except the typing pool.
Or, as in the case with your claim, it never happened.
Post by Blind Freddie
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
If a system is put in place for the sake of national security and
prevent something happening, who or what made the situation happen
when it was told to stand down?
All you are doing is providing plausible deniability.
Pointing out that you've not offered any evidence is only
pointing out that you've not offered any evidence.
Oh I think there is plenty of evidence.
What you do or do not *think* doesn't matter. It's what can be
proved that matters.
Post by Blind Freddie
Just go to any of the 911 websites and you will see a WHOLE HEAP of
irregularities and inconsistencies that have never been explained to
anybody's satisfaction.
Conspiracy k00ks are never satisfied when the truth is explained
to them. In fact, the truth just convinces them more that the
conspiracy they envision is real.
Post by Blind Freddie
The whole think stinks to high heaven of a psyop (you do understand
the meaning of that word hopefully) to blame terrorists / Iraq /
whoever and a reason to go to war against them. Also a reason for
tighter controls over people's freedoms and a change from habeus
corpus to guilty until proven innocent.
You don't have a clue what habeas corpus means, do you?
Post by Blind Freddie
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Plausible deniability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
"The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a
formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or
responsibility for any damnable actions ..."
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Surely it is reasonable to assume that the reason it is kept from
public scrutiny is due to the fact that it is incriminating.
More plausible is that evidence proving the conspiracy does not
exist. And it is impossible to offer something that doesn't exist.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
Roosevelt never said that. But you are free to cite when he did.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Cover stories abound and are created by agencies to throw people off
the track and keep thing hidden and confused.
This is standard MO and is not a valid excuse to prevent
accountability for such situations.
So once again you prove my claim correct. To the conspiracy
theorist, the lack of proof *is* the proof.
"Rule out the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how unlikely,
is the truth."
You'll need to rule out the impossible then.
Post by Blind Freddie
A person needs to be able to read between the lines.
Evidence can be disappeared.
So once again, the lack of proof IS the proof in your view.
Post by Blind Freddie
A person has to often rely on the lay of the land, things that have
gone on beforehand and things that happen afterwards, to work out a
likely scenario.
Of course the pawn will only go along with "approved" information or
theories and pooh-pooh anything else.
Provide compelling evidence of your claim and I will be compelled
to accept it. Simply claiming it's so and insulting me for requesting
evidence isn't pooh-poohing anything to the rational mind.
Post by Blind Freddie
Note the marks of the disinformation agent.
MEDIA MIND CONTROL , DISINFORMATION AND ATTACKS
http://www.arkenterprises.com/disinfo.html
"5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for
'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe
JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain
for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic
discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would
either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply
ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly
conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out
of their way to focus as they do. "
So the fact that you rubbish conspiracy theories already marks you as
a disinformation agent dumb-arse.
I don't rubbish them. I do require evidence to support them.
Until such time as evidence is provided, I will presume the theories
to be nothing more than bunk.
Post by Blind Freddie
So don't push your luck.
I'm pushing.
Post by Blind Freddie
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt
No matter how often you post that, he will never have said it.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
See its people like you who will bend over backward and jump through
hoops to rationalise away any action by the powers that be, and
demonise anybody who questions.
Wanting to review evidence of your claims and requesting you, or
any other theorist, provide the evidence isn't bending over backwards
or jumping through hoops. And there is no way to make that equate to
demonizing anybody.
If you want to believe Cheney conspired with anyone and kept
NORAD down and out, fine. It's your *right* to believe it. But don't
get upset when people ask you to offer evidence, that can be verified,
that proves the claim.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Conspiracies DO happen and it serves no realistic purpose to explain
them away.
Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proving the claim.
This will require evidence.
Bullshit
I wish I could just claim something as BS when it proves me
wrong. Sadly, my mind is wired correctly, so I can't.
Conspiracies are the order of the day.
In the mind of the paranoid.
Post by Blind Freddie
They occur in big business, the robber barons of old plotted behind
the scenes. They would either buy out their competitors,
Not a conspiracy.
Post by Blind Freddie
join up with them
There is the *potential* for a conspiracy.
Post by Blind Freddie
or eliminate them. They used dirty tricks and deception to claw
their way to the top, treading on anything and anybody that got in
their way.
Not a conspiracy.
Post by Blind Freddie
I refer you back to the link at the beginning of this thread.
It might be a good time for you to read it.
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
We've established conspiracies do exist. I gave an example of a
former one with the tobacco industry.
Just because some do exist, this doesn't mean all must exist.
Post by Blind Freddie
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
...this is the reason there is government, to run the country
and be accountable. It is not up to the individual to need to query
the government and when that happens there has been some serious
breakdown in processes.
The people are to hold the government accountable. But to simply
cry out that Cheney kept NORAD down and out without evidence that he
did so will never work.
I think Cheney was responsible ultimately.
You may think anything you wish. But thinking it does not make it
true.
Post by Blind Freddie
There may have been people or units under him more directly involved,
but he would have been the ultimate authority.
Nope. He lacked any authority to issue such an order.
Post by Blind Freddie
you can speculate on who was responsible but it makes no difference to
the fact that it WAS STOOD DOWN.
Back peddling from your Cheney claim, I see.
It's OK. You took a losing position from the start, so your
options were, and are, limited.
Post by Blind Freddie
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Wake up dumbarse.
That I refuse to buy into your rant without evidence proves I'm
very much awake, simpleton.
My rant and that of many others who still have a few braincells that
haven't been fossilised by fluoride in the drinking water,
This one again?
Do you realize how much water you would need to consume before
any fluoride would, or even could, harm you? You would die of
electrolyte imbalance before experiencing any harm from fluoride.
Post by Blind Freddie
and
mindless pap coming through the mass media, is that things don't add
up. From there comes the speculation and it is perfectly legitimate to
speculate when things don't add up -- except of course, if you're a
TOTAL MINDLESS DUMB-ARSE.
So you no longer speculate? Unless you're being less than honest,
you've just admitted you do not, dumb-arse.
Post by Blind Freddie
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
For decades the tobacco companies conspired with each other to
claim nicotine is not addictive and that tobacco is safe. People
claimed it was a conspiracy of lies. They presented the evidence and
the conspiracy was proved.
Obviously there was some sort of coverup by tobacco industry.
It was a conspiracy among the companies. And it was proved.
Now it's your turn to prove the conspiracy you claim exists or
admit there is none. Your choice.
There are lots of conspiracies going on everywhere.
Only an idiot would think otherwise.
This fails to prove your claims about Cheney. You must have
chosen to admit there is no conspiracy about Cheney and NORAD being
down and out.
Now on to other things.
--
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George
Bob Officer
2014-07-11 22:12:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 04:26:12 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:11:50 +1000, Blind Freddie
[...]
Post by Blind Freddie
The whole think stinks to high heaven of a psyop (you do understand
the meaning of that word hopefully) to blame terrorists / Iraq /
whoever and a reason to go to war against them. Also a reason for
tighter controls over people's freedoms and a change from habeus
corpus to guilty until proven innocent.
You don't have a clue what habeas corpus means, do you?
I used to have a list of words carole just didn't understand or use
correctly. IT grew to be a very long list. I just added one more word
to it.

For a laugh ask her what the word suppression means.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
The Other Guy
2014-07-11 22:48:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I used to have a list of words carole just didn't understand or use
correctly.
THAT would be known as a dictionary!





To reply by email, lose the Ks...


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-12 09:07:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 04:26:12 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:11:50 +1000, Blind Freddie
[...]
Post by Blind Freddie
The whole think stinks to high heaven of a psyop (you do understand
the meaning of that word hopefully) to blame terrorists / Iraq /
whoever and a reason to go to war against them. Also a reason for
tighter controls over people's freedoms and a change from habeus
corpus to guilty until proven innocent.
You don't have a clue what habeas corpus means, do you?
I used to have a list of words carole just didn't understand or use
correctly. IT grew to be a very long list. I just added one more word
to it.
I found a list of words she does not understand or use correctly.

www.merriam-webster.com/
Post by Bob Officer
For a laugh ask her what the word suppression means.
When I next see one of her socks, I'll do so.
--
Aspire to inspire before you expire.
Lu
2014-07-12 14:27:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 04:26:12 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:11:50 +1000, Blind Freddie
[...]
Post by Blind Freddie
The whole think stinks to high heaven of a psyop (you do understand
the meaning of that word hopefully) to blame terrorists / Iraq /
whoever and a reason to go to war against them. Also a reason for
tighter controls over people's freedoms and a change from habeus
corpus to guilty until proven innocent.
You don't have a clue what habeas corpus means, do you?
I used to have a list of words carole just didn't understand or use
correctly. IT grew to be a very long list. I just added one more word
to it.
I found a list of words she does not understand or use correctly.
www.merriam-webster.com/
Post by Bob Officer
For a laugh ask her what the word suppression means.
When I next see one of her socks, I'll do so.
Carole and rats go for the jugular, when cornered
--
Lu
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-12 22:50:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lu
Post by K Wills (Shill #3)
Post by Bob Officer
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 04:26:12 -0500, in misc.health.alternative, "K
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:11:50 +1000, Blind Freddie
[...]
Post by Blind Freddie
The whole think stinks to high heaven of a psyop (you do understand
the meaning of that word hopefully) to blame terrorists / Iraq /
whoever and a reason to go to war against them. Also a reason for
tighter controls over people's freedoms and a change from habeus
corpus to guilty until proven innocent.
You don't have a clue what habeas corpus means, do you?
I used to have a list of words carole just didn't understand or use
correctly. IT grew to be a very long list. I just added one more word
to it.
I found a list of words she does not understand or use correctly.
www.merriam-webster.com/
Post by Bob Officer
For a laugh ask her what the word suppression means.
When I next see one of her socks, I'll do so.
Carole and rats go for the jugular, when cornered
Then I shall be very entertained.
--
Heartbreak is a burden to us all. Pity the man with two.
Blind Freddie
2014-07-07 20:23:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
<snip>
No proof offered of the existence of any conspiracies.
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
Yes, he was told an airliner w/o transponder was headed towards D.C.
Dick Did Nothing... He let it happen.
and then he goes on with those wild WMD. lies.
Was he still working for Halliburton.
that's a government conspiracy.
The point is there is a lot of secrecy that goes on.
Why were the camera tapes at the pentagon collected and kept secret?
What was on them that they didn't want anybody to see?

Too much lack of transparency and too many secrets.
Too much spin, lies and propaganda.



Blind Freddie

A brief history of FDA raids against providers of natural health
products
https://thebovine.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/a-brief-history-of-fda-raids-against-providers-of-natural-health-products/

Tyranny in the USA: The true history of FDA raids on healers, vitamin
shops and supplement companies
http://www.naturalnews.com/021791.html
Francis Lee
2014-07-07 20:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 06:23:47 +1000, Blind Freddie
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
<snip>
No proof offered of the existence of any conspiracies.
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
Yes, he was told an airliner w/o transponder was headed towards D.C.
Dick Did Nothing... He let it happen.
and then he goes on with those wild WMD. lies.
Was he still working for Halliburton.
that's a government conspiracy.
The point is there is a lot of secrecy that goes on.
Why were the camera tapes at the pentagon collected and kept secret?
What was on them that they didn't want anybody to see?
Too much lack of transparency and too many secrets.
Too much spin, lies and propaganda.
So says the conspiracy theorist, without reference to any evidence.

Try again, carole.
carole's drinking habits
2014-07-07 21:46:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Shoe-Chucker 2
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
<snip>
No proof offered of the existence of any conspiracies.
Here's a question I have had for awhile;
Why did Dick Cheney keep NORAD down and out some 55 minutes after the
WTC was hit?
Yes, he was told an airliner w/o transponder was headed towards D.C.
Dick Did Nothing... He let it happen.
and then he goes on with those wild WMD. lies.
Was he still working for Halliburton.
that's a government conspiracy.
The point is there is a lot of secrecy that goes on.
False.

The point is you can't prove any of it.
--
"You have to remember Michele I don't take any pharmaceutical products
at all except for the occasional panadeine for the odd hangover."
- carole hubbard on 3 Jun 2004
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

http://gsk.co.nz/panadeine.html


"I do binge a little here and there - so what?" - carole hubbard on 30
Jun 2004
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binge_drinking


"A drink or two doesn't give one a hangover. Lose count? Are you a drunk
who tries to minimize their binge drinking? Alcoholics often defend
their drinking, Carole. Hangovers don't happen after a drink or two.
Drinking to the point of
getting a hangover is binge drinking. Occasionally binging is binging.
Understand that?" - Michelle replying to carole on 1 Jul 2004
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/binging

http://www.drinkwise.org.au/you-alcohol/alcohol-facts/binge-drinking/
Bob Officer
2014-07-07 22:22:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:46:37 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by carole's drinking habits
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
The point is there is a lot of secrecy that goes on.
False.
The point is you can't prove any of it.
well if it secret, then she doesn't know.
(If it isn't secret she may not read about it,
so she still doesn't know.)
But if the knowledge is truly secret, how does she know about it at
all?

So what we have is carole making an assumption (a prior) that because
some piece of "Knowledge" is not known to her, that said "knowledge"
must be a secret, and she never will accept the fact the knowledge
may have never existed. carole has shown time and time again that she
can't tell the differences between fact and fiction.

Does anyone else see the circular reasoning.

X - no one knows about X,
ergo X must be a secret.
There is no evidence X exists,
and lack of evidence or knowledge is proof X is a secret.
The fact the X is a secret is proof that X exists.

[any one else have a headache yet? yet this is how a conspiracy
theorist mind works. It is called Paranoid Personal Disorder in most
cases. ]
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
carole's drinking habits
2014-07-07 22:46:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:46:37 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by carole's drinking habits
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
The point is there is a lot of secrecy that goes on.
False.
The point is you can't prove any of it.
well if it secret, then she doesn't know.
(If it isn't secret she may not read about it,
so she still doesn't know.)
But if the knowledge is truly secret, how does she know about it at
all?
So what we have is carole making an assumption (a prior) that because
some piece of "Knowledge" is not known to her, that said "knowledge"
must be a secret, and she never will accept the fact the knowledge
may have never existed. carole has shown time and time again that she
can't tell the differences between fact and fiction.
Does anyone else see the circular reasoning.
X - no one knows about X,
ergo X must be a secret.
There is no evidence X exists,
and lack of evidence or knowledge is proof X is a secret.
The fact the X is a secret is proof that X exists.
[any one else have a headache yet? yet this is how a conspiracy
theorist mind works. It is called Paranoid Personal Disorder in most
cases. ]
It makes me dizzy.

FWIW, I always suspected she was mentally ill.

Can there be any doubt now?
--
"You have to remember Michele I don't take any pharmaceutical products
at all except for the occasional panadeine for the odd hangover."
- carole hubbard on 3 Jun 2004
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

http://gsk.co.nz/panadeine.html


"I do binge a little here and there - so what?" - carole hubbard on 30
Jun 2004
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binge_drinking


"A drink or two doesn't give one a hangover. Lose count? Are you a drunk
who tries to minimize their binge drinking? Alcoholics often defend
their drinking, Carole. Hangovers don't happen after a drink or two.
Drinking to the point of
getting a hangover is binge drinking. Occasionally binging is binging.
Understand that?" - Michelle replying to carole on 1 Jul 2004
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/binging

http://www.drinkwise.org.au/you-alcohol/alcohol-facts/binge-drinking/
Bob Officer
2014-07-07 22:59:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:46:32 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by carole's drinking habits
Post by Bob Officer
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:46:37 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by carole's drinking habits
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
The point is there is a lot of secrecy that goes on.
False.
The point is you can't prove any of it.
well if it secret, then she doesn't know.
(If it isn't secret she may not read about it,
so she still doesn't know.)
But if the knowledge is truly secret, how does she know about it at
all?
So what we have is carole making an assumption (a prior) that because
some piece of "Knowledge" is not known to her, that said "knowledge"
must be a secret, and she never will accept the fact the knowledge
may have never existed. carole has shown time and time again that she
can't tell the differences between fact and fiction.
Does anyone else see the circular reasoning.
X - no one knows about X,
ergo X must be a secret.
There is no evidence X exists,
and lack of evidence or knowledge is proof X is a secret.
The fact the X is a secret is proof that X exists.
[any one else have a headache yet? yet this is how a conspiracy
theorist mind works. It is called Paranoid Personal Disorder in most
cases. ]
It makes me dizzy.
It did me trying to reduce it in to terms.
Post by carole's drinking habits
FWIW, I always suspected she was mentally ill.
Can there be any doubt now?
PPD and StPD? with NPD included. Maybe with the belief her socks are
real a MPD?
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
carole's misandry
2014-07-08 00:28:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 18:46:32 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by carole's drinking habits
Post by Bob Officer
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:46:37 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by carole's drinking habits
Post by Francis Lee
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 12:48:04 -0700, Shoe-Chucker 2
The point is there is a lot of secrecy that goes on.
False.
The point is you can't prove any of it.
well if it secret, then she doesn't know.
(If it isn't secret she may not read about it,
so she still doesn't know.)
But if the knowledge is truly secret, how does she know about it at
all?
So what we have is carole making an assumption (a prior) that because
some piece of "Knowledge" is not known to her, that said "knowledge"
must be a secret, and she never will accept the fact the knowledge
may have never existed. carole has shown time and time again that she
can't tell the differences between fact and fiction.
Does anyone else see the circular reasoning.
X - no one knows about X,
ergo X must be a secret.
There is no evidence X exists,
and lack of evidence or knowledge is proof X is a secret.
The fact the X is a secret is proof that X exists.
[any one else have a headache yet? yet this is how a conspiracy
theorist mind works. It is called Paranoid Personal Disorder in most
cases. ]
It makes me dizzy.
It did me trying to reduce it in to terms.
Post by carole's drinking habits
FWIW, I always suspected she was mentally ill.
Can there be any doubt now?
PPD and StPD? with NPD included. Maybe with the belief her socks are
real a MPD?
Paranoid Personaility Disorder? For sure.

http://www.mentalhealth.com/home/dx/paranoidpersonality.html


Schizotypal Personality Disorder? Likely.

http://outofthefog.net/Disorders/STPD.html#DSMCriteria


Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Likely.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568


Her socks as evidence of a Multiple Personality Disorder? Very Likely.

http://www.skepdic.com/mpd.html
--
From: Martin <***@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: All the world's problems caused by men ...not women.
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 09:40:25 +0200


On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:01:50 -0700 (PDT), carole
Post by Bob Officer
Did I forget most criminals are men. Generally, men dominate the
world through brute force, bullshit and bluff.
[You are] just upset that because you have a problem with personal
hygiene (witness your eternal problems with body odour and athletes
foot) [and] you can't get a man.
It makes no sense to post here
2014-07-09 06:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
<snip>
No proof offered of the existence of any conspiracies.
Look at the Democrats, the Republicans, or the American Chamber of
Commerce, all are conspiracies that set mostly in the open for
all to see. The problem is you have a blind audience and a deaf press and
neither of which can spell more than about 300 words.



2000 words or was that Word 2000?.......................Trig
Bob Officer
2014-07-07 18:00:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies. A
dictionary will define a conspiracy as the act of two or more people
coming together to plot to do something that is illegal.
"The truth is the world is full of conspiracy. If there was no such
thing as conspiracies governments would not need Intelligence
Agencies, which they themselves, sit behind closed doors and secretly
plot on how to infiltrate another government illegally to gather
intelligence they have no legal right to obtain. Those people who
reject conspiracies as real just have not thought the issue through,
or they simply don’t want to believe that there are people in the
world who plot the enslavement or destruction of others. If this is
your belief I ask you where did Communism come from? How did Hitler
rise to power???
"In fact conspiracies are part of every day life. People conspire with
work associates to get a better position over someone else.
Politicians conspire all the time to win public favour and also for
their own personal gain. Many events which happened let’s say 20 years
ago are being exposed such as the government sponsored human radiation
experiments in the USA. The CIA MK Ultra mind control program which
was exposed in the late 1970?s is another example of a cabal of people
conspiring in secret to implement an agenda which the public would not
approve. Plots and actions are exposed all the time.
"Conspiracies are a fact of life.??Conspiracies exist all over the
place. The question is not if conspiracies exist, for if they did not,
we would not have that word in the dictionary. The question becomes,
is there such a thing as a conspiracy to control the entire world and
enslave the people in a fuedalistic and socialistic order? Also if
there is in fact such a thing is it provable? Well the answer to both
questions is a resounding YES! "
This rhetoric is the perfect if not classic example of why the
logical fallacy of circular reasoning makes any conspiracy theory a
prior conclusion, and any evidence to disprove a conspiracy is
dismissed or ignored, because the theorist will reject outright ALL
EVIENCE contrary to his conspiracy theory.

A conspiracy theorist seems to always be suffering from Paranoid
Personality Disorder (PPD) and at least one other supporting
personality disorder. All into the mix, most followers of conspiracy
theories are basically illiterate or have poor reading comprehension,
and poor command of language. The have no problem hold two or more
directly conflicting conspiracy theories true at the same time.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Martin
2014-07-07 19:17:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies. A
dictionary will define a conspiracy as the act of two or more people
coming together to plot to do something that is illegal.
"The truth is the world is full of conspiracy. If there was no such
thing as conspiracies governments would not need Intelligence
Agencies, which they themselves, sit behind closed doors and secretly
plot on how to infiltrate another government illegally to gather
intelligence they have no legal right to obtain. Those people who
reject conspiracies as real just have not thought the issue through,
or they simply don’t want to believe that there are people in the
world who plot the enslavement or destruction of others. If this is
your belief I ask you where did Communism come from? How did Hitler
rise to power???
"In fact conspiracies are part of every day life. People conspire with
work associates to get a better position over someone else.
Politicians conspire all the time to win public favour and also for
their own personal gain. Many events which happened let’s say 20 years
ago are being exposed such as the government sponsored human radiation
experiments in the USA. The CIA MK Ultra mind control program which
was exposed in the late 1970?s is another example of a cabal of people
conspiring in secret to implement an agenda which the public would not
approve. Plots and actions are exposed all the time.
"Conspiracies are a fact of life.??Conspiracies exist all over the
place. The question is not if conspiracies exist, for if they did not,
we would not have that word in the dictionary. The question becomes,
is there such a thing as a conspiracy to control the entire world and
enslave the people in a fuedalistic and socialistic order? Also if
there is in fact such a thing is it provable? Well the answer to both
questions is a resounding YES! "
This rhetoric is the perfect if not classic example of why the
logical fallacy of circular reasoning makes any conspiracy theory a
prior conclusion, and any evidence to disprove a conspiracy is
dismissed or ignored, because the theorist will reject outright ALL
EVIENCE contrary to his conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy theorist seems to always be suffering from Paranoid
Personality Disorder (PPD) and at least one other supporting
personality disorder. All into the mix, most followers of conspiracy
theories are basically illiterate or have poor reading comprehension,
and poor command of language. The have no problem hold two or more
directly conflicting conspiracy theories true at the same time.
http://xkcd.com/966/
Bob Officer
2014-07-07 21:14:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 07 Jul 2014 21:17:00 +0200, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Martin
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies. A
dictionary will define a conspiracy as the act of two or more people
coming together to plot to do something that is illegal.
"The truth is the world is full of conspiracy. If there was no such
thing as conspiracies governments would not need Intelligence
Agencies, which they themselves, sit behind closed doors and secretly
plot on how to infiltrate another government illegally to gather
intelligence they have no legal right to obtain. Those people who
reject conspiracies as real just have not thought the issue through,
or they simply don’t want to believe that there are people in the
world who plot the enslavement or destruction of others. If this is
your belief I ask you where did Communism come from? How did Hitler
rise to power???
"In fact conspiracies are part of every day life. People conspire with
work associates to get a better position over someone else.
Politicians conspire all the time to win public favour and also for
their own personal gain. Many events which happened let’s say 20 years
ago are being exposed such as the government sponsored human radiation
experiments in the USA. The CIA MK Ultra mind control program which
was exposed in the late 1970?s is another example of a cabal of people
conspiring in secret to implement an agenda which the public would not
approve. Plots and actions are exposed all the time.
"Conspiracies are a fact of life.??Conspiracies exist all over the
place. The question is not if conspiracies exist, for if they did not,
we would not have that word in the dictionary. The question becomes,
is there such a thing as a conspiracy to control the entire world and
enslave the people in a fuedalistic and socialistic order? Also if
there is in fact such a thing is it provable? Well the answer to both
questions is a resounding YES! "
This rhetoric is the perfect if not classic example of why the
logical fallacy of circular reasoning makes any conspiracy theory a
prior conclusion, and any evidence to disprove a conspiracy is
dismissed or ignored, because the theorist will reject outright ALL
EVIENCE contrary to his conspiracy theory.
A conspiracy theorist seems to always be suffering from Paranoid
Personality Disorder (PPD) and at least one other supporting
personality disorder. All into the mix, most followers of conspiracy
theories are basically illiterate or have poor reading comprehension,
and poor command of language. The have no problem hold two or more
directly conflicting conspiracy theories true at the same time.
http://xkcd.com/966/
That is one of the better ones. Have you seen one the latest, a
comparison of the surface areas of the planets and minor planets?
http://xkcd.com/1389/
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Whacko
2014-07-07 19:05:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
Of course conspiracies exist.
carole's abused kids
2014-07-07 19:23:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know aka
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
Of course conspiracies exist.
That link presents no evidence that any conspiracies exist, carole.

Try again, old tart.



From: Whacko <***@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative,alt.conspiracy,aus.politics
Subject: Re: Do conspiracies exist?
Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>
References: <***@4ax.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
X-Complaints-To: ***@easynews.com
Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 05:05:36 +1000

On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
Of course conspiracies exist.
--
From hubbca (carole hubbard)
Posted 12/9/2000 4:32 PM)

http://forum.lef.org/default.aspx?f=39&m=16385

</quote>

Years ago when my children were small they brought nits home
from school. I tried everything but they were persistant and
kept coming back. Then I read in an old book that nits were
scavengers and lived off the impurities in the blood. So I
figured if I could clean out the blood I'd get rid of them.
I tried fasting, distilled water, fruit diets and different
cell salts. Nothing worked. After consideration, I decided
to try some cell salts in higher concentrations. When I got
to calcium and after a few days, the nits starting disappearing.
I read in the Biochemic Handbook that Calcium Sulphate is a
blood purifier. They stayed away as long as I continued on
this high dose of calcium, when I lowered the dose they
starting coming back.

</end quote>
Wyatt Vixson
2014-07-07 19:48:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
Of course conspiracies exist.
You post some stupid stuff, carole.
Clayton
2014-07-07 19:58:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies. A
dictionary will define a conspiracy as the act of two or more people
coming together to plot to do something that is illegal.
"The truth is the world is full of conspiracy. If there was no such
thing as conspiracies governments would not need Intelligence
Agencies, which they themselves, sit behind closed doors and secretly
plot on how to infiltrate another government illegally to gather
intelligence they have no legal right to obtain. Those people who
reject conspiracies as real just have not thought the issue through,
or they simply don’t want to believe that there are people in the
world who plot the enslavement or destruction of others. If this is
your belief I ask you where did Communism come from? How did Hitler
rise to power???
Notice all the disinformation agents coming out of the woodwork?
The government regularly monitors newsgroup forums and has their
people working to shut down any burgeoning awareness that conspiracies
exist. They prefer people to stay unaware and listening to their
expert propaganda.


http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"There are two basic views of history. One we can term the ‘Accidental
View of History’. This view is the view which the majority of people
believe in. This view pertains to the notion that events in history
basically occur by accident and are merely the results of the
conditions existing at the time. Events just occur and there is no
real meaning to them. This is the view of the world we are presented
with everyday by the news media, educational institutions and claimed
experts.

"The ‘Accidental View of History’ is simply the accepted world view.

"The other view of history can be termed as the ‘Conspiracy View of
History’ This is the cause and effect view of history. This view holds
that major events in history are the result of careful planning and
that these events are carried out with a desired goal in mind. "


---------------

There will always be those who rubbish conspiracy theories and there's
not much that anybody can do about that.





Clayton

"Rockefeller's general Education Board has spent more than $100
million to gain control of the nation's medical schools and turn our
physicians to physicians of the allopathic school, dedicated to
surgery and the heavy use of drugs."
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/emullins.htm
Bob Officer
2014-07-07 21:18:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 05:58:52 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Notice all the disinformation agents coming out of the woodwork?
The government regularly monitors newsgroup forums and has their
people working to shut down any burgeoning awareness that conspiracies
exist. They prefer people to stay unaware and listening to their
expert propaganda.
Notice the groups to which you crossposted, trolling for support?
Notice how little you are getting? That is because rational and
logical people tend to out number the Kooks and paranoid people on
most usenet groups. Most of the people in alt.conspriacy are there to
poke holes in the ideas of people that use circular reasoning and
logical fallacies.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Martin
2014-07-08 01:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies. A
dictionary will define a conspiracy as the act of two or more people
coming together to plot to do something that is illegal.
"The truth is the world is full of conspiracy. If there was no such
thing as conspiracies governments would not need Intelligence
Agencies, which they themselves, sit behind closed doors and secretly
plot on how to infiltrate another government illegally to gather
intelligence they have no legal right to obtain. Those people who
reject conspiracies as real just have not thought the issue through,
or they simply don’t want to believe that there are people in the
world who plot the enslavement or destruction of others. If this is
your belief I ask you where did Communism come from? How did Hitler
rise to power???
Notice all the disinformation agents coming out of the woodwork?
You mean like all of your sockpuppets Carole?
Post by Francis Lee
The government regularly monitors newsgroup forums
Oh puhleaze! I've been following the whole Edward Snowden and
Wikileaks thing and while the NSA even collects people's selfies,
usenet hasn't gotten a mention anywhere.
Post by Francis Lee
and has their people working to shut down any burgeoning awareness that conspiracies
exist.
So Carole, how often has that website of yours been attacked by govt
hackers over the years? I bet not even a DOS attack. In fact, your
website is so pathetic, as is your behaviour here, that it almost
convinces me disinformation agents do exist and you're one!
Post by Francis Lee
They prefer people to stay unaware and listening to their expert propaganda.
Which is of course why they let you (and Alex Jones, Glen Beck, Mike
Adams etc) expose them again and again and again.The fact that you
haven't had a visit from any men in black yet should give you a hint
Carole. But of course in your world, the fact that these
'conspiracies' can be exposed all over the web without any consequence
is evidence that "the truth' gets suppressed. Just like bookstores
full of books on alt med is suppression in your world.
K Wills (Shill #3)
2014-07-08 08:42:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies. A
dictionary will define a conspiracy as the act of two or more people
coming together to plot to do something that is illegal.
"The truth is the world is full of conspiracy. If there was no such
thing as conspiracies governments would not need Intelligence
Agencies, which they themselves, sit behind closed doors and secretly
plot on how to infiltrate another government illegally to gather
intelligence they have no legal right to obtain. Those people who
reject conspiracies as real just have not thought the issue through,
or they simply don’t want to believe that there are people in the
world who plot the enslavement or destruction of others. If this is
your belief I ask you where did Communism come from? How did Hitler
rise to power???
Notice all the disinformation agents coming out of the woodwork?
The government regularly monitors newsgroup forums and has their
people working to shut down any burgeoning awareness that conspiracies
exist. They prefer people to stay unaware and listening to their
expert propaganda.
Dagnabit, Clayton. How is that NOT telling everyone?
Do you even read the memos?
--
Music soothes the savage beast...unless it's polka.
Enquiring minds want to know
2014-07-09 01:27:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies.
Note the word "believe".

It is not whether people believe or not, but whether conspiracies
actually exist or not.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
A
dictionary will define a conspiracy as the act of two or more people
coming together to plot to do something that is illegal.
Does that happen?
Is it possible that it could happen?
Does it appear that this is what is happening?

If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes' then it behoves us to
take the possibility of conspiracies more seriously.

It is no longer good enough to say 'leave it all to the experts' -- so
often the "experts" are merely promoted to their positions to act as
enablers to deeds that aren't democratically decided.
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
"The truth is the world is full of conspiracy. If there was no such
thing as conspiracies governments would not need Intelligence
Agencies, which they themselves, sit behind closed doors and secretly
plot on how to infiltrate another government illegally to gather
intelligence they have no legal right to obtain. Those people who
reject conspiracies as real just have not thought the issue through,
or they simply don’t want to believe that there are people in the
world who plot the enslavement or destruction of others. If this is
your belief I ask you where did Communism come from? How did Hitler
rise to power???
"In fact conspiracies are part of every day life. People conspire with
work associates to get a better position over someone else.
Politicians conspire all the time to win public favour and also for
their own personal gain. Many events which happened let’s say 20 years
ago are being exposed such as the government sponsored human radiation
experiments in the USA. The CIA MK Ultra mind control program which
was exposed in the late 1970?s is another example of a cabal of people
conspiring in secret to implement an agenda which the public would not
approve. Plots and actions are exposed all the time.
"Conspiracies are a fact of life.??Conspiracies exist all over the
place. The question is not if conspiracies exist, for if they did not,
we would not have that word in the dictionary. The question becomes,
is there such a thing as a conspiracy to control the entire world and
enslave the people in a fuedalistic and socialistic order? Also if
there is in fact such a thing is it provable? Well the answer to both
questions is a resounding YES! "
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet
it was planned that way." ---Franklin D. Roosevelt



---------------
Enquiring minds want to know

Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/

Plausible deniability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plausible_deniability
"The term most often refers to the capacity of senior officials in a
formal or informal chain of command to deny knowledge of and/or
responsibility for any damnable actions ..."

MEDIA MIND CONTROL , DISINFORMATION AND ATTACKS
http://www.arkenterprises.com/disinfo.html
Clayton
2014-07-09 01:33:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies.
Note the word "believe".
It is not whether people believe or not, but whether conspiracies
actually exist or not.
I think you've done a good job of demonstrating the possibility that
conspiracies exist.
That is a great article and I've saved it and will read it over again
from time to time.

It often amazes me that people think its funny when a person says that
conspiracies exist. What is the mentality behind this? Obviously any
meeting that goes on behond closed doors and decides on a course of
action that wouldn't face public scrutiny, is a conspiracy.



Clayton

History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - from 'Murder by
Injection - The story of the Medical Conspiracy against America' by
Eustice Mullins,
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
Bob Officer
2014-07-09 02:37:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:33:20 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
So do you think carole's socks are setting around discussing how they
well make a bigger idiot out of carole? They planing makes it a
conspiracy, doesn't it?
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Francis Lee
2014-07-09 03:27:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:33:20 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
So do you think carole's socks are setting around discussing how they
well make a bigger idiot out of carole? They planing makes it a
conspiracy, doesn't it?
Carole's socks are in fact making a bigger idiot out of her.

Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that the socks planned on
doing so because the puppeteer, carole, controls all the socks.

That planning by carole would not be a conspiracy because by
definition, a conspiracy involves at least two individuals.

The various socks, of course, cannot be counted as individuals because
they would not exist without the action of the puppeteer carole.

In short, carole is an idiot of huge proportions, and her own words
have made her so.
Bob Officer
2014-07-09 04:38:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 23:27:15 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:33:20 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
So do you think carole's socks are setting around discussing how they
well make a bigger idiot out of carole? They planing makes it a
conspiracy, doesn't it?
Carole's socks are in fact making a bigger idiot out of her.
Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that the socks planned on
doing so because the puppeteer, carole, controls all the socks.
That planning by carole would not be a conspiracy because by
definition, a conspiracy involves at least two individuals.
What if she truly has MPD?
Post by Francis Lee
The various socks, of course, cannot be counted as individuals because
they would not exist without the action of the puppeteer carole.
MPD?
Post by Francis Lee
In short, carole is an idiot of huge proportions, and her own words
have made her so.
That's what I thought.

Her cross-posted trolling was a failure again...
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Francis Lee
2014-07-09 12:36:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 23:27:15 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:33:20 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
So do you think carole's socks are setting around discussing how they
well make a bigger idiot out of carole? They planing makes it a
conspiracy, doesn't it?
Carole's socks are in fact making a bigger idiot out of her.
Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that the socks planned on
doing so because the puppeteer, carole, controls all the socks.
That planning by carole would not be a conspiracy because by
definition, a conspiracy involves at least two individuals.
What if she truly has MPD?
An alternative name for it is Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).

http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Inform_Yourself/About_Mental_Illness/By_Illness/Dissociative_Identity_Disorder.htm

" . . . a disturbance of identity in which two or more separate and
distinct personality states (or identities) control an individual's
behavior at different times. "

One individual is involved in each case of DID.

Modifying the definition of conspiracy to include the personalities as
separate entities in cases of DID would not seem prudent, given that
in DID cases, there is usually a dominant personality that controls
the others.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
The various socks, of course, cannot be counted as individuals because
they would not exist without the action of the puppeteer carole.
MPD?
"Those with MPD [DID] have a dominant personality that determines the
individual’s behavior."

http://allpsych.com/journal/did.html
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
In short, carole is an idiot of huge proportions, and her own words
have made her so.
That's what I thought.
You may have originally coined that description of her. I found it in
the archives.
Post by Bob Officer
Her cross-posted trolling was a failure again...
It never works for her.

That's one of many things that support the conclusion that she is, in
fact, an idiot.
Bob Officer
2014-07-10 23:03:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 08:36:03 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 23:27:15 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:33:20 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
So do you think carole's socks are setting around discussing how they
well make a bigger idiot out of carole? They planing makes it a
conspiracy, doesn't it?
Carole's socks are in fact making a bigger idiot out of her.
Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that the socks planned on
doing so because the puppeteer, carole, controls all the socks.
That planning by carole would not be a conspiracy because by
definition, a conspiracy involves at least two individuals.
What if she truly has MPD?
An alternative name for it is Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID).
http://www.nami.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Inform_Yourself/About_Mental_Illness/By_Illness/Dissociative_Identity_Disorder.htm
I know, I happen to often fall back on old school terminology.
Post by Francis Lee
" . . . a disturbance of identity in which two or more separate and
distinct personality states (or identities) control an individual's
behavior at different times. "
One individual is involved in each case of DID.
Modifying the definition of conspiracy to include the personalities as
separate entities in cases of DID would not seem prudent, given that
in DID cases, there is usually a dominant personality that controls
the others.
Real life puppetry, with a hidden puppet master.

How often is the mix of Narcissistic Personality Disorder and
Paranoid Personality Disorder involve as diagnosis?
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
The various socks, of course, cannot be counted as individuals because
they would not exist without the action of the puppeteer carole.
MPD?
"Those with MPD [DID] have a dominant personality that determines the
individual’s behavior."
http://allpsych.com/journal/did.html
Nods... Maybe after retirement I will take a refresher class.
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
In short, carole is an idiot of huge proportions, and her own words
have made her so.
That's what I thought.
You may have originally coined that description of her. I found it in
the archives.
I not sure of that or not.
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Bob Officer
Her cross-posted trolling was a failure again...
It never works for her.
But yet she keeps trying. Last month is sci.skeptic one of my old
stopping grounds. It was like old home week. Many of the same faces
are still there from 15 or more years ago.
Post by Francis Lee
That's one of many things that support the conclusion that she is, in
fact, an idiot.
That's the real sad part. She can not even see the truth. I used to
suspect years ago she was diagnosed and treated, then sent home and
then fell out of compliance/treatment. Then it some of the better
speculations is that she got involved with Co$ or CCHR or some other
cult organization, and has been sliding downhill since then.
carole's drinking habits
2014-07-09 13:00:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Officer
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 23:27:15 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Francis Lee
Post by Bob Officer
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:33:20 +1000, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Clayton
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
So do you think carole's socks are setting around discussing how they
well make a bigger idiot out of carole? They planing makes it a
conspiracy, doesn't it?
Carole's socks are in fact making a bigger idiot out of her.
Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that the socks planned on
doing so because the puppeteer, carole, controls all the socks.
That planning by carole would not be a conspiracy because by
definition, a conspiracy involves at least two individuals.
What if she truly has MPD?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2042663/The-woman-20-personalities-body-case-thats-baffled-experts.html
Post by Bob Officer
Post by Francis Lee
The various socks, of course, cannot be counted as individuals because
they would not exist without the action of the puppeteer carole.
MPD?
Post by Francis Lee
In short, carole is an idiot of huge proportions, and her own words
have made her so.
That's what I thought.
Her cross-posted trolling was a failure again...
--
"You have to remember Michele I don't take any pharmaceutical products
at all except for the occasional panadeine for the odd hangover."
- carole hubbard on 3 Jun 2004
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

http://gsk.co.nz/panadeine.html


"I do binge a little here and there - so what?" - carole hubbard on 30
Jun 2004
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binge_drinking


"A drink or two doesn't give one a hangover. Lose count? Are you a drunk
who tries to minimize their binge drinking? Alcoholics often defend
their drinking, Carole. Hangovers don't happen after a drink or two.
Drinking to the point of
getting a hangover is binge drinking. Occasionally binging is binging.
Understand that?" - Michelle replying to carole on 1 Jul 2004
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/binging

http://www.drinkwise.org.au/you-alcohol/alcohol-facts/binge-drinking/
Francis Lee
2014-07-09 03:19:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clayton
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies.
Note the word "believe".
It is not whether people believe or not, but whether conspiracies
actually exist or not.
I think you've done a good job of demonstrating the possibility that
conspiracies exist.
And you are wrong, as usual. No proof was presented of the existence
of any conspiracies.
Post by Clayton
That is a great article and I've saved it and will read it over again
from time to time.
It is an article with lots of hot air and no proof whatsoever.

In other words, it is poppycock.


<snip the rest>
Martin
2014-07-09 15:48:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clayton
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies.
Note the word "believe".
It is not whether people believe or not, but whether conspiracies
actually exist or not.
I think you've done a good job
Carole, having your socks praise eachother was pathetic the first 50
times and it still is.
Post by Clayton
of demonstrating the possibility that conspiracies exist.
Yes, like the one where Big Oil & Gas are conspiring to sow fear,
uncertainty and doubt about global warming (the FUD strategy).
Or when a group of terrorists conspired to hijack planes and fly them
into buildings.
Those are real conspiracies. The ones you come up with are all fake.
In fact, it would not surprise me if *you* are part of a conspiracy
Carole. One to distract from real conspiracies. One whose purpose it
is to make conspiracy theorists look like complete idiots, so that
when someone uncovers a real conspiracy, they will be dismissed out of
hand.
Post by Clayton
That is a great article and I've saved it and will read it over again
from time to time.
It often amazes me that people think its funny when a person says that
conspiracies exist. What is the mentality behind this? Obviously any
meeting that goes on behond closed doors and decides on a course of
action that wouldn't face public scrutiny, is a conspiracy.
So, then what do you think of organizations like the AVN banning
everyone that does not agree with them? Sounds like they are
conspiring.
Post by Clayton
Clayton
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - from 'Murder by
Injection - The story of the Medical Conspiracy against America' by
Eustice Mullins,
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
Lu
2014-07-09 21:46:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Martin
Post by Clayton
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies.
Note the word "believe".
It is not whether people believe or not, but whether conspiracies
actually exist or not.
I think you've done a good job
Carole, having your socks praise eachother was pathetic the first 50
times and it still is.
Post by Clayton
of demonstrating the possibility that conspiracies exist.
Yes, like the one where Big Oil & Gas are conspiring to sow fear,
uncertainty and doubt about global warming (the FUD strategy).
Or when a group of terrorists conspired to hijack planes and fly them
into buildings.
Those are real conspiracies. The ones you come up with are all fake.
In fact, it would not surprise me if *you* are part of a conspiracy
Carole. One to distract from real conspiracies. One whose purpose it
is to make conspiracy theorists look like complete idiots, so that
when someone uncovers a real conspiracy, they will be dismissed out of
hand.
Oh yes, Carole is always ranting about all these conspiracies but has yet to
post about a real one.
Post by Martin
Post by Clayton
That is a great article and I've saved it and will read it over again
from time to time.
It often amazes me that people think its funny when a person says that
conspiracies exist. What is the mentality behind this? Obviously any
meeting that goes on behond closed doors and decides on a course of
action that wouldn't face public scrutiny, is a conspiracy.
So, then what do you think of organizations like the AVN banning
everyone that does not agree with them? Sounds like they are
conspiring.
Post by Clayton
Clayton
History of the Pharmaceutical Drug Business - from 'Murder by
Injection - The story of the Medical Conspiracy against America' by
Eustice Mullins,
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_industryweapons13.htm
--
Lu
Bob Officer
2014-07-09 22:41:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 17:48:17 +0200, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Martin
Post by Clayton
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies.
Note the word "believe".
It is not whether people believe or not, but whether conspiracies
actually exist or not.
I think you've done a good job
Carole, having your socks praise eachother was pathetic the first 50
times and it still is.
But it is not longer funny, it is now sad. At this point carole can't
stop lying (using the socks).
Post by Martin
Post by Clayton
of demonstrating the possibility that conspiracies exist.
Yes, like the one where Big Oil & Gas are conspiring to sow fear,
uncertainty and doubt about global warming (the FUD strategy).
Or when a group of terrorists conspired to hijack planes and fly them
into buildings.
Those are real conspiracies. The ones you come up with are all fake.
In fact, it would not surprise me if *you* are part of a conspiracy
Carole. One to distract from real conspiracies. One whose purpose it
is to make conspiracy theorists look like complete idiots, so that
when someone uncovers a real conspiracy, they will be dismissed out of
hand.
That a real possibility The crying wolf tactic. If you have enough
people crying wolf when there is not wolf, when someone spots a real
wolf, there is great likelihood that the person will be ignored.
Post by Martin
Post by Clayton
That is a great article and I've saved it and will read it over again
from time to time.
It often amazes me that people think its funny when a person says that
conspiracies exist. What is the mentality behind this? Obviously any
meeting that goes on behond closed doors and decides on a course of
action that wouldn't face public scrutiny, is a conspiracy.
So, then what do you think of organizations like the AVN banning
everyone that does not agree with them? Sounds like they are
conspiring.
By-golly you are right...

So when we sit around at work and plan out our days off, we are deep
in a conspiracy? Set down and plan a night out with an other couple,
you are guilty of conspiracy.
--
Bob Officer

"One of my pet hates is being made an idiot
out of ...but you go right ahead"
Carole Hubbard in Message-ID:
<RWpco.4333$***@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com>
Francis Lee
2014-07-09 03:17:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 11:27:59 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Francis Lee
On Tue, 08 Jul 2014 02:46:24 +1000, Enquiring minds want to know
Post by Enquiring minds want to know
Do conspiracies exist?
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2010/07/01/1/
"The world view promoted through education, media and generally in
every day of life is one that denies the reality of conspiracies. The
vast majority of people in the world do not believe in conspiracies.
Note the word "believe".
It is not whether people believe or not, but whether conspiracies
actually exist or not.
And with no proof that conspiracies exist, they do not in fact exist.

Note to idiot carole: your saying they exist, without more, is not
proof they exist.


<snip the rest of this lunatic's rambling nonsense>
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-07-09 22:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Zen Gardner - Alternative News Blog

9 Major Government Conspiracies That Actually Happened
Conspiracy
by Peak Crackers - Mar 24, 20146 463




by Peak Crackers

Contributor

As I make sure my tin foil hat is fitted correctly .. here are 9 very obvious lies from the so called Government entrusted by the people. M.PC.

We all know the conspiracy theories -- the government's plan for 9/11, the second gunman who shot JFK, the evolution of the elite from a race of blood-drinking, shape-shifting lizards.

But the people who spread these ideas usually can't prove them.

As the years pass, however, secrets surface. Government documents become declassified. We now have evidence of certain elaborate government schemes right here in the U.S. of A.

Prohibition Research CommitteeAP Photo
The Prohibition Research Committee, pictured above, traveled the country trying to find one "drunk" reformed by the legislation.

1. The U.S. Department of the Treasury poisoned alcohol during Prohibition -- and people died.
The 18th Amendment, which took effect in January 1920, banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol -- but not consumption. Despite the government's efforts, alcoholism actually skyrocketed during the era.

To keep up with America's thirst, bootleggers not only created their own alcohol but also stole industrial versions, rendered undrinkable by the inclusion of certain chemicals (namely methyl alcohol). Liquor syndicates then employed chemists to "re-nature" the alcohol once again, making it safe for consumption, according to Deborah Blum, author of "The Poisoner's Handbook: Murder and the Birth of Forensic Medicine in Jazz Age New York."

By mid-1927, however, the U.S. government added much deadlier chemicals -- kerosene, chloroform, and acetone among those most well known -- which made alcohol more difficult to render consumable again. Adding 10% more methyl alcohol caused the worst efforts.

Although New York City's chief medical examiner, Charles Norris, tried to publicize the dangers, in 1926, poisonous alcohol killed 400 in the city. The next year, 700 died.

Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment Wikimedia Commons
A doctor administers an injection to one of the Tuskegee patients.

2. The U.S. Public Health Service lied about treating black men with syphilis for more than 40 years.
In 1932, the Public Health Service collaborated with the Tuskegee Institute to record the history of syphilis in the black male community, hoping to justify a treatment program.

Called the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, the study initially included 600 black men -- 399 with the disease and 201 without. While the men were told they would receive treatment, however, the researchers never provided adequate treatment for the disease. Even when penicillin became the preferred and available treatment for syphilis, researchers kept their subjects in the dark.

Although originally planned to last only six months, the experiment continued for 40 years. Finally, in 1972, an Associated Press article prompted public outrage and a subsequent investigation. A government advisory panel deemed the study "ethically irresponsible" and research ended almost immediately.

As a result, the government settled a class-action lawsuit out of court in 1974 for $10 million and lifetime health benefits for all participants, the last of whom died in 2004.

Jonas Salk Polio VaccineWikimedia Commons
Jonas Salk, who created the inactivated polio vaccine in 1955.

3. More than 100 million Americans received a polio vaccine contaminated with a potentially cancer-causing virus.
From 1954 to 1961, simian virus 40 (SV40) somehow showed up in polio vaccines, according to the American Journal of Cancer. Researchers estimate 98 million people in the U.S. and even more worldwide received contaminated inoculations.

Jonas Salk, known creator of the inactivated polio vaccine, used cells from rhesus monkeys infected with SV40, according to president of the National Vaccine Information Center Barbara Fisher, who testified before the Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness in the U.S. House of Representatives on this matter in 2003, after researching the situation for 10 years.

The federal government changed oral vaccine stipulations in 1961 -- which didn't include Salk's inactivated polio vaccine -- specifically citing SV40. But medical professionals continued to administer tainted vaccines until 1963, according to Michael E. Horwin writing for the Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology in 2003. And even after 1961, the American Journal of Cancer found contaminated oral vaccines.

Although researchers know SV40 causes cancer in animals, opinions vary on a direct link between the virus and cancer in humans. Independent studies, however, have identified SV40 in brain and lung tumors of children and adults.

The Centers for Disease Control did post a fact sheet acknowledging the presence of SV40 in polio vaccines but has since removed it, according to Medical Daily.

photo from Gulf of TonkinWikimedia Commons
A photo of three Vietnamese boats taken from the USS Maddox (on Aug. 2).

4. Parts of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which led to U.S. intervention in Vietnam, never happened.
After evading a torpedo attack, the USS Maddox reportedly engaged three North Vietnamese boats in the Gulf of Tonkin on both Aug. 2 and 4, 1964, according to the Pentagon Papers. Although without U.S. casualties, the events prompted Congress to pass a resolution allowing President Lyndon John to intervene in the Southeast.

Talk of Tonkin's status as a "false flag" for U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War has permeated public discourse almost since the time of the attacks, especially after the government admitted that the second incident may have involved false radar images.

But after resisting comment for decades, the National Security Agency finally declassified documents in 2005, admitting the incident on Aug. 4 never happened at all.

Those involved didn't necessarily intend to cover-up the incident to propagate a war. But the evidence does suggest "an active effort to make SIGINT fit the claim of what happened during the evening of 4 August in the Gulf of Tonkin,"according to NSA historian Robert J. Hanyok.

Fidel CastroWikimedia Commons
Fidel Castro speaking in Havana in 1978.

5. Military leaders reportedly planned terrorist attacks in the U.S. to drum up support for a war against Cuba.
In 1962, the joint chiefs-of-staff approved Operation Northwoods, a covert plan to create support for a war in Cuba that would oust communist leader Fidel Castro.

Declassified government documents show considerations included: host funerals for "mock-victims," "start rumors (many)," and "blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba." They even suggested somehow pinning John Glenn's potential death, should his rocket explode, on communists in Cuba.

The advisors presented the plan to President Kennedy's Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, according to investigative journalist James Bamford's book, "Body of Secrets." We don't know whether McNamara immediately refused, but a few days later, Kennedy told Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, the plan's poo-bah, that the U.S. would never use overt force to take Cuba.

A few months later, Lemnitzer lost his position.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," Bamford told ABC News.

Ken Kesey One Flew Over the Cuckoo's NestWikimedia Commons
Ken Kesey, author of "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest," voluntarily participated in Project MKUltra.

6. The government tested the effects of LSD on unwitting U.S. and Canadian citizens.
Under the code name "MKUltra," the U.S. government ran a human-research operation within the CIA's Scientific Research Division. Researchers tested the effects of hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, torture, and most memorably, LSD, on U.S. and Canadian citizens. Most had no idea.

To conduct these experiments, the CIA paid prisons, hospitals, and other institutions to keep quiet. The department even enticed heroin addicts to participate by offering them heroin, according to documents from a joint hearing to subcommittees of Congress, where President Kennedy spoke.

That day, he regaled Congress with "chilling testimony." Over 30 universities became involved in various studies. Notably, many lacked oversight by medical or scientific professionals. At least one participant, Frank Olsen, died, reportedly from suicide after unknowingly ingesting LSD.

In January 1973, then CIA Director Richard Helms ordered the destruction of all documents pertaining to MKUltra. When Congress looked into the matter, no one, not even Helms, could "remember" details. Through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, more documents were located, but the full timeline remains incomplete.

The events inspired investigative journalist Jon Ronson's best-selling book, "The Men Who Stare At Goats," now a movie of the same title starring George Clooney.

Glomar Explorer Project AzorianWikimedia Commons
The Hughes Glomar Explorer, the recovery ship designed for Project Azorian.

7. In 1974, the CIA secretly resurfaced a sunken Soviet submarine with three nuclear-armed ballistic missiles.
The CIA's secret "Project Azorian" aimed to raise a sunken Soviet submarine from the floor of the Pacific Ocean to retrieve three nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, each carrying a one megaton nuclear warhead.

With President Nixon's approval, CIA director Richard Helms placed all the plans in a secret file called "Jennifer," thus keeping the information from everyone but a select number of government officials.

After a FOIA, the NSA finally published an article from the CIA's in-house journal, Studies in Intelligence, revealing that the department succeeded in resurfacing portions of the sub, named K-129.

The CIA redacted text in these documents that prevent determining the operation's exact level of success, but the crew of the Glomar Explorer, the recovery ship, did haul contents to Hawaii for unloading.

Reagan Iran Contra Scandal Wikimedia Commons
8. The U.S. government sold weapons to Iran, violating an embargo, and used the money to support Nicaraguan militants.
In 1985, senior officials in the Reagan administration facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, then under embargo. The government, with the National Security Council's Oliver North acting as a key player, later used the profits to fund the Contras, anti-communist rebels, in Nicaragua.

The whole situation began with seven American hostages taken by a hostile group in Lebanon with ties to Iran. Through an elaborate exchange involving Israel, the U.S. planned to sell weapons to Iran in exchange for the hostages' freedom. The situation quickly derailed, although the Lebanese did release all but two hostages.

After a leak from an Iranian, the situation finally came to light in 1986. After repeatedly denying any involvement, the Reagan administration underwent 41 days of congressional hearings, according to Brown University's research project on the scandal. They subpoenaed government documents as early as 1981 and forced declassification of others.

Reagan's involvement in and even knowledge of the situation remains unclear. The hearings never labeled the sale of weapons to Iran a criminal offense, but some officials faced charges for supporting the Contras. The administration, however, refused to declassify certain documents, forcing Congress to drop them.

Nayirah C-SPAN YouTube/guyjohn59
"Nayirah"

9. A public relations firm organized congressional testimony that propelled U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War.
In 1990, a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl identified only as "Nayirah" testified before Congress that she witnessed Iraqi soldiers pulling infants from their incubators at a hospital and tossing them to the ground to die.

A later investigation revealed that PR giant Hill & Knowlton arranged her testimony for a client, Kuwaiti-sponsored Citizens for a Free Kuwait, and furthermore that Nayirah was the daughter of Kuwait's Ambassador to the U.S., according to The New York Times.

Tom Lantos, a representative from California who co-founded the committee that heard Nayirah, coordinated the whole thing. Perhaps not coincidentally, his committee rented space in the PR firm's headquarters at a reduced rate. Citizens for a Free Kuwait would go on to donate money to foundations with ties to said committee sometime after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait.

At first, Amnesty International affirmed the girl's testimony. But after reinvestigation, the group and other human rights organizations switched positions. They didn't necessarily question the accuracy, just her withheld bias.

Nayirah's testimony helped build support for the Persian Gulf War, though Congress would have likely pursued involvement without her words.
MORE>>

+++

ZenGardner.com






TAGSBIG BROTHERGLOBALIST AGENDAMIND CONTROLNEW WORLD ORDERORWELLIAN WORLDPOLICE STATETHE AWAKENING

PREVIOUS ARTICLE
Quote: consciousness
NEXT ARTICLE
The Principles of Zen

Peak Crackers
Non-traditional everything , Just a Human with his thoughts and the will never to be enslaved
SIMILAR ARTICLES


1/3 of All Americans Already Implanted with RFID Chip
Jul 9, 20146 87

Rand Corporation Advised Brutal Force on East Ukraine
Jul 5, 20145 105
6 COMMENTS

Rollo
Mar 24, 2014 at 12:10 pm
At least 10 every day.

Reply
Peak Crackers
Mar 24, 2014 at 2:24 pm
This is true Rollo

Reply
Zen GardnerZen Gardner
Mar 24, 2014 at 2:45 pm
por lo menos...up to no good out the wazoo...the list is so long it's nuts...

Reply
RandallRandall
Mar 24, 2014 at 2:00 pm
RT On Peakster! No tellin' what's comin' down the line next. If we want to see real conspiracy theories at work, turn on the evening news. Some bastard in authority plants the lie, the media waters it, and the people partake. Maybe we can divide the conspiracy theorists into two groups: Conspiracy Liars & Conspiracy Truthers! ;)

Reply
Peak Crackers
Mar 24, 2014 at 2:26 pm
LOL .. Lefters .. And you wonder why the good Dr, wanted to give away the Vaccines for free

Reply
Pam
Mar 25, 2014 at 8:29 am
New one to ponder. Flight 370 reported as found in the South India Sea. Keep in mind that there is a huge US military base in the India Sea on the Diego Garcia Island just south of Maldives where the plane was reported spotted by locals.

Reply
Leave a Reply











Notify me when new comments are added.

Social

3,508Fans
239Subscribers
9,250Followers
486Followers
Latest Featured Article


A One World Religion is Already Here
Jul 9, 2014
Latest Article From Zen


You Don't Have To Carry That Weight
Jul 7, 201427 249
Latest Posts


What do you do?
Jul 9, 2014
video
The American-Israeli Propaganda Machine Exposed
Jul 9, 2014

11 Tactics the Media Use to Manufacture Consent for the Oligarchy
Jul 9, 2014
Newsletter
are you just wondering?

Choose Daily Zen or Weekly Zen: Click Here

POPULAR LATELY

video
Is This Proof Michelle Obama is a Man?
Jul 4, 2014

Staged Disaster Looms
Jul 3, 2014
FORUMS
Welcome to ZenGardner.com -Start here
FORUM REPLIES
Erik V. on Introductions
branewaiver on Introductions
Jozen Jozen on Introductions
POPULAR TOPICS
Consciousness935
The Awakening895
Alternative Knowledge823
Big Brother605
Activism597
Just Zen534
Zen Gardner - Just Wondering - Alternative news & views
TermsPrivacySitemapAbout
Google+
unk...@googlegroups.com
2014-07-09 22:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
The 4 Craziest Conspiracies That Were Totally True
MARCH 10, 2014
True Conspiracies White House
Source: Wikipedia
True Conspiracies: The Business Plot
Imagine the United States of America ruled by a fascist dictatorship. Not the kind your uncle is always complaining about, mind you, but a real one with an actual goose-stepping il Duce type giving orders to the president on all matters of policy. That almost happened in 1933, when a group of American businessmen tried to install a retired Marine Corps general as a shadow dictator to offset the perceived threat of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

True Conspiracies FDR
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Of course, by "almost happened," it's more accurate to say that the conspirators were caught before they even got close to throwing the switch on their plans. All the same, the Business Plotters, as they came to be known, did manage to give the hilariously named McCormack-Dickstein Committee a light workout as it exposed a group of conspirators that included the heads of General Motors and Chase Manhattan Bank, a French fascist organization called the "Arrow Cross," and at least one future US Senator, Prescott Bush (yes, that Bush).


True Conspiracies Prescott Bush
Source: Kentucky
The plot developed into a semi-big deal, with financing channels and a new economic initiative all ready to go, but was undone by the plotters' choice for the American Benito Mussolini: the even-more hilariously named Smedley Butler. The idea was to assemble a force of disgruntled veterans (brown shirts optional, one imagines), march them to Washington, and force President Roosevelt to appoint Butler to some kind of cabinet position, from which he could pass the cabal's orders to the basically powerless president.

All that the plot's architects seemed to know about Butler when they picked him was that he was a solid-gold, heavily decorated war veteran. Unfortunately for them, Butler had a change of heart (and politics) during the Hoover Administration and actively campaigned for Roosevelt in 1932.

True Conspiracies Smedley Butler
Source: Wikipedia
All's well that ends well. Butler went straight to the offices of the FBI with the Plotters' plans, where he filed a full report and agreed to act as their informant. J. Edgar Hoover might have had his disagreements with Roosevelt, but fascist coups have never been the kind of thing the Justice Department just lets slide on by. The furor eventually led to hearings in the House of Representatives, zero arrests, and a nicely profitable set of professional connections for most of the plotters to carry on doing business with Italy and Germany until a few months after Pearl Harbor.

Page 1 Of 4 NEXT PAGE
Share Tweet Email

Hot On ATI & The Web
Often Overlooked Method to Pay Off Mortgage
Lifestyle Journal
How Men Everywhere are Naturally Boosting Testosterone
The Daily Life
8 Sleeping Positions and Their Effects on Health
Daily Health Post
Jay Z Visits London, 1988
by TaboolaPromoted Content
PREVIOUS POSTNEXT POST
View This Post In Full Site
View Full Site


PBH Network Mobile Logo
Alligator Sunglasses Mobile LogoPBH2 Mobile Logo
Runt of the Web Mobile LogoProse Before Hos Mobile Logo

Read more at http://all-that-is-interesting.com/true-conspiracies#xEP1jIctWKWw2X8d.99
Read more at http://all-that-is-interesting.com/true-conspiracies#xEP1jIctWKWw2X8d.99
Blind Freddie
2014-07-11 01:39:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by ***@googlegroups.com
The 4 Craziest Conspiracies That Were Totally True
MARCH 10, 2014
True Conspiracies White House
Source: Wikipedia
True Conspiracies: The Business Plot
Imagine the United States of America ruled by a fascist dictatorship. Not the kind your uncle is always complaining about, mind you, but a real one with an actual goose-stepping il Duce type giving orders to the president on all matters of policy. That almost happened in 1933, when a group of American businessmen tried to install a retired Marine Corps general as a shadow dictator to offset the perceived threat of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
True Conspiracies FDR
Source: Wikimedia Commons
Of course, by "almost happened," it's more accurate to say that the conspirators were caught before they even got close to throwing the switch on their plans. All the same, the Business Plotters, as they came to be known, did manage to give the hilariously named McCormack-Dickstein Committee a light workout as it exposed a group of conspirators that included the heads of General Motors and Chase Manhattan Bank, a French fascist organization called the "Arrow Cross," and at least one future US Senator, Prescott Bush (yes, that Bush).
True Conspiracies Prescott Bush
Source: Kentucky
The plot developed into a semi-big deal, with financing channels and a new economic initiative all ready to go, but was undone by the plotters' choice for the American Benito Mussolini: the even-more hilariously named Smedley Butler. The idea was to assemble a force of disgruntled veterans (brown shirts optional, one imagines), march them to Washington, and force President Roosevelt to appoint Butler to some kind of cabinet position, from which he could pass the cabal's orders to the basically powerless president.
All that the plot's architects seemed to know about Butler when they picked him was that he was a solid-gold, heavily decorated war veteran. Unfortunately for them, Butler had a change of heart (and politics) during the Hoover Administration and actively campaigned for Roosevelt in 1932.
True Conspiracies Smedley Butler
Source: Wikipedia
All's well that ends well. Butler went straight to the offices of the FBI with the Plotters' plans, where he filed a full report and agreed to act as their informant. J. Edgar Hoover might have had his disagreements with Roosevelt, but fascist coups have never been the kind of thing the Justice Department just lets slide on by. The furor eventually led to hearings in the House of Representatives, zero arrests, and a nicely profitable set of professional connections for most of the plotters to carry on doing business with Italy and Germany until a few months after Pearl Harbor.
Page 1 Of 4 NEXT PAGE
Share Tweet Email
Hot On ATI & The Web
Often Overlooked Method to Pay Off Mortgage
Lifestyle Journal
How Men Everywhere are Naturally Boosting Testosterone
The Daily Life
8 Sleeping Positions and Their Effects on Health
Daily Health Post
Jay Z Visits London, 1988
by TaboolaPromoted Content
PREVIOUS POSTNEXT POST
View This Post In Full Site
View Full Site
PBH Network Mobile Logo
Alligator Sunglasses Mobile LogoPBH2 Mobile Logo
Runt of the Web Mobile LogoProse Before Hos Mobile Logo
Read more at http://all-that-is-interesting.com/true-conspiracies#xEP1jIctWKWw2X8d.99
Read more at http://all-that-is-interesting.com/true-conspiracies#xEP1jIctWKWw2X8d.99
Thanks - good work.
Norad Nick
2014-07-11 03:28:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 Jul 2014 11:39:14 +1000, Blind Freddie aka Stupid Carole
Post by Blind Freddie
Thanks - good work.
Good for nothing.
_ _ _ _


http://www.norad.mil/Newsroom/PressReleases/tabid/3993/Article/4853/santa-claus-visits-norad-headquarters.aspx

http://www.noradsanta.org/
Loading...