2000 AD Online Forum

General Chat => Off Topic => : The Legendary Shark 18 March, 2011, 06:52:29 PM

: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 18 March, 2011, 06:52:29 PM


As you may know, I've hijacked a couple of threads lately with my “alternative views” of the world. Although I'm not sorry I did this, I am a little uncomfortable. I've been asking myself why I would do such a thing; why would I think that anyone is interested in such outlandish views? Do I want to convert people, to thrust my face into yours and scream “Look! Look what They are doing to us!” Am I mad? Has my mind snapped? They say that a madman never knows that he's mad – is that what's happened to me? Am I howling at the moon? Am I broken?

Or is there something in it? There is little likelihood that such a big question could ever be answered on a forum about 2000AD, but I thought I'd float this thread in case anyone wants to discuss “alternative” views. If nothing else, it'll give me a place to rant and rave without upsetting the forum in general. My own virtual rubber room. Feel free to point and giggle – I won't be offended.

I remember watching the events of 9/11 unfolding moment by sickening moment on TV. Aircraft smashing into buildings. People jumping to their doom rather than waiting to be burned alive. New York suffocating under great, white clouds of pulverized concrete. First Responders heroically but with aching futility searching for survivors in that terrible aftermath. Tears. Pain. Death. Anger.

And then watching, with a chasm of dread in the pit of my stomach, as the United States of America went mad, dragging the rest of the world after it. The most powerful nation on Earth, the one with the biggest guns and the most bullets, shaking its fist and declaring that “you're either with us or against us.” I was with America that day. I felt its pain. I felt its fear. I felt its anger. I still do.

I was dimly aware that a few lone voices were crying “foul!” and blaming not Muslim terrorists but their own government and I thought these people mad. The U.S. Government, I believed, would not perpetrate such a despicable act against its own people. The very idea was unthinkable and an insult to all who died on that dark day.

It wasn't until around 2005 or 2006 that I began to have doubts of my own about exactly what did happen on 9/11. There were, I found, some unsettling questions. Thinking still that these questions were probably just landmines planted by anti-government malcontents I decided to look into these questions for myself, to convince myself that what I was being told was the truth and that these questions were trivial and easily answered and dismissed. I soon discovered, however, that many of these questions were difficult to answer and led to some very frightening places.

I had never heard of the collapse of the third tower, WTC7, until an internet friend of mine (whose intellect and knowledge of all things scientific dwarf my own as a redwood dwarfs a thistle) told me about it. Even then I didn't believe it because I didn't want to believe it. But those pesky questions remained and led me deep into a place I didn't want to go – to a place I still don't want to be in.

I continued my research (although the word “research” in this case is a much grander word than my meagre web-trawling sessions merits) and suddenly found myself confronted with a world I had hitherto not even dreamed existed. A world of ruling elites, corrupt central banks, rotten governments, biased media, fake wars, conspiracies and a whole raft of outlandish theories and frightening facts. The world, I realized, was not as I thought it was. It was like seeing a boom-mike dip into the top of the picture in a film or TV show. As if the illusion had been broken, the fourth wall cracked just enough for me to glimpse the other side.

I haven't started this thread to go through all the questions raised by 9/11 – there are a million and one sites on the internet dedicated to such things – but to ask if it's possible that things are not quite as they appear to be in this world of ours. Is it possible that there is a hidden struggle going on for “control” of the world's population? Are we nothing but cattle, or “sheeple” as some observers and commentators call us? If so, what can we do about it?

So, here's a thread where we can discuss truth and lies – if you so desire. The thread may, of course, sink without a trace into the background hiss of the internet but, given everything that has happened and continues to happen as a result of 9/11 should we not at least cursorily examine what's going on, or not, behind the scenes, or not, in our societies?

Over to you, my friends. Let the madness commence...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: staticgirl 18 March, 2011, 07:42:31 PM
Have you ever spent a while on the Fortean Times forum? You'll find all sorts of discussions on the conspiracy section (pro and anti) that will interest you. The forum members aren't mad either so I find their debates more enjoyable because they attempt to weigh up the evidence fairly dispassionately (although rows do break out occasionally.)

Although I am not convinced by many of the big modern conspiracy theories especially concerning 9/11, the truth is that conspiracies do happen and have happened throughout history. You just have to separate the wheat from the chaff. I often think if it sounds utterly banal it's more believable.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: locustsofdeath! 18 March, 2011, 07:58:07 PM
America is evil, let's just leave it at that.

For my two American cents we didn't drag anyone into madness, they came with us. There were plenty of countries that didn't do anything other than offer condolences; Britain was not forced into this war. If your government still feels they owe us something for WWII then, hey, be mad at it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 18 March, 2011, 08:08:25 PM
America is evil, let's just leave it at that.

Word!

If your government still feels they owe us something for WWII then, hey, be mad at it.

I know: that's crazy, isn't it? We spent 60 years paying back America for that and we were nearly done when Blair got us involved in America's bonkers plan to wreak havoc in the middle east. I think there were numerous factors at play, but owing America anything for past favours (like selling us weapons to fight the Nazis with) wasn't one of them. It was a combination of the British Prime Minister always wanting to keep America on our side, like the school bully's less tough sidekick; Blair fancying having a war of his own to run because it worked so well for Thatcher at the ballot box; and also something about 'God told him to do it,' if I remember correctly. Scary, eh?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: locustsofdeath! 18 March, 2011, 08:15:22 PM
I think you should still owe us, and anywhere I walk on this island I should have rose petals sprinkled out before me and men should offer me their daughters and all my drinks should be free. What's wrong with you lot? We saved your asses!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Keef Monkey 18 March, 2011, 08:23:42 PM
I've got a mate who I hadn't seen in years, when we reconnected he told me he had his own secret society of conspiracy theorists who meet and share theories and evidence. I thought he was joking but apparently not (he's been banned from Facebook recently for posting theories, which must have had the society in a right fizz about the conspiracies at play).

He did tell me that he was going to send me conclusive proof that there weren't any planes involved in 9/11 but he hasn't yet.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 18 March, 2011, 08:39:52 PM
he told me he had his own secret society of conspiracy theorists who meet and share theories and evidence

The Lone Gunmen!

(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/LoneGunmen.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Brigantian 18 March, 2011, 08:45:38 PM
Welcome into the light Sharky. You might find Nexus magazine interesting (usually available in the local WH Smiths).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Brigantian 18 March, 2011, 08:52:18 PM
he told me he had his own secret society of conspiracy theorists who meet and share theories and evidence

The Lone Gunmen!

(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/LoneGunmen.jpg)
Ok where's the fourth gun man ? Good ol Jimmy Bond ? What are you trying to hide apart from Jimmy?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: locustsofdeath! 18 March, 2011, 08:55:47 PM
If you have doubts about 9/11 you should interview a few of the survivors about what happened. No offense to anyone here, but if you have a certain agenda - "having doubts about exactly what did happen on 9/11" - and you start searching for conspiracy theories you'll find exactly what you're looking for. As far as this stuff goes, one should always be a skeptic with an open mind. Don't read and believe or listen and believe - get out on the street, do your own research.

And I need to add that whilst I can buy into the US government setting 9/11 up to a point...I find anyone saying that there were no plane crashes to be absolutely off their rocker. I was in Pennsylvania, my house was on a hill- as I watched the horrors on TV I could look out my window and see the smoke pouring up from NYC. IMO, claiming that there were no planes is insulting the memories of the people who died in them.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: IAMTHESYSTEM 18 March, 2011, 08:57:37 PM
There are lots of ugly rumours surrounding 9/11 but I can't fathom the American goverment blowing up one of the symbols of capitilism just to start a war with the Arab World.

Their mostly at War with the Arab World anyway over Americas [mostly] unconditional support for Israel. Why make the War official when 'covert deniel' is so much more fun?

Anyway as WikiLeaks pointed out it's not Israel the Arab world is afraid of but that old enemy Persia! The Iranians and their alleged not very secret Nuclear Power Plant with it's potential for making weapons grade Plutonium concerns Sunni  Arabs and the West far more than the thorn of Israel ever could.   
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Brigantian 18 March, 2011, 09:03:16 PM
If you have doubts about 9/11 you should interview a few of the survivors about what happened. No offense to anyone here, but if you have a certain agenda - "having doubts about exactly what did happen on 9/11" - and you start searching for conspiracy theories you'll find exactly what you're looking for. As far as this stuff goes, one should always be a skeptic with an open mind. Don't read and believe or listen and believe - get out on the street, do your own research.

And I need to add that whilst I can buy into the US government setting 9/11 up to a point...I find anyone saying that there were no plane crashes to be absolutely off their rocker. I was in Pennsylvania, my house was on a hill- as I watched the horrors on TV I could look out my window and see the smoke pouring up from NYC. IMO, claiming that there were no planes is insulting the memories of the people who died in them.
Maybe his friend meant there were no pasenger planes involved as some have argued. No plane at the Pentagon though. IMHO that was either a light aircraft or more likely a missile of some kind. Never convince me that was a plane. What next ? Jesus was real ?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: locustsofdeath! 18 March, 2011, 09:07:19 PM
Yep. And have you, sir, done any first-hand research? What is your knowledge, may I ask, of light aircraft vs. passenger planes and the effects each would have on a building such as the WTC? What types of missile could be used to fire on the WTC yet have millions of first-hand witnesses (people on the streets) see airplanes? Did our government get to every New Yorker and threaten and/or brainwash them into claiming that they saw airplanes rather than missile fire? And what kinds of special effects did our government doctor up during LIVE broadcasts?

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to "argue" with you. I can tell your type a mile away. You're the guy who's always right.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 18 March, 2011, 09:18:00 PM
What next ? Jesus was real ?

Why shouldn't Jesus have been real? Just because he might have been real doesn't confirm his divinity or that he had magic powers, does it? Whilst my disbelief in the supernatural is total, I haven't considered any evidence relating to whether Jesus was real or not, so I'm prepared to keep an open mind on the matter. What evidence do you have for his non-existence?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Jared Katooie 18 March, 2011, 09:19:04 PM
It's interesting to hear people talk about governments hiding terrible secrets. We live in a world where the government of Israel can forge passports from other countries to facilitate the murder of their enemies, and do so without any real consequences.

Why should a country hide its crimes if they know they can get away with them?


Israel's love affair with assassination. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations)



IMHO that was either a light aircraft or more likely a missile of some kind. Never convince me that was a plane. What next ? Jesus was real ?

He was real. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus)


Jared Katooie is sponsored by the Wikipedia Foundation and Google.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: locustsofdeath! 18 March, 2011, 09:23:50 PM
I'm not arguing how nefarious governments can be - that's their job, innit?

I just want concrete facts and firsthand research to base my judgements on, not regurgitated conspiracy theories from the fat guy with chip-stains on his t-shirt and poo-stains in his pants who sits on his couch all day listening to George Noory reruns and scavenging the internet for articles with the same "voice" as his.

I'll listen to anything, I'll believe anything - as long as I have real proof and real facts. Until I get that, I'll smile and nod and think "what a kook".
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: SmallBlueThing 18 March, 2011, 09:26:03 PM
He was real. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus)

Good grud, what despicable cabal of fucking lunatics and premeditated shite-mongers are Wikipedia allowing to write stuff under their name these days?

He wasn't real.

SBT
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: locustsofdeath! 18 March, 2011, 09:28:50 PM
SBT, you silly man. He was real and here's proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hBzO47bJMI.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Brigantian 18 March, 2011, 09:29:26 PM
Yep. And have you, sir, done any first-hand research? What is your knowledge, may I ask, of light aircraft vs. passenger planes and the effects each would have on a building such as the WTC? What types of missile could be used to fire on the WTC yet have millions of first-hand witnesses (people on the streets) see airplanes? Did our government get to every New Yorker and threaten and/or brainwash them into claiming that they saw airplanes rather than missile fire? And what kinds of special effects did our government doctor up during LIVE broadcasts?

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to "argue" with you. I can tell your type a mile away. You're the guy who's always right.
Calm down Locust, I'm not always right. That's far too absolute for me. I just like the evidence to at least have a degree of credibility about it. I'm always open to a different opinion and you're right I am not a military weapons expert. I never claimed I was but I've seen the footage like everyone else from the Pentagon and I can't find it in me to see a plane either in the impact footage (such as it is) or in the shocking aftermath footage. A debate or discussion doesn't have to be an argument.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 18 March, 2011, 09:39:21 PM
Whilst I in no way vouch for its accuracy or authenticity, the documentary "September Clues" presents some interesting ideas:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8045542387672451515#
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 18 March, 2011, 09:45:15 PM
What evidence do you have for his non-existence?

That noise you hear?  Bertrand Russell tutting softly.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 18 March, 2011, 09:59:23 PM
Conspiracy theories oncerning huge, historically significant events are all well and good, but the really scary ones are the ones about our everyday lives. That little piece of plastic at the end of your shoelace? It's called an Aiglet, its purpose is sinister......I've said to much.......... :-X
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 18 March, 2011, 10:23:55 PM
Although I am not convinced by many of the big modern conspiracy theories especially concerning 9/11, the truth is that conspiracies do happen and have happened throughout history.

That.

(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/LoneGunmen.jpg)

See that actor bloke in the middle? He once wrote a letter to the aforementioned Fortean Times regarding the plot of the first episode of the spin-off series. To quote from wikipedia...

The debut of the show in March 2001, began with Byers' father faking his death to uncover a conspiracy to hijack an airliner. The Lone Gunmen try to get to the truth of his supposed death and uncover the conspiracy.

One retrospectively interesting aspect of this pilot episode is that the airliner has been hijacked (via remote control of the plane's autopilot) and, by the end, both Byers and his father have boarded the plane to try to stop the hijacking. Through the aid of the other Gunmen, they are able to regain control of the plane and just miss crashing into the World Trade Center with the airliner. This, of course, was before the actual 9/11 attack against the World Trade Center later that year. Similar to actual conspiracy theories posited about the events of 9/11, the episode's plot indicates that the hijacking was committed as an act of voracity by a greedy American arms manufacturer to ultimately increase its weapons sales by invoking U.S. retaliation against a scapegoated anti-American extremist dictator.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 18 March, 2011, 10:42:42 PM
What evidence do you have for his non-existence?

That noise you hear?  Bertrand Russell tutting softly.

It's a fair cop!  :lol:

Okay, I'm not looking for hard evidence of the non-existence of Jesus; I'm just saying that an absence of evidence of his existence is insufficient grounds for certainity that he did not exist. This is not at all the same thing as saying that we have no evidence for the non-existence of unicorns, so we cannot be certain of their non-existence either. The grounds for disbelief would be different in each case.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 18 March, 2011, 10:54:09 PM
Depends what you call a unicorn.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 18 March, 2011, 10:59:34 PM
It's obvious the US government took down the towers. Just look at how good they are at blue on blue contacts.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 18 March, 2011, 11:13:18 PM
These are the secret sayings which the living Jesus spoke and which Didymos Judas Thomas wrote down.  And he said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these sayings will not experience death."

Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."

"Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."

"The pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge (gnosis) and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to. You, however, be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves."

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/thomas_poxy.htm
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 18 March, 2011, 11:48:21 PM
I shall contribute a reasoned and well argued post when I'm not shit faced. Right now I just want to shout and point at the gullible lack wits who think that Prince Philip had Di assassinated by flashbulb. There is a serious argument to be made about govt lies but I can't do it justice right now. *hic*

but please - Gnostic gospels? The main four are dodgy enough!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 18 March, 2011, 11:50:28 PM
Means nothing to me, Guv. 'Somebody said Jesus said something or other' still has no bearing on the question of whether Jesus was real or not. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not it was worth the while of those who wrote the scripture to have made him up. I say not, because you've got a much better story on which to base your cult or protest movement if you start with a real person than if you start with one who is totally made up like the feats he's supposed to have performed.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Colin MacNeil 19 March, 2011, 12:02:44 AM
It's obvious the US government took down the towers. Just look at how good they are at blue on blue contacts.
I know it's a cliche, but... LOL!

Anyhoo... Funnily enough I was speaking to a chap today who knows the guy who was Hess's doctor in Spandau Prison. Whoever it was in prison, it was most definitely NOT Hess. The medical evidence does not back up the identification of the prisoner as Hess. Hess was wounded by some sort of high velocity bullet in WW1. The prisoner had no wounds which match his official medical records. Why the heck would the Allies perpetuate such a lie, but perhaps more interestingly why would someone pretend to be Hess? To remain in prison for the rest of your "natural"? Whatever the "truth", I'm sure this one goes a lot deeper than 9/11? 9/11 has been running for 10 years. The mystery of Hess has been running for 70 years. The longer you tell a lie, the harder it is to remember the truth.

Just thought I'd share that one as it happened to be a great coincidence, or was it? ;)


Cheers

Colin
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 19 March, 2011, 12:41:38 AM
Anyhoo... Funnily enough I was speaking to a chap today who knows the guy who was Hess's doctor in Spandau Prison. Whoever it was in prison, it was most definitely NOT Hess. The medical evidence does not back up the identification of the prisoner as Hess. Hess was wounded by some sort of high velocity bullet in WW1. The prisoner had no wounds which match his official medical records. Why the heck would the Allies perpetuate such a lie, but perhaps more interestingly why would someone pretend to be Hess? To remain in prison for the rest of your "natural"?

Two words...

Jimmy Carr.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 19 March, 2011, 12:53:18 AM
yep Jimmy Carr should be locked up for the rest of his natural.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Jared Katooie 19 March, 2011, 01:28:08 AM
I didn't say he ws the son of God, just that he existed. Please note that there is a difference.



He probably was the son of God though.  ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 19 March, 2011, 01:37:08 AM
Jimmy Carr is not the son of God! He just has the same initials.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 19 March, 2011, 02:44:02 AM
VD also just exists but its not polite to talk about it
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 19 March, 2011, 06:58:43 AM
Jimmy Carr is not the son of God! He just has the same initials.

Tccch.  Now you're confusing him with Jarvis.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 March, 2011, 10:41:54 AM
Not forgetting Julian Clary.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: locustsofdeath! 19 March, 2011, 10:46:21 AM
John Connor. Messiah. Savior. And all of that.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 March, 2011, 10:59:56 AM
Whilst I in no way vouch for its accuracy or authenticity, the documentary "September Clues" presents some interesting ideas:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8045542387672451515#

In the interests of balance (with the same caveat): September Clues - Busted!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8045542387672451515#docid=823734902101057550
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: WhizzBang 19 March, 2011, 11:54:40 AM
I quite enjoy this sort of thing and have gone as far as to read some books by David Icke. My main problem with a lot of these theories though is that they assume an astonishingly high amount of competence and organisation within governments and businesses which in my working life (from Whitehall to blue chip companies) I have seen very little evidence of.

They do bring up some very interesting questions though and it is always a shame when you find a depressingly uninteresting explanation for these things when the conspiracy sounded so fascinating.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 19 March, 2011, 12:03:11 PM
John Connor. Messiah. Savior. And all of that.

You joke, but I recently heard the same thing from someone who believes that the Terminator films are actually documentary/prophecy, and that those initials are meaningful in precisely the sense you're hinting at.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 March, 2011, 12:05:33 PM
I'm not sure that David Icke is the most credible of commentators. He seems to pounce on anything at all that's out of the ordinary and stick it all together into one massive, confusing ball of complexity and assumption.

The "governmental incompetence" argument only works if one assumes that the whole, or at least a large proportion of the government was involved. As I have said elsewhere, it only takes a few key people (not just in government but across several power bases) and the compartmentalization of duties/knowledge. To say that governments can't keep secrets ignores things like the Manhattan Project, which employed thousands of people in dozens of facilities across the US and Canada, set off trial detonations and lasted for around six years with nobody in the general public being any the wiser.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 19 March, 2011, 12:13:30 PM
I'm not sure that David Icke is the most credible of commentators. He seems to pounce on anything at all that's out of the ordinary and stick it all together into one massive, confusing ball of complexity and assumption.

I thought that was how it was done, to be perfectly honest.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: davethomson 19 March, 2011, 01:09:04 PM
I'm not sure that David Icke is the most credible of commentators. He seems to pounce on anything at all that's out of the ordinary and stick it all together into one massive, confusing ball of complexity and assumption.

With lizard people thrown in the mix as well. :lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dunk! 19 March, 2011, 01:18:09 PM
I do hope most of the conspiracy theories I read about are true as it turns the world into a wonderful poorly-written spy novel with badly thought through sci-fi overtones.

I also hope that the Jesus from the Bible is completely true, and thererfore the rest of the OT, as that makes the world a silly place.

But I fear I'll just have to continue working 9-5 for many more years, pay my taxes, avoid crime and die at the end of it all.

Reveal yourselves soon alien overlords/secret cabal/second coming of Jesus.

Make the world "special"
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: IAMTHESYSTEM 19 March, 2011, 01:48:25 PM

Doesn't determinist theory suggest that we live in the best of all possible worlds?

Everything came from that which went before it so although we seem to be trapped by background or history and we're all just playing out individual parts in a never ending story we can still make the right choices in the end?

We cut out lead in petrol and that made a big difference to air quality so we can do it if we agree to try, we can make a difference.

That of course is the rub. Agreement amongst differing tribes or groups all with competing or rival claims usually proves impossible so we're stuck where we are with little change.

Nature still triumphs in the end as the poor people of both Haiti and Japan have discovered but I still say we can do better. Success is 10% talent 90% effort.

It's the 90% effort alas, I'm always having trouble with.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 19 March, 2011, 02:04:13 PM
I do hope most of the conspiracy theories I read about are true as it turns the world into a wonderful poorly-written spy novel with badly thought through sci-fi overtones.

I also hope that the Jesus from the Bible is completely true, and thererfore the rest of the OT, as that makes the world a silly place.

But I fear I'll just have to continue working 9-5 for many more years, pay my taxes, avoid crime and die at the end of it all.

Reveal yourselves soon alien overlords/secret cabal/second coming of Jesus.

Make the world "special"

You sound like Max Weber's cynical twin from a parallel universe!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenchantment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenchantment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber#Rationalisation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber#Rationalisation)

(N.B. - Jesus is NT, not OT)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 19 March, 2011, 02:11:01 PM
Doesn't determinist theory suggest that we live in the best of all possible worlds?

What is determinist theory? I'm familiar with 'the best of all possible worlds' as a belief extolled by Leibniz and ridiculed by Voltaire in his picaresque comic travelogue, Candide.

Determinism is a Christian belief peculiar to certain branches of Protestantism (e.g. Calvinism), is it not? Therefore it's something of a 'subscribers only' offer/your mileage may vary.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dunk! 19 March, 2011, 04:27:11 PM
Yeah, I should have said "And therefore make the Old Tasty Mint true as well".

Knew my view would be covered somewhere.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: IAMTHESYSTEM 19 March, 2011, 04:45:14 PM
http://www.determinism.com/

Science seems to point in the right direction if you can get over the free will bit. Not very comforting perhaps but there are lots of people who believe in the counter argument that free will does exist and we're not Genetic robots with delusions of grandeur.  
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Eric Plumrose 19 March, 2011, 05:43:25 PM
He was real. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus)

Good grud, what despicable cabal of fucking lunatics and premeditated shite-mongers are Wikipedia allowing to write stuff under their name these days?

He wasn't real.

SBT

Given that 'Jesus' (or rather 'Yeshua') was a common name centuries before and several decades after His supposed birth, I don't see why it's so hard to believe someone claiming to be the Jewish Messiah could have existed. I should think it likely there was a tabernacle-load of would-be Messiahs who happened to have the same name.

It's the claims made during the PR assault of a certain young Turk that are impossible to prove.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 March, 2011, 05:57:54 PM
The problem with personages such as Jesus seems to be that so much time has passed and so many things have been written since his lifetime that it's virtually impossible to be sure of anything. The core message of "be good to one another" seems just about the only useful thing to be gleaned from the whole bloody mess, imho.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: locustsofdeath! 19 March, 2011, 06:12:23 PM
The problem with personages such as Jesus seems to be that so much time has passed and so many things have been written since his lifetime that it's virtually impossible to be sure of anything.

Sounds like 9/11 conspiracy theories to me.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: SmallBlueThing 19 March, 2011, 06:24:05 PM

Given that 'Jesus' (or rather 'Yeshua') was a common name centuries before and several decades after His supposed birth, I don't see why it's so hard to believe someone claiming to be the Jewish Messiah could have existed. I should think it likely there was a tabernacle-load of would-be Messiahs who happened to have the same name.

It's the claims made during the PR assault of a certain young Turk that are impossible to prove.

It doesn't matter whether a random person called 'Jesus' was living at the time in Bethlehem (but show me evidence one was!)- it's whether he did the magic tricks. If there is no proof he did the magic, then I'd say that the evidence is very strongly stacked that the magic never happened, and the stuff we KNOW about how the world and universe was created is correct. Ie) that's there's no magic, just as there's been no similar magic in the intervening 2000 years, and just as there was no magic in the 2000 years before that. Or before that. The entire point of Wiki pages like that is to fool the gullible into questioning the rational, and to sew the seeds of doubt. A doubt that inevitably leads to schools not being able to teach evolution, being forced to give "creationism" the time of day (instead of being closed down for even considering it) and fundies some puerile "evidence" with which to argue.

The Jesus myth is a story, designed to keep a small group of people in line thousands of years ago. Just like the Robin Hood myth is a story, designed to give another small group of people (the English) hope, several hundred years ago. Of the two, I'd rather follow the example of Robin!

SBT
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 19 March, 2011, 06:35:29 PM
It doesn't matter whether a random person called 'Jesus' was living at the time in Bethlehem (but show me evidence one was!)- it's whether he did the magic tricks.

I disagree. You can separate agnosticism about the existence or non-existence of Jesus from belief or disbelief in his divinity, and from atheism.

Whether or not 'he did the magic tricks' is a separate issue from the other questions about whether or not he was the son of a carpenter, he created a scene in the temple, he told parables, he hung out with fishermen, prostitutes and louche types, he delivered the sermon on the mount, or was crucified. There is nothing among that lot I find implausible, which is not to say that any or all of it must be true.

I'm sufficiently secure in my atheism that I don't feel the need to deny all the bits of the Old and New testaments that aren't supernatural as well as the bits that are. I don't feel the need to deny that the Romans ever occupied Judaea, for example, or that crufixion was one of their favoured methods of execution.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 March, 2011, 06:40:58 PM
I once saw a BBC documentary called, if  remember correctly, "Did Jesus Die?" which suggested that Jesus was actually a Buddhist and is buried in India (I think, or Kashmir or somewhere like that).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: SmallBlueThing 19 March, 2011, 06:46:09 PM
But Ush, the entire fictional life of Jesus is entirely based around the fact he was "the Son of God", born of a supernaturally-impregnated human woman in a stable, to which were guided wizards by a magic star, then grew up to do supernatural tricks including raising the dead, walking on water and pulling magic food out of nowhere. Eventually he was murdered and raised himself from the dead before flying up to space on a magic cloud. Take that away, and it's not Jesus. To use a literary term, you've lost the dramatic center of the story.

Since all of that is patently untrue, whether anyone was holding sermons on mounts or not is irrelevent.

Considering so much of the Bible is provably bollocks, I see no reason to give anything other than the bits we can prove (the scene setting, if you like, including Roman occupations and murder-methods) the benefit of the doubt. Like I say- where is the evidence that there was a man called Jesus sermonising anything?

I know what you're arguing, but I don't agree.

SBT
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 March, 2011, 06:58:19 PM
In Islam, Jesus (Arabic: عيسى; `Īsā) (pbuh) is considered to be a Messenger of God and the Messiah who was sent to guide the Children of Israel (banī isrā'īl) with a new scripture, the Injīl or Gospel.

Like all prophets in Islam, Jesus is considered to have been a Muslim (i.e., one who submits to the will of God), as he preached that his followers should adopt the "straight path" as commanded by God. Islam rejects the Christian view that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God, that he was ever crucified or resurrected, or that he ever atoned for the sins of mankind. The Qur'an says that Jesus himself never claimed any of these things, and it furthermore indicates that Jesus will deny having ever claimed divinity at the Last Judgment, and God will vindicate him.[5] The Qur'an emphasizes that Jesus was a mortal human being who, like all other prophets, had been divinely chosen to spread God's message. Islamic texts forbid the association of partners with God (shirk), emphasizing a strict notion of monotheism; i.e., God's divine oneness (tawhīd).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 19 March, 2011, 07:15:05 PM
On the east coast of China there's a city called Peng Lai. The area has legends of a magical mountain, on top of which lived some immortals. Story's probably rubbish. No such mountain.

However, this doesn't stop a non-existent mountain appearing out of nowhere off the coast of Peng Lai on rare occasions. It's even been captured on video a number of times. It may just be a mirage, but it's still kind of there and is the most likely candidate for the basis of the myth.

Even the most fanciful stories can have a basis in fact.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: GordonR 19 March, 2011, 07:20:23 PM
101 ways to know when a discussion is dead.

#87:  When anyone starts regurgitating chunks of stuff from Wikipedia, as if any of it actually means anything.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 March, 2011, 07:26:32 PM
Gawd, I just can't get this quotations thing right, can I?  :lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 19 March, 2011, 07:37:32 PM
Gawd, I just can't get this quotations thing right, can I?  :lol:

Well as someone once said, "Gawd, I just can't get this quotations thing right, can I?".
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 March, 2011, 07:43:21 PM
Oh, don't quote him, he's a dick...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 19 March, 2011, 08:21:38 PM
I have read up on more than my fair share of conspiracy theories (although not as much as sharky I suspect) and gone on jaunts into their wild outer reaches (going back to the days when you had to get this information from dodgy pamphlets and self-printed books from strange little book shops and small ads in strange magazines touting lists of books that'd reveal secret histories of the world.

While governments and groups of powerful individuals do get up to some dark and nasty things (which may even count as a "conspiracy" in the broad sense), I have yet to find anything to suggest conspiracism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracism) is real and valid. An awful lot of the time things seem to get slashed by Hanlon's razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor): "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." This is obviously, related to Occam's razor which also applies, some of the big conspiracy theories are so vast and complex, it'd be impossible to keep them secret, someone out of all the thousands that would need to have to break cover. I'm not ruling anything out, of course, and try and keep up with developments, but I've yet to be convinced there is any grounds to rule anything in. It can be great fodder for stories though ;)

My main concern is that conspiracism distracts from the actual stories of lesser dirty deals and incompetence that we really need to know about. However, I'd not go as far to suggest a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories, in that the global elite helps nudge these theories along and give them enough oxygen to thrive, so it is great cover for their actual age-old, and much less flashy, dirty dealing - if anyone questions them they can be easily dismissed as conspiracy theorists. You are just better of with something by John Pilger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger) (or by Paul Foot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Foot), especially over the Lockerbie bombings than watching Loose Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_%28film%29).

Although now I think about it, Charlie Sheen was a big supporter of 911 conspiracy theories, surely all his recent behaviour is some CIA mind control operation? Back to the conspiracy mines for me.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 March, 2011, 08:23:48 PM
They told you to say that, didn't they?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 19 March, 2011, 08:29:43 PM
They told you to say that, didn't they?

No, the little spider in my eye did.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Jared Katooie 19 March, 2011, 10:18:12 PM
101 ways to know when a discussion is dead.

#87:  When anyone starts regurgitating chunks of stuff from Wikipedia, as if any of it actually means anything.

And there I was thinking there was a great discussion going on. Wrong again, I guess.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: radiator 19 March, 2011, 10:30:16 PM
While governments and groups of powerful individuals do get up to some dark and nasty things (which may even count as a "conspiracy" in the broad sense), I have yet to find anything to suggest conspiracism is real and valid. An awful lot of the time things seem to get slashed by Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." This is obviously, related to Occam's razor which also applies, some of the big conspiracy theories are so vast and complex, it'd be impossible to keep them secret, someone out of all the thousands that would need to have to break cover. I'm not ruling anything out, of course, and try and keep up with developments, but I've yet to be convinced there is any grounds to rule anything in. It can be great fodder for stories though Wink

My main concern is that conspiracism distracts from the actual stories of lesser dirty deals and incompetence that we really need to know about.

I started typing out a reply earlier, but couldn't express myself succinctly enough - Emperor has put what I was trying to say far more eloquently than I could myself.

I'm sure that governments do dodgy stuff all the time, but it's usually of the sort that is just depressing and mundane rather than the fantastical, outlandish, audacious or exciting type of stuff that conspiracy theorists would have us believe.

Take the invasion of Iraq - imo more the inevitable result of a vague, misguided, greed-based, messily bureaucratic consensus than the work of some sort of robe-wearing shadowy cabal who secretly run the entire world.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 25 March, 2011, 04:17:06 AM
Medicinal Cannabis and its impact on Human Health

http://www.tpuc.org/content/medicinal-cannabis-and-its-impact-human-he (http://www.tpuc.org/content/medicinal-cannabis-and-its-impact-human-he)


The idiot cycle: What you aren't being told about cancer. Part 2

http://rt.com/programs/documentary/idiot-cycle-cancer-film2/ (http://rt.com/programs/documentary/idiot-cycle-cancer-film2/)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 25 March, 2011, 04:36:59 AM
They are some scary old doctors.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 25 March, 2011, 09:14:41 AM
Dr Robert Stoner. LOL.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 25 March, 2011, 01:27:34 PM
While governments and groups of powerful individuals do get up to some dark and nasty things (which may even count as a "conspiracy" in the broad sense), I have yet to find anything to suggest conspiracism is real and valid. An awful lot of the time things seem to get slashed by Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." This is obviously, related to Occam's razor which also applies, some of the big conspiracy theories are so vast and complex, it'd be impossible to keep them secret, someone out of all the thousands that would need to have to break cover. I'm not ruling anything out, of course, and try and keep up with developments, but I've yet to be convinced there is any grounds to rule anything in. It can be great fodder for stories though Wink

My main concern is that conspiracism distracts from the actual stories of lesser dirty deals and incompetence that we really need to know about.

I started typing out a reply earlier, but couldn't express myself succinctly enough - Emperor has put what I was trying to say far more eloquently than I could myself.

I'm sure that governments do dodgy stuff all the time, but it's usually of the sort that is just depressing and mundane rather than the fantastical, outlandish, audacious or exciting type of stuff that conspiracy theorists would have us believe.

Take the invasion of Iraq - imo more the inevitable result of a vague, misguided, greed-based, messily bureaucratic consensus than the work of some sort of robe-wearing shadowy cabal who secretly run the entire world.

seconded my robed brother!

by the way there's hope for us all, well most of us:

A practical observation on the risks of stupidity was made by the German General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord in Truppenführung, 1933: "I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Each officer possesses at least two of these qualities. Those who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Use can be made of those who are stupid and lazy. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"[

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Robin Low 25 March, 2011, 06:07:56 PM
The idiot cycle: What you aren't being told about cancer. Part 2

http://rt.com/programs/documentary/idiot-cycle-cancer-film2/ (http://rt.com/programs/documentary/idiot-cycle-cancer-film2/)

This didn't tell me anything about cancer, either. Is it meant to be ironic?

Regards

Robin
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 25 March, 2011, 07:28:59 PM
I remember seeing a web site that listed everthing The Daily Mail has claimed to cause and/or prevent Cancer. There was a shocking amount of self contradiction, the bawbags
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 25 March, 2011, 07:49:39 PM
Part 1 had more info about carcinogens in food, bath products, everyday items etc - but the time limit for watching on-line had passed. (I didn't know, for example, that talcum powder can cause cancer.)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 25 March, 2011, 08:12:19 PM
Part 1 had more info about carcinogens in food, bath products, everyday items etc - but the time limit for watching on-line had passed. (I didn't know, for example, that talcum powder can cause cancer.)

I recommend watching the film The Incredible Shrinking Woman with Lily Tomlin in it. It's the combination of chemicals in her everyday consumer products that causes her to shrink. I went to the pictures to see that many, many years ago.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Robin Low 25 March, 2011, 08:48:18 PM
Part 1 had more info about carcinogens in food, bath products, everyday items etc - but the time limit for watching on-line had passed. (I didn't know, for example, that talcum powder can cause cancer.)

Yeah, but so can beer, smoking, traffic fumes, the carbon and fat in an over-cooked sausage and the acid in our own stomachs. Loads of things have the potential, but more often than not it's a matter of degree of exposure. Too much sun is potentially dangerous, but too little sun is bad as well. And the information is out there for anyone who cares to take an interest - for example, every packet of tablets comes with an insert listing numerous potential side effects, and there are forests worth of data sheets dealing with every chemical under the sun listing all sorts of delightful hazards and potential risks. 

I'm no more inclined to trust the pharmaceutical and chemical industries than I am any other profit-making outfit, but I get a little tired hearing about secrecy and cover-ups when people aren't actually interested in information that's freely available, and cheerfully ignore it anyway.

Regards

Robin
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 25 March, 2011, 08:56:48 PM
Everything you say is true.

However, lack of action is viewed as consent so if people don't bother to read up on the carcinogens in everyday foodstuffs, then they consent to be poisoned.

But surely, if there are carcinogens in foodstuffs - isn't that what the media and government are there to educate us about and protect us from? Well, if it wasn't for advertisers and lobbyists, that is...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 25 March, 2011, 09:11:39 PM
We should get a T-shirt with the slogan "The Twoth? You can't handle the Twoth!!" with Tharg wrestling the prog from some brainshocked youngster.

Back to your regular programming.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Robin Low 25 March, 2011, 09:17:00 PM
Everything you say is true.

However, lack of action is viewed as consent so if people don't bother to read up on the carcinogens in everyday foodstuffs, then they consent to be poisoned.

People know full well that smoking, drinking and eating badly damages their health and puts additional strain on public services. Every attempt to provide information and encouragement to change attitudes and behaviour gets labelled as 'nanny state'.

If the government does nothing, it's accused of keeping secrets and being in the pockets of big business. If the government provides information, it's accused of nagging and wasting taxpayers' money on leaflets. If the goverment takes direct action, then it's accused of virtual dictatorship.

It's a no win situation for any goverment, and I say that as someone who holds the fuckers in utter contempt.

But surely, if there are carcinogens in foodstuffs - isn't that what the media and government are there to educate us about and protect us from? Well, if it wasn't for advertisers and lobbyists, that is...

Where do you think I get my information from?

Regards

Robin
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 25 March, 2011, 09:52:11 PM
If I choose to smoke knowing the health risks, then that's my responsibility. If, on the other hand, I buy a sandwich that I assume to be made from safe ingredients but it turns out that the tomatoes used contain largely untested chemicals or genetic modifications, whose fault is that? Does slapping a GM TOMATO label on the sandwich constitute fair warning when the full effects of GM tomatoes on the human body have never been fully tested?

"Where do you think I get my information from?"

From more than one source, I assume.

I just believe that before any chemicals are added to foodstuffs they must be thoroughly tested. It's not good enough to perform a few cursory tests on rats and then mix the chemicals in anyway thinking that, if it makes anyone's liver melt then we'll think about taking those chemicals out at a later date if a court tells us to. No, I don't think that's good enough at all - and I assume that many people would agree with me on that.

Just look at the aspartame debacle. From laboratory testing of the chemical on rats, researchers  discovered that the drug induces brain tumours. On Sept 30, 1980 the Board of Inquiry of the FDA concurred and denied the petition for approval.

In 1981, the newly appointed FDA Commissioner, Arthur Hull Hayes, ignored the negative ruling and approved aspartame for dry goods. As recorded in the Congressional Record of 1985, then CEO of Searle Laboratories Donald Rumsfeld said that he would "call in his markers" to get aspartame approved. Rumsfeld was on President Reagan's transition team and a day after taking office appointed Hayes. No FDA Commissioner in the previous sixteen years had allowed aspartame on the market.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 25 March, 2011, 10:22:25 PM
There is still debate as to whether GM food is harmful.

Over the past years I have took a back bench interest in this as I think GM food will be the norm in the future if we carry on fucking up the environment.

There is no conclusive proof that this is harmful to us. Similar statements to this crop up all the time on many reports that I have browsed over the years.

I am quite happy to eat GM food. I am sure it will be big news if it ever deemed unsafe which is why I keep my ear to the ground.

It has been on the shelves for roughly fifteen years worldwide now so I am sure it there are damaging qualities it would have surfaced by now.

To think we have the tobacco companies to thank for this breakthrough back in the early eighties although GM food stretches a lot further back.

I personally think much of the stigma relates to people thinking that we are playing god but as I am not religious that particular aspect doesn't bother me.



V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 25 March, 2011, 10:24:24 PM
I don't know what the problem is. Genetically modified tomatoes are obviously wrong, and I wouldn't knowingly buy or eat them, but I don't see why they should give you cancer. I've heard of fish genes being put into tomatoes, but I don't think fish per se give you cancer.

Chemical food additives are tested, aren't they? It's not any kind of secret that aspartame isn't good for you. It's a straight choice for people whether they like sugar or cancer more, unless you have diabetes. Personally I like sugar, so I don't buy anything that contains aspartame, acesulfame potassium or saccharine. I know that refined sugar isn't particularly good for me, so I limit my intake of sugar.

I don't think everything comes down to a question of truth, lies and sinister conspiracies: I think in a lot of cases it comes down to freely available information, whether or not you access that information, and how you choose to act upon it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 25 March, 2011, 10:34:55 PM
To think we have the tobacco companies to thank for this breakthrough back in the early eighties although GM food stretches a lot further back.

You've confused me now. I don't know where tobacco companies come into it. Genetic modification goes back to recombinant bacteria in 1973 and subsequently genetically modified bacteria with human genetic material being used to manufacture insulin from 1978 onwards.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 25 March, 2011, 10:48:21 PM
The first transgenic plant - a tobacco plant resistant to an antibiotic - was created in 1983. It was another ten years before the first commercialisation of a GM plant in the United States - a delayed-ripening tomato - and another two years (1996) before a GM product - tomato paste - hit UK supermarket shelves.

This is a generic quote which appears on many reports I have come across (obviously worded different and some go into far more detail). And as I said

GM food stretches a lot further back.





V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 25 March, 2011, 11:01:10 PM
Medicinal Cannabis and its impact on Human Health

http://www.tpuc.org/content/medicinal-cannabis-and-its-impact-human-he (http://www.tpuc.org/content/medicinal-cannabis-and-its-impact-human-he)

Could you give me a brief summary of the what his point is? It's a 47 minute video and I can't be arsed - I'm a bit stoned.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 25 March, 2011, 11:10:38 PM
The first transgenic plant - a tobacco plant resistant to an antibiotic - was created in 1983. It was another ten years before the first commercialisation of a GM plant in the United States - a delayed-ripening tomato - and another two years (1996) before a GM product - tomato paste - hit UK supermarket shelves.

I like your quote. However, I think it's possible to overstate the role of tobacco companies in the development of genetically modified plants. They may well have put up some of the money - tobacco companies love to fund research because they are both wealthy and evil - but genetically modified food organisms aren't in any literal sense the accidental offshoot of tinkering by the research arm of a tobacco company. It's more a question of scientist goes to tobacco company and says "will you fund this research?"


(P.S. - you win!)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 25 March, 2011, 11:34:26 PM
Apparently GM tinkering goes back to the 19th century. I remember reading somewhere that monks spliced Peas with something or other. I probably dreamt it but it is quite a distinct memory.

EDIT. cross pollination of peas I think



V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: I, Cosh 26 March, 2011, 12:10:07 AM
Just look at the aspartame debacle. From laboratory testing of the chemical on rats, researchers  discovered that the drug induces brain tumours.
Except they didn't, because it doesn't.

Quoted from the abstract of a reasonably recent review of studies conducted on the effects of aspartame. Full thing here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17828671
Critical review of all carcinogenicity studies conducted on aspartame found no credible evidence that aspartame is carcinogenic...The studies provide no evidence to support an association between aspartame and cancer in any tissue. The weight of existing evidence is that aspartame is safe at current levels of consumption as a nonnutritive sweetener.

Rather than copy and paste a whole load of stuff, here's a link to a post on another site with a range of references (http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12126&hilit=aspartame#p247504) you can sift through and follow up at your leisure

In other news, the MMR vaccine is safe too.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Robin Low 26 March, 2011, 12:12:39 AM
If I choose to smoke knowing the health risks, then that's my responsibility. If, on the other hand, I buy a sandwich that I assume to be made from safe ingredients but it turns out that the tomatoes used contain largely untested chemicals or genetic modifications, whose fault is that? Does slapping a GM TOMATO label on the sandwich constitute fair warning when the full effects of GM tomatoes on the human body have never been fully tested?

*shrug* If people ignore the research or dismiss the scientists doing it as being in the pockets of the GM companies, then it's a no-win situation.

And besides, most of these GM foods are single-gene modifications. Conventional breeding involves hundred of random genes being shared, but nobody makes a fuss about that.

Regards

Robin
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 26 March, 2011, 12:49:02 AM
GM food conspiracies vex me. If enough research is done, this science could solve world hunger. I think the bigger conspiracy is the one that holds back scientific progress like this. 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 26 March, 2011, 12:59:36 AM
Sod GM food! I'm more concerned with the idea of VALIS and SPECTRA two alien supercomputers. VALIS beamed thoughts to Philip K Dicks, while SPECTRA had to make do with Uri Geller.

Why an alien supercomputer would target Geller? Well your guess is as good as mine. :D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 26 March, 2011, 09:48:42 AM
GM food as a solution to world hunger is a red herring. Food shortages in the developing world are due to food crops being exported to raise revenue to pay off debt. Starving people in the Ethiopian highlands, living on 1,000 calories a day, grow coffee for export. You can't eat coffee. It's not a question of unproductive land or low yield crops, it's a question of peasant farmers not being able to afford to eat the food they themselves grow. While this goes on, land becomes exhausted growing commercial crops, and irrigation schemes result in soil salination.

World hunger is a problem of wealth inequality. Technology isn't the answer.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Robin Low 26 March, 2011, 10:15:59 AM
GM food as a solution to world hunger is a red herring. Food shortages in the developing world are due to food crops being exported to raise revenue to pay off debt. Starving people in the Ethiopian highlands, living on 1,000 calories a day, grow coffee for export. You can't eat coffee. It's not a question of unproductive land or low yield crops, it's a question of peasant farmers not being able to afford to eat the food they themselves grow. While this goes on, land becomes exhausted growing commercial crops, and irrigation schemes result in soil salination.

World hunger is a problem of wealth inequality. Technology isn't the answer.

I'm pretty much in agreement with this, particularly on the inequality issue which I consider the real problem when it comes to hunger. However, technology can be an answer to some problems - for example, creating crops that can cope with high salinity would benefit people living on ocean margins.

I'm generally pro-GM, but I'm also intensely wary of commercialisation and profiteering, and my concern is that the technology is driven by commericial interests rather than need or social benefit. However, unless non-commericial organisations have the money to undertake research and testing nothing is going to change. Unfortunately, non-commercial organisations can only fund research through charitable donation or taxation, and the only people who can provide that is us.

Regards

Robin
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 26 March, 2011, 10:22:36 AM
Preoccupation with hunger and GM food leads to the non-food industrial uses of GM plants often being overlooked, especially by the anti-GM camp. One application of the technology is to grow plants that are able to absorb industrial pollutants from the soil.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 26 March, 2011, 11:52:34 AM
Planet Earth has been engineering crops for billions of years. We have everything we need on this planet, and more. The Earth is abundant.

It is mankind who squanders these resources, as Ush points out.

Another major reason behind world hunger is the misuse of the world's water. Europe, for example, is stealing water from Africa at a terrible rate. (This may not sound right, but what makes up 90% of any living organism? This includes all the cheap crops, livestock, flowers we make the poor bastards grow for us for pennies. Any water left is than contaminated by our industries, which would rather pollute Africa than Sussex or Wyoming.)

There is no food shortage in the world. It's an uncomfortable fact that we in the "civilized" world take way more than our fair share - in all things except responsibility.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 26 March, 2011, 01:14:40 PM
Apologies for my late night (not entirely sober) outburst. :-[

A big part of the problem is Western greed. I'm pretty sure I heard something about there being twice as many obese 'people' as there are starving people. So the solution is simple, as Billy Connely has pointed out, cannabalism. "If everybody ate just one person, the problem would be halved overnight".

But anti-GM protestors still vex me. When they burn a field of GM crops, they are effectively burning useful information, it's tantamount to burning books in my eyes. Goddamn know-it-all hippies.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 26 March, 2011, 01:32:38 PM
World hunger is a problem of wealth inequality.

Absolutely true, and has been for many decades now.  There's more than enough food to go around.

Technology certainly isn't the answer to world hunger as things stand, but that doesn't mean that GM crops can't play a role in the future, or in those countries that can afford them as an option.  Increasing yields so that less land is under cultivation reduces soil erosion and increases available land for wildlife, recreation etc.; their non-food roles are only beginning to be explored; increasing cost-effective food production in the first world could potentially free up the economies of the developing world from relying on monocultural production for export at miniscule margins.  And so on.  Their potential role in the convergence of food species to single varieties has to be considered very carefully, and as always the power of big business in over-riding such valid concerns has to be controlled somehow.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 26 March, 2011, 01:34:31 PM
Grow your own spuds!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Professor Bear 26 March, 2011, 02:37:55 PM
I was under the impression that the issue with GM foods was the underhanded manner in which companies (not just Monsanto and their love of monopolies) go about pushing their product and giving the impression they have something to hide.  Personally I see no problem with the idea that we need to do long-term testing on GM food before it can be allowed to permanently contaminate the food chain.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 26 March, 2011, 02:43:53 PM
Grow your own spuds!

Indeed, I do. It's a very serious skin condition
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: IAMTHESYSTEM 26 March, 2011, 02:47:28 PM
Lot's of people are marching through London today to protest against the formidable cuts preposed by Sir Guy of Osbourne and his band on no goods. Good luck if your going.

 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 26 March, 2011, 07:47:40 PM
But anti-GM protestors still vex me. When they burn a field of GM crops, they are effectively burning useful information, it's tantamount to burning books in my eyes. Goddamn know-it-all hippies.

The preferred method is trampling. It's hard to keep a fire going in a field of unripe crops.

 ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TOMMIE 29 March, 2011, 05:32:04 AM
I do agree with you  dear Jared Katooie that Israel becomes the harmful for their enemies by forge of passports from other countries that might helpful to kill the enemies with the help of other countries . This is not a fair thing that Israel is doing here . 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 29 March, 2011, 09:37:35 AM
Yep. And have you, sir, done any first-hand research? What is your knowledge, may I ask, of light aircraft vs. passenger planes and the effects each would have on a building such as the WTC? What types of missile could be used to fire on the WTC yet have millions of first-hand witnesses (people on the streets) see airplanes? Did our government get to every New Yorker and threaten and/or brainwash them into claiming that they saw airplanes rather than missile fire? And what kinds of special effects did our government doctor up during LIVE broadcasts?

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to "argue" with you. I can tell your type a mile away. You're the guy who's always right.

Always helpful to get that one in early- before the other guy does :lol:

Not that I actually buy into it- but there was talk of the planes being holograms (no, really!), so people would see planes, as opposed to whatever did supposedly bring the buildings down.

I love these threads- but people that can't play in them without being pinheads (and I don't necessarily mean you) should probably just give them a wide berth.  They're a bit like religion threads, in that if you know full well that you're not interested in actual discussion (the idea that you might be persuaded to have a bit of a rethink of your worldview, as opposed to sitting in your compound of ideas, surrounded by gun towers to shoot down any other ideas before they get into earshot), you might as well bugger off and devote your energies to something else instead.

Again, that's not particularly aimed at you.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 29 March, 2011, 09:39:59 AM
He was real. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus)

Good grud, what despicable cabal of fucking lunatics and premeditated shite-mongers are Wikipedia allowing to write stuff under their name these days?

He wasn't real.

SBT

You forgot to add "FACT!"

:lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 29 March, 2011, 09:48:56 AM
Means nothing to me, Guv. 'Somebody said Jesus said something or other' still has no bearing on the question of whether Jesus was real or not. The question, as far as I'm concerned, is whether or not it was worth the while of those who wrote the scripture to have made him up. I say not, because you've got a much better story on which to base your cult or protest movement if you start with a real person than if you start with one who is totally made up like the feats he's supposed to have performed.

I think that's my take too.  Far easier to embellish existing characters than write completely new ones.  I'm open to most possibilities, so I don't think I'll ever fully renounce the possibility of there being a creator of some kind- but I have little faith (crap pun unintended) that any religious text, as written by man, is the actual word of God.  Any God.  Practically nil, in fact.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 29 March, 2011, 10:00:52 AM
But Ush, the entire fictional life of Jesus is entirely based around the fact he was "the Son of God", born of a supernaturally-impregnated human woman in a stable, to which were guided wizards by a magic star, then grew up to do supernatural tricks including raising the dead, walking on water and pulling magic food out of nowhere. Eventually he was murdered and raised himself from the dead before flying up to space on a magic cloud. Take that away, and it's not Jesus. To use a literary term, you've lost the dramatic center of the story.

Since all of that is patently untrue, whether anyone was holding sermons on mounts or not is irrelevent.

Considering so much of the Bible is provably bollocks, I see no reason to give anything other than the bits we can prove (the scene setting, if you like, including Roman occupations and murder-methods) the benefit of the doubt. Like I say- where is the evidence that there was a man called Jesus sermonising anything?

I know what you're arguing, but I don't agree.

SBT

You need this:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/A-Flowchart-to-Help-You-Determine-if-Yoursquore-Having-a-Rational-Discussion.jpg

Via Andy Diggle on Twitter.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 29 March, 2011, 10:12:12 AM
GM food as a solution to world hunger is a red herring. Food shortages in the developing world are due to food crops being exported to raise revenue to pay off debt. Starving people in the Ethiopian highlands, living on 1,000 calories a day, grow coffee for export. You can't eat coffee. It's not a question of unproductive land or low yield crops, it's a question of peasant farmers not being able to afford to eat the food they themselves grow. While this goes on, land becomes exhausted growing commercial crops, and irrigation schemes result in soil salination.

World hunger is a problem of wealth inequality. Technology isn't the answer.

Not so!  Give me a working Death-Ray and a secret orbiting weapons platform and we'll soon see an end to world hunger.  And war.  And everything else that I decide is a bad thing.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 29 March, 2011, 10:15:17 AM
Far easier to embellish existing characters than write completely new ones.

It'd also be far odder if there was surviving contemporary documentary evidence of a specific rabble-rousing preacher from Galilee, especially since the Gospels don't even suggest that Jesus had any significant contact with the highly-segregated Roman world until he is brought before Pilate.  This is 1st C Judea we're talking about - there are almost no surviving eye-witness accounts of anything (even a Prefect like Pilate himself is absent from contemporary documents, although he does show up in a few contemporary inscriptions), never mind the doings of yet another agitator in a sea of failed revolutionaries, messianic candidates and sundry schismatic zealots.  What Roman sources do exist hardly address this aspect of society at all, beyond bemoaning the occasional expense of keeping it in check.  

Given the fact that his cult does exist, and there are some points of correspondence with reality in the writings of its adherents in the century following, the balance of probability would be that a preacher called Jesus (or contemporary variation thereof) did exist.  No evidence against versus circumstantial evidence for - you wouldn't convict in a court of law, but you should probably allow in a historical argument.  His magical powers and divinity are a matter for faith, not history.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 29 March, 2011, 02:06:12 PM
Seems reasonable.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 29 March, 2011, 02:20:45 PM
Far easier to embellish existing characters than write completely new ones.

I think Alan Moore may have hacked into your account here, it was only a matter of time before this happened and we have been watching out for it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 30 March, 2011, 08:06:26 PM
The London Bombings, 7/7/2005

On the same day that the bombings took place, a "security exercise" was being run by “crisis management expert” Peter Power. This exercise in London was based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where the actual terrorist attacks occurred.

What are the chances of this happening entirely by chance?

I believe there  are 270 tube stations in London - so what are the chances that the terrorists and an exercise would involve the same three stations? I'm a complete duffer at maths, but I've seen this equation used to work it out:

3/270 x 2/269 x 1/268 = 3,244,140:1 (this is before even factoring in the same date and times).

Any math-bots care to confirm/refute this? I ask because I have no idea on working out such mathematical problems.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Robin Low 30 March, 2011, 08:49:06 PM

I believe there  are 270 tube stations in London - so what are the chances that the terrorists and an exercise would involve the same three stations? I'm a complete duffer at maths, but I've seen this equation used to work it out:

3/270 x 2/269 x 1/268 = 3,244,140:1 (this is before even factoring in the same date and times).

Any math-bots care to confirm/refute this? I ask because I have no idea on working out such mathematical problems.

Certainly not a mathematician here, but assuming I'm interpreting things correctly the person who came up with that is working from the point that the choice of stations is entirely random. Now, I don't think anyone planning either a security exercise or a bombing are likely to be choosing randomly - certainly from the perspective of a security exercise, planners really ought to be trying to think from a terrorist's perspective, and so may come to similar conclusions about best/convenient/practical targets. So, you might well see some convergence.

On the same day? Well, coincidences do happen. I think the chances of anyone winning the lottery is in the order of 14,000,000:1 and yet you sometimes get multiple winners.

This, and pages leading from it, may be relevant, although they may also hurt the head:

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



Regards

Robin
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 30 March, 2011, 08:52:12 PM
Hmmmm......British Security Forces and their methods in dealing with Terrorist Threats/Groups?

:-\

I'm from Northern Ireland, so, I think, for the sake of this here thread, I'll sit this one out. ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 30 March, 2011, 08:54:41 PM
Heh - the word "Gladio" springs to mind.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 30 March, 2011, 08:56:48 PM
On the same day that the bombings took place, a security exercise was being run by crisis management expert Peter Power.

There you go- without your "inverted commas" it looks a lot less "sinister", doesn't it?

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 30 March, 2011, 09:03:48 PM
"Yes." And "no." :)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 31 March, 2011, 04:13:22 AM
I'm pretty sure I read that the truth about this was a lot less sensational that it originally sounded in the early press reports.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 31 March, 2011, 01:53:23 PM
The London Bombings, 7/7/2005

On the same day that the bombings took place, a "security exercise" was being run by “crisis management expert” Peter Power. This exercise in London was based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where the actual terrorist attacks occurred.

Source? Evidence? Was it ONLY the same stations, or lots of stations including those three? What about the 4th aborted station (the one that ended up on the bus)?

Unless there is any evidence suggesting a link, or suspicious motives or communications, then "what are the chances" is meaningless question. One-in-a-billion events happen every day.

I'm tempted to say "what does this prove" but that would be meaningless to most conspiracty theorists, who seem to think that raising hypothetical questions and pointing out coincidences is the same thing as answering them or proving malfeasance. A whole lot of bollox couild be saved if every time they asked "Why did x and y do z" or "Can it be a coincidence that x and y happened" were forced to actually provide an answer these questions that we can judge as more or less plausible than the 'official' facts. When challenged however, they tend to back off claiming they don't actually KNOW anything, they're just raising the question, as if they're doing it in some kind of scientifically neutral way and not dealing in supposition and inference.

(PS - longer post about 9/11 and "truth" vs "cosnpiracy theory" to follow as promised, when I can summon the energy!)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 31 March, 2011, 02:04:28 PM
I'm from Northern Ireland, so, I think, for the sake of this here thread, I'll sit this one out. ;)

Yeah, pops! There's few people who want to hear about things that actually happened on UK soil for years - where's the fun in that?It only affected a few people. Sure, what would I know about real issues, like micro-chips in me bin?

On balance, I decided it was worth posting that. I'm tired and feeling reactionary, ok?!

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 31 March, 2011, 02:28:33 PM
Peter Power Radio 5 Interview:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEbUQiYOGjU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEbUQiYOGjU)

Channel 4 doesn't agree: http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/coincidence%2Bof%2Bbomb%2Bexercises/109010.html (http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/coincidence%2Bof%2Bbomb%2Bexercises/109010.html)


I'm tempted to say "what does this prove" but that would be meaningless to most conspiracty theorists, who seem to think that raising hypothetical questions and pointing out coincidences is the same thing as answering them or proving malfeasance. A whole lot of bollox could be saved if every time they asked "Why did x and y do z" or "Can it be a coincidence that x and y happened" were forced to actually provide an answer these questions that we can judge as more or less plausible than the 'official' facts. When challenged however, they tend to back off claiming they don't actually KNOW anything, they're just raising the question, as if they're doing it in some kind of scientifically neutral way and not dealing in supposition and inference.

(PS - longer post about 9/11 and "truth" vs "cosnpiracy theory" to follow as promised, when I can summon the energy!)

Have you noticed how the word "theory" is always placed after the word "conspiracy" these days? It's as if conspiracies never happen and is as suspicious as coining phrases like disease theory, happiness myth or marriage trap. Very curious. Would public reaction to questions such as "what happened on 9/11 or 7/7" be treated more levelly if they were labelled as, say, independent amateur investigation instead of conspiracy theory? The very phrase is almost Orwellian doublespeak, carrying with it the overt implication that difficult or unanswered questions should never under any circumstances be asked, especially of the government. If the BBC doesn't ask the questions, then the questions are not only not worth asking but downright bad manners. (This is not an accusation, merely something that I find curious in modern attitudes.)

George Orwell said "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." Maybe freedom is also the right to ask questions that nobody wants to think about. I, for one, am glad that there are people out there willing to put their reputations, livelihoods and even lives on the line to ask these questions. When their voices die out it will mean one of only two things: Complete tyranny or complete Utopia - and I don't believe either scenario is possible.

I have one question - why does asking questions or pointing out "inconsistencies" regarding 9/11 or 7/7 (for example) engender such a knee-jerk, angry response in so many people?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 31 March, 2011, 03:09:37 PM
Probably because of the signal to noise ratio in many cases isn't favourable. Plus, a lot of 'net sites covering such things also can give credence to what is patently and provably bollocks, meaning they might just be on the credulous side, which doesn't necessarily inspire confidence.

I mentioned this before I think, and this is my personal take of course, but I see a similar thing with religous fundamentalists; there's no answer you can give that will satisfy them because they, and they only, are capable of knowing and understanding the real truth. So you really should be like them to be right.

Or, people don't like being told how to interpret things by strangers.

On the flip of that, I like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxV3_bG1EHA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxV3_bG1EHA)

Right, I'm off out of this thread!

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 31 March, 2011, 03:29:24 PM
I'll stop using the word THEORY when they stop using the word TRUTH  :D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 31 March, 2011, 03:32:06 PM
How about "truth theory?" :D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 31 March, 2011, 03:33:08 PM
Have you noticed how the word "theory" is always placed after the word "conspiracy" these days?

Because it is a theory about a conspiracy?

When did "theory" become a dirty word? Theories and hypotheses are what science if built on, you test them with evidence, then retest them when new evidence emerges. Of course, if it fails to withstand such tests (against all the evidence, so no cherry picking and no "look at that! Makes you think doesn't it?"), you also have to discard it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 31 March, 2011, 03:34:33 PM
On the flip of that, I like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxV3_bG1EHA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxV3_bG1EHA)

Right, I'm off out of this thread!

M.

Before you go, you should watch Curtis' series "The Power of Nightmares." Excellent stuff!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 31 March, 2011, 03:49:28 PM
Have you noticed how the word "theory" is always placed after the word "conspiracy" these days?

Because it is a theory about a conspiracy?

When did "theory" become a dirty word? Theories and hypotheses are what science if built on, you test them with evidence, then retest them when new evidence emerges. Of course, if it fails to withstand such tests (against all the evidence, so no cherry picking and no "look at that! Makes you think doesn't it?"), you also have to discard it.

All true.

However, let us (for arguments' sake) say that a terrorist's paper passport cannot actually survive a fireball caused by an exploding aeroplane and a catastrophic building collapse, yet the passport is found relatively undamaged anyway when no other passports, papers, luggage, seats etc. appear to survive. If the only plausible way that passport can be found is for it to have been be placed in the rubble after the event, we have a conspiracy theory with the word "theory" removed. See how powerful that little "theory" word becomes then? Justifiable questions become merely theories, all lumped together with the wilder claims.

A bridge collapsed today, investigators blame cheap materials but a government spokesman dismissed these claims as baseless.

A bridge collapsed today, conspiracy theorists blame cheap materials but a government spokesman dismissed these claims as baseless.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 31 March, 2011, 04:12:38 PM
Before you go, you should watch Curtis' series "The Power of Nightmares." Excellent stuff!

Yeah - it was excellent I thought...

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 31 March, 2011, 05:06:06 PM
Without wanting to be a knob (Too late!  Too often!), a conspiracy theory is a theory at best:  even if the facts of a given conspiracy are irrefutably established, the interpretation, explanation and understanding of those facts remains a theory.  Take gravity - its effects are real, measurable, predictable and largely undisputed (at the medium scale anyway), but the interpretation of those facts, the explanation of how they come to be and how they operate, remains a theory (and these days a number of theories).  Theories about how the things we observe function are the basis for how we interact with the world in any sort of deliberate way.  They're not to be sneezed at.

In TLS' example, the observed fact is the passport's existence, the theory is the explanation of its presence.

In the case of many alleged conspiracies the facts of the situation are far from established, and in any scientific sense the structure and content of the explanation is seldom anything close to defined, testable or parsimonious, so in reality the use of the term 'theory' is frequently an undeserved compliment.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: uncle fester 31 March, 2011, 05:24:42 PM
On the flip of that, I like this;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxV3_bG1EHA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxV3_bG1EHA)

That was great.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 31 March, 2011, 05:29:23 PM
A bridge collapsed today, (experienced professional bridge-engineer) investigators (who have actually examined the scene) blame cheap materials but a government spokesman dismissed these claims as baseless.

This happens all the time in the outside world but it's simple corruption, not conspiracy.


A bridge collapsed today, (untrained amateur) investigators (with no access to the evidence) blame cheap materials (and out of the whoooooole internet have managed to find a few "sources" who concur with their theory) but a government spokesman dismissed these claims as baseless.

This happens all the time on the internet and it's nigh on impossible to sort the wheat from the mentally unbalanced chaff. Best treat it all with heaps of scepticism.

Neither scenario applies 100% of the time, but it's all a matter of perception, and none of us will ever truly know why the feckin' bridge fell down. Usually it turns out to be a mixture of both explanations.

Passports at Ground Zero? Sounds like dodgy evidence planting of the 'perp's gun' variety, just so there's no argument.  Does it mean the govt blew 'em up with demolition explosives? Of course not, nor does it even suggest it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: uncle fester 31 March, 2011, 05:41:32 PM
Passports at Ground Zero? Sounds like dodgy evidence planting of the 'perp's gun' variety, just so there's no argument.  Does it mean the govt blew 'em up with demolition explosives? Of course not, nor does it even suggest it.

If indeed it was planted, that in itself suggests some degree of foul play though, doesn't it?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 31 March, 2011, 06:47:43 PM
Have you noticed how the word "theory" is always placed after the word "conspiracy" these days?

Because it is a theory about a conspiracy?

When did "theory" become a dirty word? Theories and hypotheses are what science if built on, you test them with evidence, then retest them when new evidence emerges. Of course, if it fails to withstand such tests (against all the evidence, so no cherry picking and no "look at that! Makes you think doesn't it?"), you also have to discard it.

All true.

However, let us (for arguments' sake) say that a terrorist's paper passport cannot actually survive a fireball caused by an exploding aeroplane and a catastrophic building collapse, yet the passport is found relatively undamaged anyway when no other passports, papers, luggage, seats etc. appear to survive. If the only plausible way that passport can be found is for it to have been be placed in the rubble after the event, we have a conspiracy theory with the word "theory" removed. See how powerful that little "theory" word becomes then? Justifiable questions become merely theories, all lumped together with the wilder claims.

No, you just have an item of evidence. You still need to test your theory against the evidence and this could support any range of theories.

Unfortunately, before we even get to that point, we have to deal with the assumptions, which you subconsciously acknowledged by starting it with "if": "If the only plausible way that passport can be found is for it to have been be placed in the rubble after the event." So, there is your initial problem, you'd have to demonstrate that it couldn't have survived the explosion which would have thrown items all over the place (see the debris field at Lockerbie for example - explosions tend not to annihilate everything, this side of using anti-matter). I don't have a problem with some luggage being blown out from the explosion and the only way you can make it work is to deploy an argument from impossibility - "this can't have happened naturally, so this is the only explanation that works" but that is the underpinning of a whole range of pseudoscience from Intelligent Design onwards, so best not to go there.

The actual story about the finding of the passport seems to have been a bit muddled, early reports are along the lines of:

The passport of a suspected hijacker was discovered near the ruins of the World Trade Center, authorities said Saturday as exhausted rescue workers clawed through the wreckage, searching unsuccessfully for signs of life.

The report (http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2001/Sep-16-Sun-2001/news/17011253.html) also goes on to say:

Back at the trade center, details of rescuers' grisly finds since Tuesday began to emerge. Among them were a pair of hands, bound together, found on a rooftop, authorities said.

The New York Times reported Saturday that one rescuer found the body of a flight attendant, whose hands were also bound. Another worker told the paper he had found the remains of people strapped to what seemed to be airplane seats.

Which would tend to invalidate "when no other passports, papers, luggage, seats etc. appear to survive."

The official report clarifies the the story of the finding of the passport:

The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly thereafter. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. See FBI report, interview of Detective Chin, Sept. 12, 2001.

www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf

So it was found before WTC 2 collapsed, so the streets would have been relatively clear in some directions, other than the debris from the crash itself.

A quick further Google finds a whole range of these points addressed (with links to the various sources):

www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

From what was reported it seems a whole range of debris was found from large chunks of planes, to passengers, to equally fragile bits of paper and documentation.

So while I was leaning towards it being of the "ooo look at this, makes you think" variety of argument, I don't think it even qualifies for that. It only becomes remarkable (and evidence) if nothing else survived from the planes that hit the Twin Towers (as you claim), but plenty of things did, as you might expect from an explosion (by its very name). There doesn't even seem like anything to explain here.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 31 March, 2011, 07:43:39 PM
Passports at Ground Zero? Sounds like dodgy evidence planting of the 'perp's gun' variety, just so there's no argument.  Does it mean the govt blew 'em up with demolition explosives? Of course not, nor does it even suggest it.

If indeed it was planted, that in itself suggests some degree of foul play though, doesn't it?

From the forensic investigator not washing his hands properly to George Bush and Osama Bin Laden being clone brothers who staged the whole thing ... that's all "some degree". My point is that if the world is shown not to be squeaky clean, if there's any incompetence or corruption at all, people leap to all kinds of baseless and implausible conclusions.

I watched an interesting BBC doc once about the assassination of Bobby Kennedy which found lots of suspicious examples of witnesses not interviewed and evidence quickly destroyed or lost. After sifting through all that was known, it came to the conclusion that nothing sinister had actually happened, Sirhan Sirhan WAS just a random nutter, but that several agencies had instinctively started covering each other's asses on the assumption that somebody else may have been up to something!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 31 March, 2011, 08:05:23 PM
I'd be careful DDD, never believe any documentary that the BBC show!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 31 March, 2011, 11:02:59 PM
I don't know how or why or even if any passport survived the impacts - I only know that such items have been claimed to exist. Is it possible that a paper passport could survive such a catastrophe? Well yes, I reckon that is possible, but I don't claim to understand the exact circumstances that would make it possible. It's true that my life experience has shown me undamaged portions of letters etc. that I've thrown onto my own coal fire at home and were still perfectly legible after an hour or more of things being burned around it. In most cases, though, paper objects burned on my coal fire become ash after just a few short minutes. When I find an undamaged piece of paper in the ashes of my fire in the morning, that is an anomaly, but an explainable anomaly. The passport, then, is an explainable anomaly but an anomaly none the less. I could accept some anomalies to arise from an event like 9/11.

But, how many anomalies does it take before the official story (which is in itself a conspiracy theory) starts to look shaky?

A passport survives. Okay, I can accept that.

Trained witnesses (fire-fighters, police officers) report the sounds of explosions and possible squibs as the three towers collapsed. Well, okay - there was a massive structural failure occurring (in all three towers, but let's just ignore that coincidence for now) and so unusual sights and sounds are to be expected. Okay, I can accept that, too.

William Rodriguez, an experienced WTC janitor reports explosions coming from the basement of the north tower prior to its collapse. He was familiar with the layout and operations of the WTC, but there was a lot going on on that day and maybe he was mistaken or misinterpreted certain events. Well, sure - fear and confusion and chaos can addle any human brain - fair enough. (His testimony was omitted from the 9/11 Commission final report - but, again, there may be perfectly plausible reasons for this.)

Thermite has been found in the dust from the collapsing towers. Again, there may be a perfectly reasonable explanation for this - it may or may not be an anomaly.

Pools of molten steel remained in the rubble beneath the three towers for weeks after the collapses. Well, there was a lot of energy released as the towers collapsed, maybe it is possible for a gravity-driven collapse to release enough energy to heat steel to such incredible temperatures - but by now I feel that maybe there are one or two too many anomalies cropping up to be explained away by a chance conversion of circumstances.

A Boeing 757 strikes the Pentagon and completely vapourises on impact - disappearing into a 16ft wide hole. Well, maybe the wings folded back on impact to fit through the hole (without shearing off and being thrown back onto the Pentagon lawn). Seriously?

The heart of America's defence network, quite possibly the most surveilled building on Earth both inside and out, is hit by a Boeing 757 and not one clear or even blurred image of the plane either approaching or striking the building is ever released. Hmmm, these anomalies are really piling up now.

United Airlines Flight 93 crashes in Shankesville, Pennsylvania and leaves no identifiable debris (but a passport belonging to Ziad Jarrah does survive) or typical indications of an air crash. Well, this is stretching it a bit now, isn't it? I mean, really?

These are just a few of the anomalies noted surrounding 9/11 (there are many more).

Anomalies happen, of course they do. But in such great numbers? I guess that the very nature of probabilities suggest that, at some point in human history, a Big Thing is going to happen where scores of anomalies all occur at the same time (by which I mean, surrounding the same event). Maybe 9/11 was that "perfect storm" of anomalies. Maybe that's all it is.

Of course, these anomalies and the dozens like it surrounding 9/11 do not automatically point to foul play on the part of the government, the Illuminati or Little Green Men from Mars. The point is, I have questions and I think they deserve to be addressed in a dispassionate and forensic manner by experts given full and unfettered access to all data and evidence and I would like their findings to be published in a full, clear and open manner - no matter where the conclusions lead. Maybe 19 hijackers armed with box-cutters (which I believe would be called Stanley knives in the UK) did cause 9/11 - and maybe they didn't. I'm not certain - and neither are many other people. That's my entire point.

My opinion is that all the anomalies surrounding 9/11 should be thoroughly, independently and openly investigated. This investigation is not being undertaken by the authorities and so it falls to the rest of us to look into it. Of course, this is a dangerous process as most members of the public (including myself) are ill-equipped to undertake such investigations and it is inevitable that many conclusions will be jumped to and incorrect theses developed. But, if the US Government is unwilling to investigate properly - what other choice is there? We either investigate, or we ignore.

Which is the best option? Which is the safest option?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 01 April, 2011, 02:06:11 AM
I don't know how or why or even if any passport survived the impacts - I only know that such items have been claimed to exist. Is it possible that a paper passport could survive such a catastrophe? Well yes, I reckon that is possible, but I don't claim to understand the exact circumstances that would make it possible. It's true that my life experience has shown me undamaged portions of letters etc. that I've thrown onto my own coal fire at home and were still perfectly legible after an hour or more of things being burned around it. In most cases, though, paper objects burned on my coal fire become ash after just a few short minutes. When I find an undamaged piece of paper in the ashes of my fire in the morning, that is an anomaly, but an explainable anomaly. The passport, then, is an explainable anomaly but an anomaly none the less. I could accept some anomalies to arise from an event like 9/11.

Except it was an explosion followed by a fireball and then a fire. The explosion seems to have jettisoned a whole range of material across quite a wide area (including more paper).

But, how many anomalies does it take before the official story (which is in itself a conspiracy theory) starts to look shaky?

Except this isn't testing a theory - it is presenting a long list of "look at this, makes you thinks" and that is far from adequate. Even if they are actual anomalies - the passport business certainly didn't stand up to scrutiny. I don't have the time to go through each one point-by-point (you are going to have to do your own homework, you might just want to read further that 911 conspiracy sites) and you are always welcome to believe what you like, but this stood out:

United Airlines Flight 93 crashes in Shankesville, Pennsylvania and leaves no identifiable debris (but a passport belonging to Ziad Jarrah does survive) or typical indications of an air crash. Well, this is stretching it a bit now, isn't it? I mean, really?

Because it comes up on the same page I linked to above, which links onto various reports:

United Airlines Flight 93 slammed into the earth Sept. 11 near Shanksville, Somerset County, at more than 500 mph, with a ferocity that disintegrated metal, bone and flesh. It took more than three months to identify the remains of the 40 passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers.

...

Those items, such as a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes of identified personal effects salvaged from the site. They sit in an El Segundo, Calif., mortuary and will be returned to victims' families in February.

www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011230flight931230p3.asp

As well as the heart-breaking personal finds there was a range of debris recovered from the crash site:

www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html

Witnesses to the crash certainly report debris right after the crash:

Another witness is named Eric Peterson. He was standing in his store when he heard the noise of the plane's engines. He stepped outside and watched the United Airlines jet until it disappeared behind a nearby hill. Then a fireball erupted. Peterson immediately jumped into his SUV and drove to the site of the crash.

When he arrived, he saw aircraft debris spread across a large area surrounding the impact crater, which he said was "still burning." According to Peterson, "bits of clothing were hanging" in the branches of the surrounding trees.

There was so much evidence of a plane crash lying around that FBI employees and crash investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) spent thirteen days recovering the wreckage. The heaviest piece of wreckage that was found, part of an engine, weighed almost a ton.

www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160-5,00.html

I see no grounds to suggest Flight 93 wasn't an actual plane that did indeed crash. From what I can see, you'd have to cherrypick your evidence or be looking to support a specific worldview (or be relying on the work of someone who was doing one or both of those things).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 01 April, 2011, 11:58:49 PM
George W. Bush was president. Remember that? Crazy days. Crazy tragic days.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 02 April, 2011, 01:16:48 AM
: The Legendary Shark link=topic=32312.msg595101#msg595101
Thermite has been found in the dust from the collapsing towers....

Pools of molten steel remained in the rubble beneath the three towers for weeks after the collapse....

A Boeing 757 strikes the Pentagon and completely vapourises on impact....

United Airlines Flight 93 crashes in Shankesville, Pennsylvania and leaves no identifiable debris....


And we're expected to accept these "facts" as true?  If we apply the logic of the conspiracy theorist to these assertions, we could pick bigger holes in any of them than we could in the mainstream version.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 02 April, 2011, 01:33:17 AM
The indestructible passport was found in hours within 1.6 million tons of rubble......bit sus you have to say.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 02 April, 2011, 01:58:36 AM
I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous answer...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 02 April, 2011, 02:12:07 AM
Okay...

why did NORAD scramble jets from Langley 130 miles away wjen they could have sent them from Andrews base a mere 10 miles away?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 02 April, 2011, 02:17:02 AM
Okay...

why did NORAD scramble jets from Langley 130 miles away wjen they could have sent them from Andrews base a mere 10 miles away?

And you KNOW this is true? The American air force have confirmed it to you?  Or someone on the internet has asserted it and you've decided they're trustworthy and that it's a FACT?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 02 April, 2011, 02:22:01 AM
I'm only reading from a book....one that i recommend to ant conspiracy buff called "Conspiracy File".

Its set out in a very good way...giving you all the details with headings such as "The Strange Part","The Usual Suspects","The unusual suspects, "most convincing evidence" and "the strange part"

It disects every conspiracy into those groups and when the look at the strange bits & convining evidence you can see why people think as they do.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 02 April, 2011, 02:27:29 AM
Also there is the worry that after the 2 hits a no fly zone was declared yet a private jet lisenced to the united Arab Emirates was allow to take off and fuck off.


And no i have not been told that by the US air force or anyonr else but do you really believe everything that government tells you. Personally if a politician told me the sky was blue i'd go look.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 02 April, 2011, 02:46:39 AM
Also there is the worry that after the 2 hits a no fly zone was declared yet a private jet lisenced to the united Arab Emirates was allow to take off

Again, what are you basing this outrageous assertion on? First hand knowledge? Verifiable sources? Physical or eyewitness evidence? ..... or internet bullshitering?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: mogzilla 02 April, 2011, 12:36:44 PM
maybe they should let the united nations know then they can use all this hard fact based evidence and bring the us to trial. ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 02 April, 2011, 09:54:41 PM
A new Mexican restaurant opened at the top of my street. Elvis is working there. He's lost weight.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 02 April, 2011, 10:10:53 PM
Are you sure it's the real Elvis and not one of the CIA clones?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 02 April, 2011, 10:12:47 PM
Are you sure it's the real Elvis and not one of the CIA clones?

Uh-huh-huh, mmmmmmm, yeah, yeah
I'm all shook up
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 02 April, 2011, 10:14:36 PM
Nonsense, everyone knows Elvis died on a river-bank not far from his nursing-home.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 02 April, 2011, 10:57:59 PM
Nonsense, everyone knows Elvis died on a river-bank not far from his nursing-home.

This is an undisputed fact. There's even photographic evidence:

(http://www.konsolifin.net/ylli/upload/uutiset/filmi/1145458338_bub.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mardroid 03 April, 2011, 12:41:14 AM
Indeed. The moment was even marked with strange star formations. I know. I saw 'em on a documentary.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Eric Plumrose 03 April, 2011, 06:32:04 PM
Personally if a politician told me the sky was blue i'd go look.

And that there is a BIG part of the problem. Knee-jerk cynicism is far less taxing on the old noggin than actual critical thought.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 05 April, 2011, 02:35:09 PM
A few fascinating examples here to quote whenever people point to coincidences as indications of conspiracy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/04/the-history-of-coincidence?INTCMP=SRCH (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/04/the-history-of-coincidence?INTCMP=SRCH)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 05 April, 2011, 02:37:47 PM
A few fascinating examples here to quote whenever people point to coincidences as indications of conspiracy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/04/the-history-of-coincidence?INTCMP=SRCH (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/apr/04/the-history-of-coincidence?INTCMP=SRCH)

Don't you think that this article being published just as were were talking about the subject to be a bit of a, well...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 05 April, 2011, 03:33:22 PM
This does not mean that all conspiracies are just coincidences any more than it means all coincidences are actually conspiracies.

Adept conspirators take full advantage of coincidences - as do adept conspiracy theorists. How much of a coincidence would it be for all coincidences to be just coincidences? The universe is, indeed, a phenominally complex engine and it's easy to hide lies inside complexities. This link, whilst reinforcing the need for care when presented with coincidence, seems to suggest that all conspiracies can be explained away as mere coincidence. Maybe the author is an MI5 agent, tasked with reinforcing the Powers That Be's preferred mantra that all conspiracy theories are just commonplace happenstance? ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 05 April, 2011, 03:57:55 PM
True, but the fact that a terror contingency planning event was taking place in London on the same day of the bombings featuring the same tube stations does not indicate anything other than coincidence.

It bugs me when these things are put forward as some kind of proof (or even suggestion) of conspitracy. Unless there's some evidence of a direct causal link then it means nothing! The suggestion seems to be that the odds are so remote that ther MUST be something more sinsister going on, but coincidences do happen far more than people think.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 05 April, 2011, 04:19:15 PM
I disagree. The presence of coincidental events merely suggests to me that much greater care and thoroughness must be taken to ensure a comprehensive and open investigation. To say "it's all just a coincidence" is as sloppy and intellectually bankrupt as saying "it's got to be a conspiracy." Both views are simply beliefs - and if the world at the moment can teach us anything, it's that acting purely from a standpoint of belief is not the best way to go.

Question everything.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 05 April, 2011, 04:25:05 PM
That way madness lies! as Eric said above:

Personally if a politician told me the sky was blue i'd go look.

And that there is a BIG part of the problem. Knee-jerk cynicism is far less taxing on the old noggin than actual critical thought.


Save your energy for the real conspiracies, if you start questioning everything, you believe nothing. No proof will ever satisfy you, any 'evidence' can be fixed. What ultimately happens amongst the deluge of conflicting information and possible expalnations is that you choose to believe what fits your preconceptions, and dismiss contradictory evidence as being suspect or unreliable. (see just about evry climate change or nuclear power argument ever)

I'll accept the consensus unless there's clear evidence to the contrary.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 05 April, 2011, 04:36:47 PM
I'd broadly agree with that - except to add the rider that if you believe everything, you'll suspect nothing.

For many, many years (for example) the consensus of opinion was that the Gulf of Tonkin incident actually happened - because the US Government said it did.

And when I said "question everything," I didn't mean "disbelieve everything." (Just thought I'd make that clear. I don't believe that questioning authority is a bad thing - I believe it's our duty. Even if there was no conspiracy, it shows "them" that we're watching.)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 05 April, 2011, 04:40:56 PM
Double post - sorry.

DDD, I didn't mean to imply that you believe everything.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 05 April, 2011, 05:42:04 PM
Nor did I that you disbelieve everything!

A healthy scepticism is absolutely necessary unless we want to be slack-jawed cattle, but when you begin to question absolutely everything and find more and more reasons to mistrust any evidence, you're only a hop and a skip from full-blown paranoia Then you start believing that Lorraine Kelly's choice of top is a coded signal to the Al Quaida terrorists in the flat downstairs.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 05 April, 2011, 05:44:58 PM
That's cool - I never thought you did think that. Speaking of scepticism, though, what to make of this?

5:00 AM Saturday Jul 9, 2005

"A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.

"The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time)..."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10334992
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 05 April, 2011, 06:26:20 PM
Speaking of scepticism, though, what to make of this?

5:00 AM Saturday Jul 9, 2005

"A New Zealander working for Reuters in London says two colleagues witnessed the unconfirmed shooting by police of two apparent suicide bombers outside the HSBC tower at Canary Wharf in London.

"The New Zealander, who did not want to be named, said the killing of the two men wearing bombs happened at 10.30am on Thursday (London time)..."

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10334992

I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be a lot more witnesses round canary Wharf at 10.30 in the morning. 8000 office workers are messed about and none of them are on the news, suing their employers, blogging or tweeting about it?  And if the 2 witnesses did work for Reuters, I'd expect them to seek evidence, interview witnesses, take photos and, you know, actually report this huge news story, rather than it just being the unconfirmed second-hand hearsay of one anonymous bloke.

In fact this is a very good example. There is absolutely NOTHING in that story that sounds plausible to me. My mistrust of a lot of so-called cover-ups (Princess Di, 9/11) stems from the question "would it be POSSIBLE to cover this up?" and the answer is very often no.

The only suspicious thing about this story is a lazy journalist chatting to a bloke in a pub who said "ere, my mate reckons he was down Canary Wharf..."

EDIT - just noticed the date - Six years and the Omerta-like Web of Silence is still holding! Astonishing!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Colin Zeal 06 April, 2011, 02:04:42 PM
I can remember that story going round the internet like wildfire on the day. It was rubbished just as quickly if I remember correctly.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 06 April, 2011, 03:00:51 PM
You know the film 'Three Men and a Baby'? If you look carefully, at one point there's the ghost of a dead boy in the background in one scene.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 06 April, 2011, 03:18:32 PM
Stop being naughty, Ush!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 06 April, 2011, 03:27:21 PM
You know the film 'Three Men and a Baby'? If you look carefully, at one point there's the ghost of a dead boy in the background in one scene.

I seem to recall that the "ghost" in question was actually the reflection of a cardboard cut-out movie ad for "Home Alone" or something like that.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 09 April, 2011, 12:52:26 PM
LOOK! no plane...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13023559 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13023559)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 09 April, 2011, 01:38:14 PM
Pfffft! I could've done the same by pouring thousands of gallons of burning jet fuel straight down the elevator shafts.

 :-\
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 09 April, 2011, 01:43:31 PM
but could you have done while managing not to get your passport burned?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 09 April, 2011, 10:53:41 PM
Or without anybody in the densely packed city noticing you doing it?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 09 April, 2011, 11:38:32 PM
And could you get the scrap steel exported to foreign climes quick enough to be unavailable to investigators?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 09 April, 2011, 11:40:22 PM
A ninja could
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Misanthrope 10 April, 2011, 07:00:45 AM
I don't believe that there IS a Judge Dredd movie in the works.

I put it down to cos-players, CGI artists and fan fiction writers.

Why has the stubble on the first Dredd picture disappeared? Where are these so called Anderson photos we have heard so much about? Where was the panel at Kapow?

Makes you think.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: O Lucky Stevie! 10 April, 2011, 08:06:12 AM
I put it down to cos-players, CGI artists and fan fiction writers.

You're thinking of Judge Minty there Mis.  :P
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 10 April, 2011, 01:41:35 PM
I have to say, it does make me smile when people say that you couldn't rig the place the with explosives without people knowing.  Of course you could- so long as you weren't planning to do it in an afternoon or anything.  Maintenance crews must be at work in these places all the time- probably at night.

That's not to say that I totally buy into the theory- but still.  Worth noting.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 05 May, 2011, 08:29:49 PM
Did they use secret stealthed black helicopters to kill Bin Laden?

http://xplanes.tumblr.com/post/5220168573/stealth-helicopters-and-serial-numbers-some
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 05 May, 2011, 08:50:27 PM
Lo! It is written that whenever two or three US military wokka-wokkas are gathered together in sacred operation, at least one of them will crasheth into ye grounde.

Muppets.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 05 May, 2011, 09:36:01 PM
Yes but they never ever get shot down. The Pentagon always categorically denies that, they merely suffer mechanical failure.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 05 May, 2011, 09:41:33 PM
Yes but they never ever get shot down. The Pentagon always categorically denies that, they merely suffer mechanical failure.
Of course they do they are built by the lowest bidder.




V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 05 May, 2011, 11:13:17 PM
Did they use secret stealthed black helicopters to kill Bin Laden?

http://xplanes.tumblr.com/post/5220168573/stealth-helicopters-and-serial-numbers-some

If so as it doesnt look like anything i have ever seen then leaving a large chunk of it lying around in the open and allowing it to be photographed is very very sloppy.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 06 May, 2011, 12:22:45 AM
I'm staring to think that governments actively encourage these conspiracy theories. Throw enough shit in the air and nobody can spot the real lies. That's why they won't release the photo and disposed of the body, and even changed lots of details of the story. Must prove something! And while everybody's worrying about whether Bin Laden died in 2001, or where Obama's birth certificate is, they get away with all the less spectacular but genuinely corrupt stuff.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 06 May, 2011, 01:24:09 AM
I'm staring to think that governments actively encourage these conspiracy theories. Throw enough shit in the air and nobody can spot the real lies.

They have done - their interest in the UFO phenomena and muddying the waters there (making sure the Majestic 12 documents were "leaked", the destruction of Paul Bennewitz, etc.) was all to help cover up secret technology and possibly to root out spies (as the Ruskies would also be monitoring reports of strange lights over air force bases in case they were secret vehicle tests).

That's why they won't release the photo and disposed of the body, and even changed lots of details of the story. Must prove something!

Possibly not - it makes sense, the picture could have been photoshopped and burying the body would create a shrine.

And while everybody's worrying about whether Bin Laden died in 2001, or where Obama's birth certificate is, they get away with all the less spectacular but genuinely corrupt stuff.

Definitely. All the big shiny conspiracy theories help distract from all the usual mucky games - power and money (and probably drugs too).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 06 May, 2011, 01:53:56 AM

Possibly not - it makes sense, the picture could have been photoshopped and burying the body would create a shrine.


This^

Even if wikileaks gets hold of something and claim it to be official and verifiable, it'll be picked apart by conspiracists citing photoshop
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 06 May, 2011, 02:03:50 AM
However, I fully expect the pictures to be "leaked" at some point - all plausibly deniable but it'll get the job done.

Governments - having your cake and eating it in front of you, since the dawn of civilisation.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 06 May, 2011, 08:32:02 PM
Do you really think they buried him at sea?
There is no way the US are going to let his body go. He will end up is some underground vault pickled in a jar.





V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 06 May, 2011, 09:43:58 PM

Possibly not - it makes sense, the picture could have been photoshopped and burying the body would create a shrine.


This^

Even if wikileaks gets hold of something and claim it to be official and verifiable, it'll be picked apart by conspiracists citing photoshop

Thats the problem with distrust and lack of credibility but a picture that has been photoshopped will never stand up to any scrutiny and if a picture is genuine and its clear it wasnt photoshopped then no one with any credibility would claim its photoshopped.I say this because there has to be a certain amount of objectivity involved if you are interested in this sort of thing otherwise whats the point ?

A photo in itself isnt enough in itself to corraborate this story.

I am very curious about the DNA sampling thing.Now it could be possible to run an existing sample of DNA through the files of DNA samples held in intelligence agency databases to find a match in a few minutes from an aircraft carrier which would presume communicates via satellite but just how long does it take to process/extract the DNA material taken from the dead subject[in laboratory conditions] which means seperating the DNA from the other cellular material and then purifying it and do whatever else you have to do so that you are left with a readable DNA code and then present it in the format that is readable by the DNA database ?

Apparently the Seal team [25 in all] went into Pakistan in 2 Blackhawk helicopters which can carry 11/12 passengers plus equipment so how is it possible that 25 navy Seals left the scene in 1 Blackhawk helicopter plus the dead OBL when it wouldnt be physically possible to do that as you cant fit 25 in a Blackhawk and it would be severely overloaded to the point it wouldnt get off the ground ?

Maybe that has been explained and they were extracted by some other means ?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 07 May, 2011, 12:23:06 AM
Apparently the Seal team [25 in all] went into Pakistan in 2 Blackhawk helicopters which can carry 11/12 passengers plus equipment so how is it possible that 25 navy Seals left the scene in 1 Blackhawk helicopter plus the dead OBL when it wouldnt be physically possible to do that as you cant fit 25 in a Blackhawk and it would be severely overloaded to the point it wouldnt get off the ground ?

Every account I read in the mainstream press talked about 3 or 4 helicopters - where are you getting your facts?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 07 May, 2011, 12:51:31 AM
Theres always the FACT that governments NEVER.EVER lie.....at all,ever, at all,honest
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 May, 2011, 12:57:35 AM
Apparently the Seal team [25 in all] went into Pakistan in 2 Blackhawk helicopters which can carry 11/12 passengers plus equipment so how is it possible that 25 navy Seals left the scene in 1 Blackhawk helicopter plus the dead OBL when it wouldnt be physically possible to do that as you cant fit 25 in a Blackhawk and it would be severely overloaded to the point it wouldnt get off the ground ?

Every account I read in the mainstream press talked about 3 or 4 helicopters - where are you getting your facts?

The MSM.Heres a randomly chosen article that states that only 2 helicopters were involved :

http://abcnews.go.com/US/osama-bin-laden-dead-navy-seal-team-responsible/story?id=13509739

There was i am sure of it a mention of only 2 helicopters in official statements but i am not backtracking to find it right now.I have read so much material on this over the last 4 days and 2 was the number that was logged in my mind.No idea what you are reading that states 3-4 but the story changes every 5 minutes anyway.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 07 May, 2011, 01:26:48 AM
Apparently the Seal team [25 in all] went into Pakistan in 2 Blackhawk helicopters which can carry 11/12 passengers plus equipment so how is it possible that 25 navy Seals left the scene in 1 Blackhawk helicopter plus the dead OBL when it wouldnt be physically possible to do that as you cant fit 25 in a Blackhawk and it would be severely overloaded to the point it wouldnt get off the ground ?

Every account I read in the mainstream press talked about 3 or 4 helicopters - where are you getting your facts?

The MSM.Heres a randomly chosen article that states that only 2 helicopters were involved :

http://abcnews.go.com/US/osama-bin-laden-dead-navy-seal-team-responsible/story?id=13509739

There was i am sure of it a mention of only 2 helicopters in official statements but i am not backtracking to find it right now.I have read so much material on this over the last 4 days and 2 was the number that was logged in my mind.No idea what you are reading that states 3-4 but the story changes every 5 minutes anyway.

There were two modified Blackhawks (see the "truth you can't handle the truth" thread for how modified they were) but there were also two back-up helicopters (often named as Chinooks) and it was one of these that retrieved the rest of the team:

The tensest moment for those watching, he said, came when one of two helicopters that flew the American troops into the compound broke down, stalling as it flew over the 18-foot wall of the compound and prepared to land. After the raid, the team blew up the helicopter and called in one of two backups. In all, 79 commandos and a dog were involved.


www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/world/asia/osama-bin-laden-dead.html?_r=1

Secret until now, stealth helicopters may have been key to the success of the Osama bin Laden raid. But the so-far-unexplained crash of one of the modified Black Hawks at the scene apparently compromised at least some of the aircraft's secrets.

The two choppers evidently used radar-evading technologies, plus noise and heat suppression devices, to slip across the Afghan-Pakistan border, avoid detection by Pakistani air defenses and deliver two dozen Navy SEALs into the al-Qaida leader's lair.

...

Also taking part in the bin Laden mission were two MH-47 Chinooks, specially modified versions of the heavy-lift Chinook helicoptersthat are widely used by the Army's conventional forces.

The MH-47s are flown by the 160th, the Night Stalkers. Those aircraft are not known to have stealth capabilities, although one was summoned to the scene of the raid after one of the stealthy Black Hawks crash-landed, in order to help ferry the SEAL contingent out of Pakistan.

www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ien0q0gTNkNLVk1wa5AJ8Y_Gq4YA?docId=af04a23978a944ef9af17dda8bb28598
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 07 May, 2011, 01:34:28 AM
Heard an interview on the radio with a Pakistani intelligence analyst who claimed it's more likely Bin Laden was killed by one of his own before the SEALs got near him. Bin Laden's apparent desire not to 'go the way of Saddam Hussein' had him order his 'lieutenent' to execute him if he was ever in danger of being captured. When the lieutenant shot him, the SEALs shot everyone else. Maybe that's why there was no 'capture', no sign of a video -except for picture of every other corpse in the room- and the immediate disposing of the body.

He denied the US it's prime time golden shot for the ultimate anti-climax.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 07 May, 2011, 02:13:27 AM
Every account I read in the mainstream press talked about 3 or 4 helicopters - where are you getting your facts?

The MSM.Heres a randomly chosen article that states that only 2 helicopters were involved :

http://abcnews.go.com/US/osama-bin-laden-dead-navy-seal-team-responsible/story?id=13509739[/quote]


An overly dramatic account by ABC News - Seriously? That's your reliable source?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 May, 2011, 02:40:15 AM
Every account I read in the mainstream press talked about 3 or 4 helicopters - where are you getting your facts?

The MSM.Heres a randomly chosen article that states that only 2 helicopters were involved :

http://abcnews.go.com/US/osama-bin-laden-dead-navy-seal-team-responsible/story?id=13509739


An overly dramatic account by ABC News - Seriously? That's your reliable source?
[/quote]

I didnt say it was a reliable source as my point was that i had read that 2 helicopters were involved in multiple MSM websites.

Also obviously i missed the bit about calling for backup which was pointed out above .
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 May, 2011, 02:54:34 AM
I should have noticed this that is quoted from the article : The Navy SEAL team on this mission was supported by helicopter pilots from the 160th Special Ops Air Regiment, part of the Joint Special Operations Command."

 ::)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 07 May, 2011, 12:35:23 PM
Do you think they left that crashed stealth 'copter there on purpose to give them an excuse not to reveal "operational details" to safeguard military secrets and also to hint to the world that "this is what we've got"?

Or are they just muppets who can't fly straight for toffee?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Robin Low 07 May, 2011, 12:42:15 PM
I am very curious about the DNA sampling thing.Now it could be possible to run an existing sample of DNA through the files of DNA samples held in intelligence agency databases to find a match in a few minutes from an aircraft carrier which would presume communicates via satellite but just how long does it take to process/extract the DNA material taken from the dead subject[in laboratory conditions] which means seperating the DNA from the other cellular material and then purifying it and do whatever else you have to do so that you are left with a readable DNA code and then present it in the format that is readable by the DNA database ?

Can't put an exact time on it, but we're probably talking a matter of hours, especially when you're set up in advance for one specific task and you're using top of the range kit.


Regards

Robin
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 07 May, 2011, 12:45:32 PM
jeezy, don't you guys watch CSI?  ::)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 07 May, 2011, 12:50:19 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7SPm-HFYLo
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 07 May, 2011, 12:59:10 PM
Do you think they left that crashed stealth 'copter there on purpose to give them an excuse not to reveal "operational details" to safeguard military secrets and also to hint to the world that "this is what we've got"?

Or are they just muppets who can't fly straight for toffee?

Those in the know suggest the stealth modifications would make the helicopter difficult to fly especially in those situations when hovering or landing near buildings.

I'd think it'd be a very risky enterprise to deliberately crash a helicopter on such a critical mission with all the Blackhawk Down overtones. If they wanted the world to know about the helicopter they'd have found a better way to do it. Now Pakistan have a lot of the wreckage and I'd bet reasonable cash that the Chinese will get an opportunity to sniff around the wreckage before the Americans get it back - another reason why they probably didn't want to do this.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 May, 2011, 02:54:44 PM
The alleged 1 million USD Bin Laden compound looks more like an LA crackhouse.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Old Tankie 07 May, 2011, 03:02:29 PM
And even if the furniture was included in that price, he still got ripped off, d'you see the state of it?!!  Blood and guts everywhere!!  Perhaps the previous owners were students.  I thought the finish on the plastering was disgusting!!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 May, 2011, 03:31:05 PM
 :lol:



It looks like a crackhouse inside as well as out.


: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: NeilFord 07 May, 2011, 03:53:18 PM
I beleive they had some rather messy American visitors on a weekend break deal.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Old Tankie 07 May, 2011, 04:11:29 PM
Apparently they didn't stay long, just shot through then went on a boat trip........!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: SmallBlueThing 08 May, 2011, 03:51:02 PM
Im surprised it's taken this long for you to start on the building-work, peter! It was one of the first things i thought of when pictures started to come out- peterwolf is NOT going to like that craftsmanship ;)

SBT
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 09 May, 2011, 06:51:36 PM
Im surprised it's taken this long for you to start on the building-work, peter! It was one of the first things i thought of when pictures started to come out- peterwolf is NOT going to like that craftsmanship ;)

SBT

They were spot on with the Crack/Smack addict look.The inside of the house should have been cleaned up and had a makeover then it could have featured in a celeb magazine as in an exclusive At Home With The Bin ladens/Exclusive:Inside The Bin Ladens Exclusive 1 Million Dollar Luxury Home ! feature complete with Osama the channel-surfing recluse.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 09 May, 2011, 07:03:09 PM
Shot Through the Keyhole, with Floyd Grossgit.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 09 May, 2011, 08:01:51 PM
I wonder if the house prices will go up in the neighbourhood ?

Will the Bin Ladens/Bed Linens house be up for sale now and advertised as suitable for investors/speculators/property developers ?

Will the contents of the house be auctioned off ?

Imagine the Lots that would be listed as :

Lot 1 : 1 King sized mattress complete with soiled bed linen and stains of various sizes

Lot 2 : 1 30 year old 14" color TV

Lot 3 : 3 computer monitors

Lot 4 : 1 varnished Pine coffee table

Lot 5 : 1 heavily soiled arabic effect rug

Lot 6 : 1 wood effect double bed
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Old Tankie 09 May, 2011, 10:49:54 PM
Pete, you've forgotten the property's most recent extension, which has put thousands onto its value, a helipad!!!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 09 May, 2011, 11:05:45 PM
And all those snazzy new ventilation holes will really be a boon in the hot weather.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 09 May, 2011, 11:50:32 PM
Here we are laughing at the end result of trillions of dollars that have been squandered on the War On Terror not to mention military/civilian casualties/collateral damage and the creation of a Police State.

We are the losers here.

Another thing that is idiotic is the public announcement that the US has seized a load of intel on alleged terrorist activity.Thats not very intelligent as all of the alleged terrorists and terrorist cells will all disperse and go to ground and change their passports etc.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 10 May, 2011, 12:01:37 AM
Double bluff Pete. They probably don't have shit and are just waiting for the cells to panic, inadvertently reveal themselves, then the relevant authorities will pounce.





V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 10 May, 2011, 08:07:48 AM
I enjoyed the fakesayers responses to the architectural plans for Chez Laden.  "They're in English, and in Imperial units - but they're supposed to be from Pakistan!  FAAAAKE!".  It's nice to know they're on top of this whole 'living in the real world' thing.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 May, 2011, 01:20:55 PM
I'm hearing rumblings that the 2012 London Olympics will be used to stage a "global event" in order to usher in new global governance. The preferred event seems to be a false-flag, staged alien invasion. How to fool millions of people around the globe? Easy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2534499/Beijing-Olympic-2008-opening-ceremony-giant-firework-footprints-faked.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/olympics/2534499/Beijing-Olympic-2008-opening-ceremony-giant-firework-footprints-faked.html)

See also http://www.septemberclues.info/ (http://www.septemberclues.info/) for suggestions as to how such a thing might be pulled off.

A bit of CGI inserted into live coverage, a few missiles or pre-installed charges set off and a screaming media would just about sew it up. Be one Hell of an Opening Ceremony, though.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 11 May, 2011, 01:47:02 PM
I'm hearing rumblings that the 2012 London Olympics will be used to stage a "global event"

Yes, the event will be called:  The 2012 London Olympics
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 11 May, 2011, 02:06:30 PM
"a false-flag, staged alien invasion"

That'd be Project Blue Beam a vast unwieldy, unworkable conspiracy theory developed by Serge Monast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serge_Monast) (who thought the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was true) basically ripping off Star Trek:

Joel Engel's book Gene Roddenberry: The Myth and the Man Behind Star Trek was released in 1994, shortly before Monast's widely-sourced lecture on Project Blue Beam.

In May 1975, Gene Roddenberry accepted an offer from Paramount to develop Star Trek into a feature film, and moved back into his old office on the Paramount lot. His proposed story told of a flying saucer, hovering above Earth, that was programmed to send down people who looked like prophets, including Jesus Christ.

All the steps of the conspiracy theory were in the unmade mid-'70s Star Trek film script by Roddenberry, which were recycled for the ST:TNG episode Devil's Due, broadcast in 1991.[17]

There is no evidence of deliberate fraud on Monast's part; given his head was quite thoroughly full of squirrels and confetti by this time, it's entirely plausible that he thought this was the revelation of secret information in a guise safe for propagation. Or something.

However, the actual source was so obvious that even other conspiracy theorists noticed.[18] They confidently state it was obvious that Monast had been fed deceptive information by the CIA. Of course!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Beam

It's the conspiracy theory I find most conspiracy theorist laugh at.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dunk! 11 May, 2011, 02:07:37 PM
I'm hearing rumblings that the 2012 London Olympics will be used to stage a "global event"

Wait, isn't that rumour moot due to the world having already ended by then, as predicted by The Space Mayans?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 11 May, 2011, 02:36:23 PM
I've heard about the fake-alien-invasion thing at the olympics. According to the nutjob who's promoting this theory, the UFO SFX at the LA olympics was a practice run, and the one-eyed London mascots are designed to get us accustomed to the idea of aliens.

That September clues website is hilarious.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 11 May, 2011, 02:46:04 PM
That September clues website is hilarious.

To a point... I find this disgustingly offensive and an insult to the dead:

(http://www.septemberclues.info/images/BlackRibLink_large.jpg)

ANd then there's this:
A large number of casualties was also reported to generate public outrage and support for illegal wars of aggression. However, the September Clues research has determined that the alleged victims were fictitious identities mostly/or entirely created within the digital realm.

And that's only on the title page!
Anyone who honestly believes this is mentally ill.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 May, 2011, 04:21:17 PM
Irrespective of whether 9/11 was staged, predicted and allowed to happen or simply exploited by the military/industrial/political complex, I find the results to be far more offensive than people who examine the events of that day and come up with their own conclusions based on the evidence as they see it.

Killed on 9/11: 2,996, including the 19 hijackers and 2,977 victims.

Iraq: the Iraqi Holocaust has been associated with (around) 2.9 million post-invasion non-violent avoidable deaths; 4.5 million violent and non-violent excess deaths, 2.0 million under-5 infant deaths, 1.8 million avoidable under-5 year old infant deaths and 5-6 million refugees – an Iraqi Genocide according to the UN Genocide Convention definition. In comparison, post-2003 US Alliance deaths in the Iraq War now total around 4,758.

Afghanistan: Between 10,708 and 28,478 Afghan deaths and around 2,340 Coalition deaths since 2001.

Now we're after Libya, too.

This is before we even get into the multi-trillion dollar war industry and corporate "reconstruction" contracts.

Offensive? Damned right it's offensive - but a great deal more offensive than people asking awkward or even loopy questions under the auspices of Free Speech, methinks.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Old Tankie 11 May, 2011, 06:22:02 PM
Just for the sake of balance, Sharkey, what were the pre-invasion death statistics of the "Iraqi Holocaust" under the rule of Saddam?  How many violent and how many non-violent excess deaths?  How many Marsh Arabs were slaughtered?  You're bound to know.  Comparing death statistics is totally inane, but I know you love doing it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 May, 2011, 08:10:21 PM
I don't know, Tankie. To mis-quote Babylon 5, we could sit here going through who killed how many of whom and why and we'll be back a thousand years before we're done.

You're right - comparing death statistics is a pretty foul thing to do, but my point is that nobody seems to find the idea that 9/11 should be used as an excuse to inflict so much death and destruction particularly offensive. Try and pick holes in the Official Account, however, and you get accused of anything from spitting on the memories of the dead to treason to mental illness.

No offence meant towards Richmond (or anyone else) in my last comment - I've noticed many people have a similar view and I just find it curious, that's all.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 13 May, 2011, 06:53:07 PM
THE MIDDLE AGES NEVER HAPPENED!

http://cargocollective.com/michaelpaukner/598823/Phantom-Time-Hypothesis (http://cargocollective.com/michaelpaukner/598823/Phantom-Time-Hypothesis)

When Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz introduces his paper on the “phantom time hypothesis”, he kindly asks his readers to be patient, benevolent, and open to radically new ideas, because his claims are highly unconventional. This is because his paper is suggesting three difficult-to-believe propositions: 1) Hundreds of years ago, our calendar was polluted with 297 years which never occurred; 2) this is not the year 2010, but rather 1713; and 3) The purveyors of this hypothesis are not crackpots.

The whole hypothesis is availible as a PDF (see link), it's quite interesting
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 13 May, 2011, 07:42:44 PM
Niemitz attempts to refute the damning evidence of dendrochronology by referring to the methodological difficulties experienced by essentially one pioneering researcher, Hollstein, and specifically his papers from 1970 and 1980, when the approach was in its abject infancy and his datasets were fragmentary, local and miniscule.  He ignores the subsequent 30 years of cross-referencing, correlation between species and continents, and independent radiometric confirmation of an unbroken global sequence stretching  back more than 10,000 years. He somehow ignores the fact that criticism and refinement of Hollstein's work, and the addressing of the very issues he cites, was the foundation upon which the modern science was built.  I've even seen Niemitz's criticisms cited as FACT! by creationists which alone is enough for me to want to beat him to death with a log.

But yeah, it's a pretty cool premise for an RPG.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 13 May, 2011, 09:54:07 PM
I just managed to delete my comment regarding the September Clues websites claims and i dont have the inclination to type another but i cannot be expected to take their claims seriously and i could rip it bits but i dont have the inclination but its ludicrous and baseless as they offer nothing of any substance to verify their claims that are completely refutable.

Heres one example :

"NO private photography of the real-life events was allowed"

Can anyone verify this as being fact ??

Ludicrous and impossible to implement and enforce and besides that i have seen amateur footage of it yet that is what they base their entire hypothesis on.

"More recent technology deactivated temporarily all cameras within sight of the area. In reality, the towers were most likely enveloped in thick smoke (military obscurants) as they collapsed - and no real footage exists of that brief event."

If you say so there isnt  :lol:

Look at the pic at that shows "computer generated imagery" which is presented as a single image that tips from left to right.WTF does that prove ?

The September Clues website and hypothesis is amateurish and just plain silly and i cannot be expected to take them or their claims seriously.

Enough of this nonsense but i am filing September Clues under Disinfo and i trust my own judgement and i know BS when i see or read it.


: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 14 May, 2011, 12:52:18 PM
That September clues website is hilarious.
A large number of casualties was also reported to generate public outrage and support for illegal wars of aggression. However, the September Clues research has determined that the alleged victims were fictitious identities mostly/or entirely created within the digital realm.

yeah tell that to my friend ( and his partner) who would have been there if not for a pre-natal check, then had to attend their colleagues funerals.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 14 May, 2011, 03:16:54 PM
FEMA exercise at the New Madrid Fault, May 16-20, 2011.

FEMA has an uncanny knack of carrying out exercises just when disasters happen, so keep an eye out for something (flood, earthquake, terrorist attack etc.) affecting one or all seven of the following American states: Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Mississippi over the next week or so.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 14 May, 2011, 11:24:21 PM
I'm hearing rumblings that the 2012 London Olympics will be used to stage a "global event"


'global event'? I think the clue's in the title 'Olympics'


Of course apparently it's the Jews who run it all as Mel Gibson's beaver tells me.



(http://www.rense.com/1.imagesH/zionolymp_dees.jpg)


: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: strontium71 14 May, 2011, 11:38:39 PM
I still think the official 2012 logo looks like Lisa Simpson sucking Bart off.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Misanthrope 15 May, 2011, 12:39:15 AM
I still think the official 2012 logo looks like Lisa Simpson sucking Bart off.

I just think it looks like a complete waste of money.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 15 May, 2011, 01:17:07 AM
Ooh... You know what should totally be the official snackfood of the 2012 Olympic Games?

Lion bars!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 15 May, 2011, 01:30:35 AM
Hangonaminute... Isn't the emblem of the British Olympic team a lion?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: exilewood 18 May, 2011, 04:17:54 PM
(http://img.ffffound.com/static-data/assets/6/8e869f969eb473d93b6cb54a692d2de1ed3791e4_m.jpg)


But what does this tell us, eh?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 18 May, 2011, 04:27:44 PM
But what does this tell us, eh?

OMG - The legendary Shark is a CIA plant! He's collecting all our names for his military-industrail paymasters and the Yap shop is a cunning virus designed to infiltrate our hard drives. I'm burning my computer and moving to a desert island.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 18 May, 2011, 04:36:12 PM
America includes the letters A,C,I which if you change them around you get CIA.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 18 May, 2011, 05:35:47 PM
America ain't cool enough to be Sharkland...

BTW, it's Yap Shop night tonight.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 25 May, 2011, 01:10:59 AM
Has the rebellion already begun?

English freeman standing in court-council tax the take down begins 3 mirror:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl5qVTWHf8c&fmt=18 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl5qVTWHf8c&fmt=18)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 29 May, 2011, 06:50:17 PM
Here's one: Your age on this year's birthday + the last two digits of your birth-date = 111.

Of course, this is just maths - next year, it'll add up to 112 and so on.

However, as 111 is an important number in numerology/astrology/and such, watch out for wild-eyed prophets of doom making hay out of this.

More to the point, it's an excellent way to win a few pints out of your mates down the pub.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 29 May, 2011, 07:05:44 PM
 ::)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 29 May, 2011, 07:19:14 PM
I have a friend who tried to convince me this was 'freaky'.

Your age is just the current year minus the year you were born.
Since this mumbo jumbo is only concerned with the last two digits of the year you were born (which we shall define as x), take 1900 away from the current year and the year you were born.

So you age (A) is:

A=111-x

So you're adding the last 2 digits of the year you were born (already defined as x) to your age (111-x)?

x+111-x=111

Q.E.D

I had to explain this to my friend three or four times before she started sulking because I was right and she was a credulous eejit that believes in astrology and suchlike
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 06 June, 2011, 06:43:38 PM
You know what I think of the big banks like JP Morgan; I think they're utterly corrupt, beyond greedy and downright evil. The current "financial crisis" we find ourselves in has largely been engineered by these big banks. (In the first instance, Banks create enough money out of thin air to lend to everyone from impoverished farmers to affluent governments, flooding the markets with cheap cash. Next, these vampire banks drastically reduce the amount of money they create and start calling in their debts. People can't pay these debts because the money supply has dried up and so lose their homes, businesses, savings, whatever to the banks. They call it "shearing" - let the economy grow and then take it apart, repossessing (or purchasing for pennies on the pound) and keeping the good parts.) It's the greatest scam in history and we've all been taken in by it.

In my view, a very few families of completely rich bankers and businessmen believe themselves to be the rightful rulers of a global fiefdom and have been working for generations (since the mid to late 1800s at least) to control the whole kit and caboodle. But, why stop at just confiscating people's possessions, homes, savings and businesses? Wouldn't it be easier to just take over whole countries? "Pay your debt (which we created out of nothing) or we'll seize your country."

I can hear you laughing at that idea from here. I laughed too, because nobody would ever be stupid enough to even suggest such a thing, would they? Except that it's already starting to happen. Greece has been told that if it doesn't pay back its loans quickly enough, the bankers will move in to collect taxes from the people - stripping the Greek government and people of the power to control their own destiny. Who will lose their sovereignty next? Portugal? Spain? Ireland?

It's way past time to begin to see that banks like JP Morgan and the IMF (amongst others) are enemy forces and debt is their weapon of conquest. Would you like your country to be owned by a banking consortium? Because it's coming - if we don't stop it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-bailout-will-require-loss-of-sovereignty-2011-5 (http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-bailout-will-require-loss-of-sovereignty-2011-5)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 06 June, 2011, 07:30:31 PM
IMF got a little publicity today too, on the news. If its true it's not like it hasn't happened beyond the imagination of human perversity.

The Great Famine in Ireland began as a natural catastrophe of extraordinary magnitude, but its effects were severely worsened by the actions and inactions of the Whig government, headed by Lord John Russell in the crucial years from 1846 to 1852. There was a very widespread belief among members of the British upper and middle classes that the famine was a divine judgment-an act of Providence. A leading exponent of providentialist perspective was Sir Charles Trevelyan, the British civil servant chiefly responsible for administering Irish relief policy throughout the famine years. In his book The Irish Crisis, published in 1848, Trevelyan described the famine as 'a direct stroke of an all-wise and all-merciful Providence', one which laid bare 'the deep and inveterate root of social evil'. The famine, he declared, was 'the sharp but effectual remedy by which the cure is likely to be effected... God grant that the generation to which this great opportunity has been offered may rightly perform its part...' This mentality of Trevelyan's was influential in persuading the government to do nothing to restrain mass evictions - and this had the obvious effect of radically restructuring Irish rural society along the lines of the capitalistic model ardently preferred by British policy-makers.

 Today's Trevelyans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Charles_Trevelyan,_1st_Baronet
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 06 June, 2011, 08:52:48 PM

"I can hear you laughing at that idea from here. I laughed too, because nobody would ever be stupid enough to even suggest such a thing, would they? Except that it's already starting to happen. Greece has been told that if it doesn't pay back its loans quickly enough, the bankers will move in to collect taxes from the people - stripping the Greek government and people of the power to control their own destiny. Who will lose their sovereignty next? Portugal? Spain? Ireland?

It's way past time to begin to see that banks like JP Morgan and the IMF (amongst others) are enemy forces and debt is their weapon of conquest. Would you like your country to be owned by a banking consortium? Because it's coming - if we don't stop it"


Its already here.

Greece and every other EU member state has already lost its sovereignty and is owned by the private banking consortuim and there is nothing stupid or funny about it.They are all slave states as is every other country that is host to the private central banking parasites.

The only solution is to remove the parasite from the host nation and tell them exactly where they can shove their bailout funny money.Only an idiot would want more of it anyway and in any case the scale of the debt is unrepayable mathematically so what is going on here is the IMF are scared of defaults so they will work through the EU[a holding company owned by the private central bankers] to recover the unrepayable debt.They dont want the defecit to be cut as they being the Creditor want to eventually seize each country one by one once they have been pushed to the edge when they dont repay quickly enough.The Greeks are notoriously bad at paying taxes anyway and if the vast majority dont have jobs then there is going to be next to no tax revenue generated then eventually all EU member states will be foreclosed on by the IMF as its inevitable since they are not allowing the economy to recover so its all a trap which was the plan all along.

If tax revenue is collected by the IMF then that means that they have already stolen your country so get out of the EU and get out of the Eurozone and let the whole thing collapse.

Also that useless cowardly waste of space Papandreou has had plenty of time to do what Iceland have done but its clearly not going to happen and it wont happen until these shills are voted out or removed by force and replaced by politicians who reflect the will of the people and who are willing to stand their ground against this criminality.

Iceland called their bluff and the bankers havent retaliated so far......

Ireland collectively allowed itself to be walked over by the IMF and they vote for yet another shill and so it goes on......

Useless.

The French were apparently so stupid that they were willing to vote in the head of the IMF-Strauss Khan the alleged rapist of hotel maids so if we take that as an example of the stupidity of European voters then they are their own worst enemies as they are in the UK and as they are in the US.Strauss Khan was disgraced and is now likely to be replaced by Bilderberg Shill Christine Lagarde.

No change and no recovery[despite what you are told by the muppet Media] until everyone faces reality and gets a backbone and educates themselves about the nature of the problem so that this fucked up mess can be resolved once and for all.


: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 08 June, 2011, 10:13:41 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13682082
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 08 June, 2011, 01:01:38 PM
Thanks, Rich. Quite interesting.

""It's much smarter than conspiracy," says Prof Kakabadse. "This is moulding the way people think so that it seems like there's no alternative to what is happening."" This is exactly right. For example, have you noticed that the only alternative presented by officialdom to the present economic situation is austerity? Austerity or... what? Chaos, presumably. The only way to shore up the banking system is quantitative easing (and, surprise surprise in the insane world of politics, QE3 is just around the corner). Yep, listen to your betters - only they know what to do.

It's a very clever debunking article, mixing fact with fiction. By lumping all critics of the Bilderberg Group together under the heading "Conspiracy Theorists" and throwing David Icke into that group, it basically influences readers in the direction of thinking "meh, nothing to see here - just rich gits having a party." Suggesting that every Bilderberg critic a conspiracy theorist is just as simplistic and misleading as calling every English football fan a hooligan. Also, calling every Bilderberg attendee an evil despot is just as simplistic and short-minded. There are plenty of people who attend once and then refuse to go again. (I seem to remember that even Margaret Thatcher eventually got fed up of them - or they of her.)

One last observation from me on this subject: Doesn't it seem weird that actual press coverage of these meetings is practically non-existent? If a couple of hundred film stars, music moguls, sports people or even artists got together like this periodically, the press would be all over it. But a couple of hundred of the most powerful and influential people in the business/economic/political world meet like this and no mainstream reporter wants to know. What's up with that?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: johnnystress 08 June, 2011, 01:14:10 PM


 Today's Trevelyans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Charles_Trevelyan,_1st_Baronet

Tiernan is one hell of an artist though
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 08 June, 2011, 02:16:39 PM
One last observation from me on this subject: Doesn't it seem weird that actual press coverage of these meetings is practically non-existent? If a couple of hundred film stars, music moguls, sports people or even artists got together like this periodically, the press would be all over it. But a couple of hundred of the most powerful and influential people in the business/economic/political world meet like this and no mainstream reporter wants to know. What's up with that?

I think that's just down to the way different groups behave - film stars, pop moguls etc are usually, by nature, attention seekers and self publicists. They can't fart without tweeting about it, as would all the dozens of associates and acquaintances in their orbit. Finance ministers, chief executives, and their employees, are much better at maintaining confidentiality. The group offer no press access and issues no press relases; security is tight, so I just think it's a case of them being better and more inclined to keep secerets than others. The press won't write about it if they've got nothing to report!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 08 June, 2011, 02:47:40 PM
...and the general public tend to be less interested in knowing about a load of suit-wearing middle-aged folk sitting around tables discussing business and politics, (for some bizarre reason).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 08 June, 2011, 02:50:36 PM

Haha!
 Today's Trevelyans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Charles_Trevelyan,_1st_Baronet

Tiernan is one hell of an artist though


Hah! Yes he is. :P
...and the general public tend to be less interested in knowing about a load of suit-wearing middle-aged folk sitting around tables discussing business and politics, (for some bizarre reason).

Now, they do that on purpose!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 08 June, 2011, 03:50:46 PM
The MSM are covering Bilderberg simply because they are getting so much coverage in the alternative media and each time the MSM publish an article on Bilderberg it gets picked apart by the alternative media as its futile pretending that there is nothing untoward going on and downplaying and trivialising them.

Bilderberg are top level policy makers and elected politicians work to an agenda outlined by Bilderberg.

Thatcher was kicked out of office as she wasnt cooperating with Bilderberg as she refused to sign the Maastrict Treaty which was a precursor to what is now known as the EU.She was outraged that she was expected to give away the sovereignty of the UK and i have a certain amount of respect for Thatcher as she had a certain amount of integrity.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 08 June, 2011, 03:59:06 PM
Thatcher was kicked out of office as she wasnt cooperating with Bilderberg as she refused to sign the Maastrict Treaty

That's an ... interesting... interpretation. Do you have any ecvidence to back up this remarkable claim? (and I don't just mean repeats of the claim elsewhere)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 08 June, 2011, 03:59:29 PM
I think that's just down to the way different groups behave - film stars, pop moguls etc are usually, by nature, attention seekers and self publicists. They can't fart without tweeting about it, as would all the dozens of associates and acquaintances in their orbit. Finance ministers, chief executives, and their employees, are much better at maintaining confidentiality. The group offer no press access and issues no press relases; security is tight, so I just think it's a case of them being better and more inclined to keep secerets than others. The press won't write about it if they've got nothing to report!

I'm not sure that nobody would be interested in what a group of the most influential people on Earth would be talking about or planning. I'd certainly be more interested in learning what's said at a Bilderberg meeting than at an Oscars ceremony - and I suspect many people would agree with me on that. Of course, many more people would be completely disinterested, preferring celebrity gossip and Nuts Journalism. I'm sure that the kind of people who watch The Daily Politics or Newsnight would be interested whereas those who orgasm for Britain's Got the X-Factor on Ice would be less intrigued. (Oops, I think I went a bit stereotypical there - sorry!)

Furthermore, what happened to investigative journalism? Why isn't some intrepid reporter pretending to be a waiter to get the inside scoop? I can't believe that nothing of note ever happens at these meetings - even Nuts Journalism would be interested in a drunken Bilderberger (let's say Angela Merkel (picking a name from the Wiki list at random)) if she even looked like she'd had one over the eight. (Remember, for example, the fun the media had when Cherie Blair answered the door looking like she'd just got out of bed?) If these meetings are just a high class piss-up and nothing more, any Sunday newspaper worth its ink would kill to get a journalist in there. But... nothing. Not a peep. Sorry, but to me it just doesn't add up.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say that Bilderbergers are any less attenion-seeking narcissists than those in the arts - how many politicians shun the media, for example? Unless, of course, they're up to no good...

The fact is that strategies and policies that affect all of us come out of these meetings, so I think that we are entitled to know what goes on in there. This is also my biggest beef against the EU (which I think is a fantastic idea, in principle) - we don't get to find out what happens behind closed doors but are expected to accept without question any legislation that emerges from behind those closed doors.

To paraphrase the last real PotUS, secrecy is anathema to freedom.

(Add - and I'm with Peter, I too have a certain amount of respect for Thatcher for going against Bilderberg. Not enough to forgive her for everything, mind, but a modicum.)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 08 June, 2011, 04:10:52 PM
Thatcher was kicked out of office as she wasnt cooperating with Bilderberg as she refused to sign the Maastrict Treaty

That's an ... interesting... interpretation. Do you have any ecvidence to back up this remarkable claim? (and I don't just mean repeats of the claim elsewhere)

Of course, as Bilderberg keeps no records, there's no evidence. A quick Google, however, does reveal the claim repeated in several mainstream places. Here are just two:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6283373.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6283373.ece)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/features.weekend (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2001/mar/10/features.weekend)

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 08 June, 2011, 04:57:19 PM
That Jon Ronson article is a great read!  Umberto Eco would be proud.

Is it wrong of me to not be surprised that powerful people from around the capitalist world would want to meet in private and have a chinwag about global developments and areas of mutual interest?  It seems like a Parents Association coffee morning or a Chamber of Commerce lunch writ large (vile though both those events are).  Meeting your peers, coming up with ideas and consensuses (horrid word!), possible collaborations and opportunities - that's how school runs are arranged.  It is, as Denis Healey puts it, how the world works.  The capability of these folks for evil deeds is only marginally enhanced beyond its base levels - and there may even be some potential for a reduction in (to quote Darth Vader) 'destructive conflict'.

I'd be more surprised and concerned if the great and the not-so-good didn't have the same kind of meetings as local businessmen and marrow-growers, and even more surprised if they didn't want to keep the media firmly away.  Who hasn't been at a meeting or conference when a journalist showed up, and watched all the speakers clam up and the banter from the floor just drift away?  

Sometimes being free to speak without fear of (mis)quotation is the only way to get ideas out there.  And it's by the deeds of these folks that their constituents should judge them, not their chummy bar talk.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 08 June, 2011, 05:20:49 PM
Thatcher was kicked out of office as she wasnt cooperating with Bilderberg as she refused to sign the Maastrict Treaty

That's an ... interesting... interpretation. Do you have any ecvidence to back up this remarkable claim? (and I don't just mean repeats of the claim elsewhere)

Its a shame that i cant recall her exact words about signing over sovereignty which she said was unforgivable and unnacceptable and to find them will take some backtracking.

Its a well known fact that Thatcher had become anti EU once she realised what was going on and was replaced by gray John Major who was either pro EU or simply someone who just did what he was told.Its common knowledge that Thatcher was anti EU and that Bilderberg call the shots and if they want someone out of public office then out they go and Thatcher was distraught even though she kinew it was coming and she felt she was betrayed by her own party which she was to an extent.

I dont have any absolute proof of this other than her own words as she has talked about in interviews after being kicked out of office and she is still talking about opting out of the EU .

Very recent article :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-105481/Time-ditch-EU-says-Thatcher.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-105481/Time-ditch-EU-says-Thatcher.html)



Sometimes being free to speak without fear of (mis)quotation is the only way to get ideas out there.  And it's by the deeds of these folks that their constituents should judge them, not their chummy bar talk.


That is exactly what is going to happen and what does happen and i dont think anyone can name one policy that is outlined and implemented by Bilderberg that is in your best interests.

In the meantime everyone can chuckle amongst themselves and trivialise it all and think its all lighthearted chummy bar talk and laugh at the wacky "conspiracy theorists" and  in any case its not all chummy bar talk as when they are in meetings they are outlining policy that affects your life and everyone elses life so  its all a very very serious business.

People can discuss what they like in private but when it involves govt policy its everyones business.

Nothing to hide - nothing to fear.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 08 June, 2011, 07:14:02 PM
That is exactly what is going to happen and what does happen and i dont think anyone can name one policy that is outlined and implemented by Bilderberg that is in your best interests.

Well there I'd agree, these folks are talking about what's in their best interests, and I imagine only very occasionally what they think is in our best interests, in so far as they understand or care about such things.

People can discuss what they like in private but when it involves govt policy its everyones business.

Government policy is proposed and implemented by governments - that's the stuff we need to watch, and influence.  Does it matter if the inspiration of that policy came from a Bilderberg meeting, Das Kapital or the back pages of Woman's Own?  Does it matter where an agreement or an idea came from if it's a bad one, or even a good one?

I'm not sure that I agree that the proceedings of what is essentially a talking shop should be public - as long as the governments that take these discussions and agreements on board are themselves transparent and accountable.  It's at that level, and that failure, that I'd address my concerns.  Private discussions will occur between peers, that is inevitable, and not necessarily inherently evil. By the contrary definition, everything from residents' associations to sports clubs are sinister conspiracies of silence and consent (hmmmm....).

As to banks and corporations, well they are pretty much universally an evil (apart from Lucasfilm, obviously) - attending Bilderberg meetings doesn't change things one way or another.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 08 June, 2011, 07:24:36 PM
i dont think anyone can name one policy that is outlined and implemented by Bilderberg

And I think you're right.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 08 June, 2011, 07:36:55 PM
I should say that the argument isnt just that they are having meetings in private as its inevitable that they do or that they are discussing future policy in private as again this happens all the time but its the nature of those that are having the meeting and the nature of their policy and their agenda that is THE problem.

You could then argue that this core of individuals have too much influence and power and then argue the pros and cons of too much power and influence in the hands of too few over so many.

Bilderberg is just one high profile meeting like a conflab but there are lots and lots and lots of other private meetings between these individuals and its easy to fixate on Bilderberg.

Its important to understand that Bilderberg are to an extent subordinates within the power structure.The tier 1 personel[the Bosses] attend as well like David Rockefeller[one of the Godfathers] and queen Beatrix etc and also Tier 2 personel like Henry Kissinger [top advisor] and the head of the FEDRES - Bernanke and then Tier 3 like David Cameron/Gordon Brown who are usually elected PMs and top level minsters along with top CEOs of large corporations and members of infuential think tanks and that type of thing.

Think of the power structure as being exactly the same as the power structure within a large corporation where you have the CEOs and then the board and then you have the different levels of management as its all a heirachy.

The average Bilderberg attendee/delegate is mid level management like David Cameron who then forwards the agenda to the lower level ministers in govt as its all a top down system of control.

If a mid level manager within a large corporation refuses to go along with company policy and the directions of their boss they are fired so the same thing applies in politics and in Bilderberg.Some attend only once while others become regulars but i dont know exactly what the reasons or criteria of this is.

Thatcher attended Bilderberg in 1975 apparently and its very common for junior ministers to be chosen by Bilderberg[Tier 4] to go onto greater things and every recent elected PM had previously attended Bilderberg so once again this is very similar to how large corporations or any large company fills its positions with promotions within its employees.

Its a part of a power structure that is top level but to say Bilderberg themselves are the secret rulers of the world is erroneous to a large extent as Bilderberg themselves are controlled by the likes of Rockefeller and the private central banking families.

Its another world that most are unaware of.


: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 08 June, 2011, 11:21:33 PM
Its common knowledge that Thatcher was anti EU and that Bilderberg call the shots and if they want someone out of public office then out they go and Thatcher was distraught even though she kinew it was coming and she felt she was betrayed by her own party which she was to an extent.

So how exactly did the Bildeburgers get all the individuals in the Conservative party to vote her out of office?

As I've said many times, don't confuse consensus with conspiracy. Claiming that these shadowy groups are secretly ruling the world, rather than powerful rich cunts generally behaving the same way, is all very dramatic but it's just a sideshow.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 08 June, 2011, 11:41:55 PM
So who controls the Rockefellers Peter?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 08 June, 2011, 11:46:42 PM
I don't believe that any single group rules the world, that's just mad. Nobody can control everything. I tend to look at more like the Mafia. There are several Mafia families exerting influence to get their own way. Some of these families work together, some don't - but they're all just out for themselves.

You don't need to control the whole Conservative Party to get rid of one conservative (even if she is Prime Minister). You only need to bribe/threaten/blackmail/kill key people - like the Mafia do. If the Mafia were to move into your town, they wouldn't have to control everyone to be in charge, would they?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 09 June, 2011, 12:33:32 AM
I am not confusing anything and from what i recall [which admittedly isnt very much right now] there were other factors involved in the ejection of Thatcher from office resulting in a vote of no confidence in Thatcher but i dont know exactly what went on behind the scenes.

It is very often consensus and conspiracy.

There was a consensus within the Conservatives particularly other Bilderbergers within the Conservatives that they were not happy with Thatchers position on Europe and as i have already pointed out its all a top down organisation and there are many different ways that MPs can be brought into line to vote a certain way on certain issues either behind the scenes and also with Whips.Memos get sent out to influential and powerful memebers of the party and the consensus is generated from there.




We could presume that there was a majority of Conservatives at that point who were pro EU and pro Bilderberg and other prominent Conservatives like Geoffrey Howe previously resigned over her anti EU/Eurozone position for example so there clearly was a pro EU consensus within the Conservatives and it was Bilderberg who promoted the idea of EU membership so the influence of Bilderberg is exercised through consensus as well as coercion.Its a mindset as much as anything else which makes it easy to have a consensus.

Thatcher apparently stated in an interview that "It was an honor to be denounced by Bilderberg" and then stated that she didnt fit in with their mindset and couldnt get on with them.This was mentioned in passing but there has never been a full interview with Thatcher about this but it would be interesting to talk to her about this before her health deteriorites even more.

It would be interesting to read the Thatcher memoirs to get more insight into this .

So who controls the Rockefellers Peter?

The Rockefellers control the Rockefellers and they work in cooperation with the private banking cartel.

Rockefellers are involved in the scientific/social engineering side of things and matters that are not financial while the private banking cartel take care of the cash side of things.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 09 June, 2011, 07:58:45 AM
Thatcher apparently stated in an interview that "It was an honor to be denounced by Bilderberg"

This quote appears in the Ronson article linked to above - and it's from a whispered aside to Jim Tucker, who isn't painted as the most reliable witness by the piece in question.

At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if the substance were true.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 09 June, 2011, 08:27:32 PM
Thatcher apparently stated in an interview that "It was an honor to be denounced by Bilderberg"

This quote appears in the Ronson article linked to above - and it's from a whispered aside to Jim Tucker, who isn't painted as the most reliable witness by the piece in question.

At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if the substance were true.

That quote does seem to be all there is available online but i have red more quotes from Thatcher regarding this but i cant find them anywhere online for want of trying.

Anyway i respect and appreciate the fact that you show an interest in this topic and the other stuff i waffle on about and understand it rather than ridiculing it but that comes with intelligence which you are not lacking in to say the least.

David Rockefeller arrived at Bilderberg today as expected.......
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 10 June, 2011, 08:11:45 AM
Peter, I really don't mean to shite on your ideas or attempt to come off as a superior know-it-all (although reading back I plainly do) - this is very interesting stuff, and a lot of the more solid material that you and and TLS have brought up I hadn't really been aware of.  I'm grateful for the chance to think about these things.

When I'm being cynical about some of the claims, it's because I genuinely want to know what's behind them - I have no problem believing that strings are being pulled in the interests of a self-appointed elite (having watched my own country literally destroyed by exactly this process), I'd just like to see the verifiable facts and most importantly the hows, that is to say the point at which citizens might be able to have their say.  A list of the putative illuminati that includes Dennis Healey and Queen Beatrix alongside the perennial Rockefellers might prick my interest mightily, but I need to see how this translates into actions to believe that this isn't just one more golf club membership committee.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 10 June, 2011, 12:59:59 PM
Peter, I really don't mean to shite on your ideas or attempt to come off as a superior know-it-all (although reading back I plainly do) - this is very interesting stuff, and a lot of the more solid material that you and and TLS have brought up I hadn't really been aware of.  I'm grateful for the chance to think about these things.

When I'm being cynical about some of the claims, it's because I genuinely want to know what's behind them - I have no problem believing that strings are being pulled in the interests of a self-appointed elite (having watched my own country literally destroyed by exactly this process), I'd just like to see the verifiable facts and most importantly the hows, that is to say the point at which citizens might be able to have their say.  A list of the putative illuminati that includes Dennis Healey and Queen Beatrix alongside the perennial Rockefellers might prick my interest mightily, but I need to see how this translates into actions to believe that this isn't just one more golf club membership committee.

There is no point at present or in the future when citizens will have any say whatsoever in the policies that are outlined and implemented by Bilderberg and above.

Forget about that as its autocratic.

Welcome to the post democratic era where we just pay for it through taxes.

For example the military intervention in Libya.No discussion and no debate in parliament in the UK nor in the US as the decision was made without any on behalf of the UN/Bilderberg which assumes authority over the political system in any country.Military intervention in Libya was authorised under the remit of the UN but the policy arose out of Bilderberg etc so saying that the UN authorised it rather than bilderberg is a moot point.

No discussion and no debate and no referendum [direct democracy] about joining the EU which is part of the Bilderberg agenda as it was simply rubber stamped.No discussion and no debate about bank bailouts and even if there was it was superficial.

an elected govt does have a certain amount of say regarding small time domestic issues but any policy concerning broader international issues is subject to the agenda of Bilderberg.

Thinking back 10 years to the invasion of Iraq which was also part of the Bilderberg agenda there was a certain amount of debate in parliament regarding wether to go ahead with it but anyone in the know knew it was a forgone conclusion.The govt presented its faked dossiers etc to create the pretext for it but that was 10 years ago or more and things have moved on from that as you witnessed with the dictat that the UK/NATO would intervene in Libya and the decision was made very quickly as it was in the US.

The US military is now active in Yemen and again there was no discussion as they just go ahead with it without discussion and Syria and the Lebanon will be next and that is partly what will be discussed this weekend at their private meeting.

Will things improve in the next year regarding the economy and military intervention etc ?

I dont think so

I dont think so as they will get worse for you and i and everyone else as its their world and we just live in it.



This is what you call global governance so get used to it as there will be a lot more of it to come and we the people will need to understand this situation and confront it head on.

[There are leaked Bilderberg documents available if i can find them]
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 10 June, 2011, 02:17:36 PM
The Codex Alimentarius (Latin for Food Book) is beginning to make an impact.

The ostensible role of the CA is to regulate food standards to protect consumers - but many researchers (including Ian R. Crane and the US National Health Federation) have detected some less desirable consequences. CA, which sovereign nations can volunteer to opt into, seeks to ban health supplements such as vitamins and vitamin fortified foods*.

This may sound perfectly reasonable until one discovers that drugs companies and GM companies have had a heavy hand in the background. Take, for example, Tibetan Crystal Salt - a salt which contains around 75 minerals essential or beneficial to the human body. Under Codex Alimentarius, this salt would be banned because those 75 minerals are seen as additives - even though they've been part of that particular salt deposit for millions of years! Let's say that some people use Tibetan Crystal Salt regularly and that it naturally helps their bodies stay healthy. Once the salt is banned, those people will begin to deteriorate and may even fall ill. And when you fall ill, where do you go? Drugs companies.

Codex Alimentarius - you didn't vote for it and I'll wager that many of you have never even heard of it. If you need an illustration as to how insignificant our opinions are to the ruling classes, then this is a good one. They say that CA is here to protect us - and in some ways I'm sure that's true - but its hidden purpose is to increase the profits of Big Pharma, GM and and maybe (at the darkest ends of the spectrum) to keep the general population weak, sickly and easy to control.



*Hence Denmark's banning of Marmite.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 10 June, 2011, 03:19:42 PM
I don't get this. Why is big pharma more powerful than multinational food conglomerates, and why do its profits matter more? Don't Kraft, Nestle, Heinz and Kellogg carry any clout with governments? I think they do.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 10 June, 2011, 03:32:03 PM
I don't get this. Why is big pharma more powerful than multinational food conglomerates, and why do its profits matter more? Don't Kraft, Nestle, Heinz and Kellogg carry any clout with governments? I think they do.

Because 'Coco Pops' doesn't sound as sinister as 'Big Pharma'..?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Colin Zeal 10 June, 2011, 03:32:35 PM
To be fair, Marmite is filth so banning it got the thumbs up from me.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 10 June, 2011, 03:43:15 PM
Denmark, kicked out Kelloggs, years ago.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 10 June, 2011, 03:45:57 PM
I'm with Big Marma block, who you fightin' with?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 10 June, 2011, 04:32:20 PM
Big Pharma also make food additives.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 10 June, 2011, 05:23:54 PM
CA, which sovereign nations can volunteer to opt into, seeks to ban health supplements such as vitamins and vitamin fortified foods

...when you fall ill, where do you go? Drugs companies.

its hidden purpose is to increase the profits of Big Pharma

But...

Big Pharma also make food additives.

So Big Pharma, who manufacture health supplements and benefit from the sale of foods containing additives such as vitamins and minerals and probiotics, want health supplements and food additives banned, so that... er... Big Pharma can benefit from the subsequent increase in demand for medicines? Sounds to me like they would be better off sticking to the supplements and fortified foods market that is already serving them very well.

its hidden purpose is to increase the profits of Big Pharma [...] and maybe to keep the general population weak, sickly and easy to control.

And maybe not. Maybe Big Pharma's interests are better served by a fit and healthy general population with high demand for its products, buying more dietary supplements and wanting more nutritional additives in foods.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 10 June, 2011, 06:02:43 PM
Sounds counter-intuitive, doesn't it? However, Big Pharma can only make real money out of artificially created additives.

To illustrate: It has been shown that a fair few natural substances such as hemp oil, bicarbonate of soda, peach pits and mistletoe (amongst a fair few others) are very effective in curing cancer*. However, these substances are no good to Big Pharma as they are naturally occurring and therefore cannot be patented**. All the cancer treatments and chemotherapy drugs Big Pharma sell (for huge prices) are artificial substances created in a lab and then patented. Why would Big Pharma want you to know that hemp, for example, will cure cancer? Hemp is little more than a weed you could grow yourself in the back garden for pennies. Artificial drugs sell for a fortune and cancer is a multi-billion dollar cash cow for them. (NB, there are possible links with substances such as aspartame, an artificial sweetener, which can cause horrible health problems if ingested in large enough quantities whereas naturally occurring sugars cause fewer and more easily treated health problems if ingested to excess. However, if aspartame ingestion causes you cancer, diabetes or galloping knob-rot, then fear not! Big Pharma has drugs you can buy that will make you better - apart from the side-effects, which can be combated with even more artificial drugs!)

It is, therefore, no surprise that Big Pharma has been and continues to lobby for hemp and suchlike to be criminalized. The same is true of vitamins and such - they create artificial vitamins, artificial preservatives and such because that's where the money is. GM crops have fewer vitamins, minerals and nutrients than natural foods which is why Big Pharma loves GM. If your food isn't giving you what you need then fear not! We've got pills and additives to bridge that gap!

*If you or anyone you know has cancer, do not take my claims here as rock solid. Whilst I am fairly convinced of the truth of what I am saying and would probably try one of these natural remedies before having my body blasted by radiation and poisons should I be diagnosed with cancer, you must do your own research. I take no responsibility except to point you in this direction - whether you take that path or not is up to you.

**A reason why the corporate world wants patents and copyrights to last as long as possible. I'm amongst those who think that if a company develops a perfectly safe cure for cancer or an engine that runs off water then it should have a limited copyright/patent on those things. By all means let a company have exclusivity on such breakthroughs for, say, ten years. Once that ten years is up, any other company capable of doing so should be able to produce those things for five years so long as they pay the original company a royalty on sales. Once this five year period is up, the copyright/patent should be given over completely to the public domain. The current period of the lifetime of the inventor + 70 years is at least 70 years too long. If a corporation is credited as the inventor, then the copyright/patent period could last indefinitely, raking in huge profits for the corporation instead of benefiting as many people as possible. Long copyright/patent periods actually stifle innovation.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Old Tankie 10 June, 2011, 06:47:00 PM
And yet, despite all these evil politicians and corporations trying to do us down (apparently), human life expectancy continues to rise.  God, we must be a hardy bunch!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 10 June, 2011, 07:03:31 PM
And yet, despite all these evil politicians and corporations trying to do us down (apparently), human life expectancy continues to rise.  God, we must be a hardy bunch!

In Nigeria alone about 145 women die each day during pregnancy or childbirth, as do 2,300 children aged five years and under, according to United Nations figures.

Globally, more than 5000 children under five die every day from diarrhoea.

Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide: it accounted for 7.9 million deaths (around 13% of all deaths) in 2007.

About 72% of all cancer deaths in 2007 occurred in low- and middle-income countries where expensive artificial drugs cannot be afforded but global rules still ban natural cures (usually as components of loan/trade/aid agreements).

Deaths from cancer worldwide are projected to continue rising, with an estimated 12 million deaths in 2030.


(Statistics taken from the WHO website.)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 10 June, 2011, 07:21:14 PM
In developed countries people are increasingly living longer. If you live long enough and manage not to die from anything else, you will eventually get cancer as a consequence of ageing.

Infant mortality and death in childbirth figures are inadmissable in an argument about the banning of natural remedies to further the agenda of global pharmaceuticals corporations.

The statistic about 72% of cancer deaths occurring in low and middle income countries has to be put in the context of what proportion of the world's population lives in low and middle income countries. There are reckoned to be about 195 countries in the world, of which only 30 are considered to be developed.

The availability of effective medicines isn't the only factor to be considered in cancer survival rates. The distribution of cancer risks is one important factor, and the quality of medical care is another. UK cancer survival increased dramatically since the 1980s, not because outlawed folk remedies were legalized, but because health spending was increased and improvements were made to cancer treatment.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Old Tankie 10 June, 2011, 07:38:48 PM
Yes, Sharkey, terrible statistics, but are they solely down to the politicians and corporations and have nothing to do with the decadent Western population?  Perhaps, in future, before we buy our wonderful children/grand children/nieces/nephews their next pointless toy or present, we should think about donating that same money to an African charity that could supply safe drinking water to children of the same age who are dying of diarrhoea, as I'm typing this.

Of course, that won't happen, because we must get our loved ones the latest computer game or their zillionth cuddly toy.  Yeah, go on, blame it all on the politicians and corporations, it'll make you feel better.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 10 June, 2011, 07:52:36 PM
 Perhaps, in future, before we buy our wonderful children/grand children/nieces/nephews their next pointless toy or present, we should think about donating that same money to an African charity that could supply safe drinking water to children of the same age who are dying of diarrhoea, as I'm typing this.



Thats a good idea.

Its curious why i never hear Bill Gates the [fake] philanthropist talk about spending his billions on a drinking water programme to provide clean drinking water and irrigation in Africa where there is hardly any.Unfortunately Bill Gates has a fixation on vaccines[produced by bigpharma companies he has shares in] being the panacea of all of the health and mortality problems in Africa.

How very curious  ;)

I am going make a miniture lifelike Bill Gates effigy and stick pins in it.  >:D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 10 June, 2011, 07:55:20 PM
Bill Gates the [fake] philanthropist

I'm not a fan of Gates- more of the opposite in fact, but this is bullshit. Not only that, I fear it may be libel.
Unless you have evidence that he doesn't actually do things like buy medicine and build schools, then I think you should retract that statement.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 10 June, 2011, 08:11:20 PM
To be fair, Marmite is filth so banning it got the thumbs up from me.

I love it  :D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 10 June, 2011, 08:11:50 PM
I am going make a miniture lifelike Bill Gates effigy and stick pins in it.  >:D

(http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070817191235/uncyclopedia/images/1/19/Ms_paperclip.jpg)

'I see you are making a miniature, lifelike Bill Gates effigy. Would you like some help with that?'
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Jared Katooie 10 June, 2011, 08:29:22 PM
Bill Gates the [fake] philanthropist

I'm not a fan of Gates- more of the opposite in fact, but this is bullshit. Not only that, I fear it may be libel.
Unless you have evidence that he doesn't actually do things like buy medicine and build schools, then I think you should retract that statement.

What we can't even LIBEL people anymore?!

This is the most depressing thing that's ever happened to me - even worse than that time Michael Keaton shot my cousin...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 10 June, 2011, 08:37:11 PM
Bill Gates the [fake] philanthropist

I'm not a fan of Gates- more of the opposite in fact, but this is bullshit. Not only that, I fear it may be libel.
Unless you have evidence that he doesn't actually do things like buy medicine and build schools, then I think you should retract that statement.

I wasnt saying that Bill Gates doesnt spend money on medicines and schools but i was talking about his interest in vaccines.

Perhaps i worded it wrong and fixation was misread as to the exclusion of everything else.

The Gates foundation do spend on sanitation programmes but going by their own website they say this :


Water and Hygiene:
Over the past several years we have invested significantly in technologies and methods for increasing sustainable access to clean water and hygiene in addition to our funding for sanitation. While our focus is on sanitation, we will continue to provide limited funding to promising clean water and hygiene solutions.


: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 10 June, 2011, 09:13:11 PM
Okay, this thread started as a friendly irreverent discussion of "conspiracy theory" type subjects, and I enjoyed it, but I won't be back after this post as the last few days have seen such a deluge of lies and bullshit that I now realise it's just a safe quarantined part of the board where the usual internet bollox can go on harmlessly without bothering normal folk.

Examples of "last straw" bullshit:

No discussion and no debate and no referendum [direct democracy] about joining the EU which is part of the Bilderberg agenda
Britain held a referendum about joining the EU on 5th June 1975

For example the military intervention in Libya.No discussion and no debate in parliament in the UK
Parliament debated UK military action against Libya on 21st March 2011. Our elected representatives voted 557:13 to take action.

It has been shown that a fair few natural substances such as hemp oil, bicarbonate of soda, peach pits and mistletoe (amongst a fair few others) are very effective in curing cancer*
Despite the weaselly disclaimer attached, this makes me fucking angry. Mankind does not and never has found a way to stop the internal destruction that occurs when natural cellular reproduction goes batshit. If fucking peach pits did this, then "big Pharma" would have been establishing vast peach plantations the second it was proved. Some substances may help to avoid cancer; some substances may slow the effects of cancer, and even so these effects are difficult to prove, but NOTHING we know of will cure it. Anyone who advocates trawling the internet for hemp oil and mistletoe remedies thinking their cancer is going to be cured are simply victims of exploitation (including people I have known), just as much as idiots hooked on big-pharma antibiotics for the solution to all ills. Those who actually promote such bullshit are no better than mediums, faith healers and snake-oil salesman.

As Tim Minchin put it: "What do they call alternative medicine that is proven to actually work?. They call it medicine."

I've got no time for evil big pharma bastards; and I believe the Bildeburg group are a bunch of evil cunts committed to forging policy that ensure that they and their rich pals stay rich and powerful by shitting on the rest of us from a great height.

This is no secret, this is no conspiracy, but when you try to raise awareness through lies and bullshit, you just do more damage than good. Bottom line, "people" are stupid and very easily bought. Why does Saudi Arabia not have the same demos as the rest of the middle East? Cos they can afford to create loads of non-jobs, handouts and low taxation to buy people's complacency. In the Western world, we're living the high life at the expense of the less-developed world - who's going to vote for lower (but fairer) living standards? we're more bothered about who's judging X-factor than who's facing trial in the Hague.

And part of the reason that the majority of people don't engage with these issues is that since the advent of the internet, the debate seems to be dominated by bullshitters and lunatics.

Peace and farewell, this is my last post on this thread.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 10 June, 2011, 09:27:38 PM
Yes, Sharkey, terrible statistics, but are they solely down to the politicians and corporations and have nothing to do with the decadent Western population?  Perhaps, in future, before we buy our wonderful children/grand children/nieces/nephews their next pointless toy or present, we should think about donating that same money to an African charity that could supply safe drinking water to children of the same age who are dying of diarrhoea, as I'm typing this.

Of course, that won't happen, because we must get our loved ones the latest computer game or their zillionth cuddly toy.  Yeah, go on, blame it all on the politicians and corporations, it'll make you feel better.

It's not about assigning blame - that's the least productive thing to do. It's about understanding the horrendous flaws in the system and working out how to do things better. This is something we are all responsible for - as you rightly allude. I take my part of that responsibility quite seriously as I hope my trying to put my views across demonstrates. I don't for on second believe that I have all the pieces of the puzzle or understand exactly what's going on with any more clarity, authority or understanding than anyone else. Never believe anything I write here, never take my word for it. If what I say piques your interest, then by all means hit Ixquick or Google and satisfy yourself that I'm talking sense/nonsense.

I don't for one minute think that there are rooms full of Big Pharma executives who sit around all day thinking "how many people can we kill today?" (That said, I know that many "elites" do favour population reduction by fair means or foul and people who do subscribe to this view may make business decisions at least coloured by this type of eugenics.) What I do think is that artificial substances like aspartame are engineered to fulfil a purpose (in this case, a sweetener that doesn't make you fat or rot your teeth) without causing harm. The fact that the engineered substance does transpire to cause harm is then either covered up or played down because the development of said substance has a substantial dollar value attached to it which must be recovered. So, if Substance Y causes diabetes in a smallish number of people then it isn't the end of the world for the company who makes Substance Y because they also make Substance X which happens to be a diabetes drug. These things evolve.

Let me just present you with this hypothetical:

Let's imagine that I discover that I've got cancer. In this country, the only legal way to treat cancer is through licensed medicine which is very harsh and destructive.

In reality, I have three choices: Firstly, I could ignore the diagnosis altogether and just live with it. Secondly, I could deliver myself into the hands of modern western medicine which will bombard me with radiation, inject me with toxic chemicals or even slice me open and cut chunks of me away. Thirdly, I could rub a drop of hemp oil into my gums once a day for a month. Given the option, which one should I choose? Which one would you choose?

There are many corporate agendas in the world - sometimes the overlap or coincide and then that can look like a large conspiracy instead of lots of little pockets of corporate self-interest.

BTW, if anyone has Sky TV: Sky Channel 201, Showcase TV (free) is showing the documentary "Cancer: Forbidden Cures" at 10pm this evening.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 10 June, 2011, 09:49:11 PM

In reality, I have three choices: Firstly, I could ignore the diagnosis altogether and just live with it. Secondly, I could deliver myself into the hands of modern western medicine which will bombard me with radiation, inject me with toxic chemicals or even slice me open and cut chunks of me away. Thirdly, I could rub a drop of hemp oil into my gums once a day for a month. Given the option, which one should I choose? Which one would you choose?


The one that works. Listen to your Doctor. Most of them are decent honest people. At least the ones I know are.

Dentists are bastards though. Now they are definitely up to something. You can indentify anyone from their dental records. Clearly dentists have a huge record of everyone. But it goes deeper, the dentists are in bed with the confectionary and sweeties giants. Coca-Cola owns your dentist. Coca-Cola gives you cavities, dentists give you fillings. When these fillings react with the flouride the dentists insist we should have in our water supply, it sends out an electro-chemical signal with which their spy satellites track you.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 10 June, 2011, 09:51:42 PM

Mankind does not and never has found a way to stop the internal destruction that occurs when natural cellular reproduction goes batshit. If fucking peach pits did this, then "big Pharma" would have been establishing vast peach plantations the second it was proved.

Peace and farewell, this is my last post on this thread.

As I said, peach plantations would be no good to Big Pharma as they cannot patent naturally occurring substances. They may be able to create, say, "Peach Pit Powders" to treat certain cancers, but their profits from such a thing would be tiny compared to what they can charge for a single chemotherapy pill.

Rene Caisse, a nurse in the first half of the last century, cured hundreds of cancer patients with a mixture of herbs she learned from a Native American healer. The medical establishment refused to even look at her results, let alone test the mixture (which she called Essiac) to prove or disprove its efficacy.

"As Tim Minchin put it: "What do they call alternative medicine that is proven to actually work?. They call it medicine.""

Tim Minchin the comedian? Oh well, that's me sold. If Mr Minchin is satisfied that there is not one single naturally occurring substance on Earth that is effective against cancer then who am I to argue?

Farewell, DDD - go in peace. I certainly wasn't trying to convince you or recruit you and my "mealy mouthed disclaimer" that I may be wrong about what I've learned was meant respectfully to all. That admission is more than you'll get from a modern oncologist, though.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 10 June, 2011, 10:02:09 PM

Listen to your Doctor. Most of them are decent honest people. At least the ones I know are.

You are absolutely right; the overwhelming majority of doctors are decent, honest and caring people. Your GP, though, probably does not undertake medical research. Drugs companies do most of the research and tell the doctors what they've discovered - which is generally that they've invented a new drug which is good for this or that. No matter how decent and honest a doctor is, if he or she is being given skewed data to begin with then he or she can only pass on skewed data to their patients in good faith.

Not every artificial remedy is bad, poisonous or evil - but most of them are expensive. Wherever possible, I firmly believe that natural remedies are preferable but in recent times we seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why invent something that costs $300 a pill when you could, say, grind a couple of wild seeds to powder instead?


Edit: Rene Caisse obituary: http://www.essiacinfo.org/caisse_pop_4.htm (http://www.essiacinfo.org/caisse_pop_4.htm)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 10 June, 2011, 10:09:51 PM
Drugs companies do most of the research and tell the doctors what they've discovered - which is generally that they've invented a new drug which is good for this or that. No matter how decent and honest a doctor is, if he or she is being given skewed data to begin with then he or she can only pass on skewed data to their patients in good faith.

You can't conduct a clinical trial without the help of doctors. After a drug has been given to healthy people (Phase I) to demonstrate that it is at least non-fatal and reasonably safe and the known side-effects are acceptable, Phase III of a clinical trial - the last before commercialization - is to administer the drug to patients. You can't administer drugs to people without the help of doctors. Doctors are responsible for collecting the data during psae II and Phase III of a clinical trial. If doctors are at all misled about the benefits of a drug, then other doctors further up the chain are at least partly responsible.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 10 June, 2011, 10:29:16 PM
You shouldnt get annoyed about it all as its just comments on the internet.

Chill .Peace to you brother  :D

In any event people should check things out for themselves and be their own judge.

The EEC/EU referendum in 1975 was for continued membership of the EEC which is something else entirely to the EU as it is now as it was a trading bloc so the voters in the UK voted yes on the basis of staying in a trading bloc but they didnt vote on being a member of the EU as it is now as it didnt exist then in practice.

We were promised a referendum and the new labour govt renaged on its promise and Cameron also promised a referendum [pre-election] and for a short while afterwards and then nothing as the topic is off the menu and they later presented the AV referendum as something of a distraction.



As for the UK govt voting on Libya they were voting on something that had already begun and the matter was put to the vote in a very short space of time and there was no emergency session held regarding this as far as i know.The case for it [partly after the event] was made to be compelling as it was sold on humanitarian grounds and the enforcement of a no fly zone if a no fly zone means one that involves NATO fighter planes.They just sat round for a day while debating other topics such as the lowering of the drink drive limit and all the while the UK was launching Tomahawk missiles from submarines at Libya and then this all the while knowing that the UK military was massing outside Libya in preperation for this which had been going on for weeks yet there was no discussion about this and then all of a sudden a UN resolution was passed and the UK being a member of the UN Security Council was obliged to uphold the resolution.

The UK in its UN capacity pushed for the resolution which it got and then the govt voted on the resolution that the UK was already committed to or else it wouldnt have pushed for it so its not as if there was ever going to be a majority against it and even if there was it wouldnt have made any difference at all as the UN has assumed authority over the UK govt with the UK being a memeber of the Security Council so it was a foregone conclusion with any debate and vote being a complete farce.

Not much dissent there and if there was it wouldnt have made any difference and if the vote did make any difference then they obviously think voting for an open ended offensive that will cost billions and billions is somehow beneficial to the people of the UK.

They were all probably compelled to vote in favor as there is a lot of compelling that goes on in govt.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 10 June, 2011, 10:37:30 PM
"As Tim Minchin put it: "What do they call alternative medicine that is proven to actually work?. They call it medicine.""

Tim Minchin the comedian? Oh well, that's me sold. If Mr Minchin is satisfied that there is not one single naturally occurring substance on Earth that is effective against cancer then who am I to argue?

Now that's just fucking silly. You're not a stupid man- you know he neither said nor meant that, so why the cheap jibe?

And I do find it curious that you question his opinion (or rather the spin you chose to put on it) because it was stated by a comedian, but are will to accept the word of someone on the internet over that of a fire fighter or metallurgist when the reasons for the collapse of the twin towers are explained.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: I, Cosh 10 June, 2011, 10:56:43 PM
"As Tim Minchin put it: "What do they call alternative medicine that is proven to actually work?. They call it medicine.""

Tim Minchin the comedian? Oh well, that's me sold. If Mr Minchin is satisfied that there is not one single naturally occurring substance on Earth that is effective against cancer then who am I to argue?
I'm not inclined to defend large drug companies who I'm sure are only interested in drug research as a means to maximise profits, who are definitely guilty of profiteering and immoral behaviour and who I think are increasingly engaged in a project to peddle medical solutions to non-existent social problems. However, I also think proper testing and regulation are essential in something as potentially harmful as medicine. You appear to have (I assume deliberately) misinterpreted DDD's point. If a "naturally occuring substance" is proven to have observable, verifiable effects measured in recognised trials against any condition and is subsequently used as the basis of treatment then it is a medicine. Simple as that.

To answer your question about what treatment I'd choose having been diagnosed with cancer. That's also simple. The regime which has a wealth of documented and empiric evidence for its efficacy in the amelioration of my symptoms.

I may be misreading, but you appear to be afflicted with the old "natural good, synthetic bad" malaise. Here's the thing. Nature is made of chemicals. Radiation is a natural process. Chemicals combine and react with each other in unpredictable ways all the time. Humans have been taking naturally ocurring substances (let's take flint as an example) for thousands of years and through various refining processes (let's say hammering, shaving and sharpening the initially shapeless, useless block of stone) synthesising something more concentrated and useful (let's say an arrowhead.) Refinement and standardisation of chemicals to make drugs is surely just an extension of this same, admirable, process.

Going back to your hemp oil. If it is effective against my theoretical cancer then how much should I take and how often? The problem with naturally occuring substances is that they don't naturally occur in uniform quanitities or concentrations. In order to ensure a standarised dosage you need refinement and quality control. As far as I'm concerned, proper legal regulation of this process is an absolute necessity. If you're making health-giving claims for your product then you most definitely have to be able to assure me I'm getting a certain amount in a certain way. When you mentioned it not being legal to provide other treatments, I think (could be wrong) you were talking about this. As far as I know (again, you're probably better informed on this) you can sell whatever you like, you just can't make claims about it's medicinal properties if it hasn't actually been tested and licenced. Why's this a big deal for the suppliers? Because you can charge more and sell more if people believe it's good for them. There's just as much vile profiteering from other people's misery in the snake oil industry as there is in the pharmaceutical industry. Possibly more, given that they actually know they're lying.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 10 June, 2011, 11:13:03 PM
Its apricot kernels that are thought to cure cancer or the soft substance inside them and the active ingredient is Vitamin B17.

Now supposing this is proven to be a fact then the drug companies could produce a cancer cure that is 100 percent effective but they cant patent the active ingredient but they could still sell the cure and they would have to be able to produce enough of the active ingredient but this would make the rest of cancer treatment industry redundant apart from that which would be researching vit B17 so there would be a massive loss to the majority of the cancer research industry as it is a billion $$$$$$$$$$$$$ plus industry so think of the implications of that.

Also one company would not have the monopoly of the market either as anyone can produce the active ingredient so competition would be based on costs and its a cheap ingredient so in terms of profitability if you are a drug company then its easy to see that there isnt much cash to be made out of it.

Add that to the losses and collapse of the cancer research industry.

If you were motivated by cash and you had a billion dollar fortune 500 company with shareholders all wanting their share of the goose that lays the golden egg what would you be thinking  :-*

Think about it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 10 June, 2011, 11:16:23 PM
Yeah, that's why alchemical research into the Philosopher's stone has halted.

Laughter is the best medicine. Bigfoot told me so.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 10 June, 2011, 11:17:40 PM
This is water I'm not keen on swimming in, but I direct everyone who hasn't already been to Ben Goldacre's blog http://www.badscience.net/, (http://ttp://www.badscience.net/,) and indeed his excellent book Bad Science.  There you will see someone who actively fights both the claims of Big Pharma, Alternative Medicine and their allies The Meja and the Gubbermint with the tools of science and reason.  

From following Dr. Goldacre for several years now one thing is clear to me:  people become doctors and medical scientists to help people.  Any conspiracy to subvert that aim will be resisted by the best and the brightest.  If there were scientifically demonstrable cures of the kind claimed by the alternative community, the medical profession would be all over them.  And with that endorsement Boots would be selling them by the truckload.  And everyone would win.  Sick people don't earn money, dead people don't spend it:  a long prosperous life is in everyone's interests, profit-based and otherwise.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 10 June, 2011, 11:20:11 PM
Its apricot kernels that are thought to cure cancer

Really? All cancers? Everything from melanomas to leukemia? REALLY?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 11 June, 2011, 12:09:17 AM
This thread is becming unhealthy. I prescribe a change of subject.

FIFA have hired Henry Kissenger. Any thoughts?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 11 June, 2011, 12:42:02 AM
Its apricot kernels that are thought to cure cancer

Really? All cancers? Everything from melanomas to leukemia? REALLY?

[I have been drinking.... :o]

Heres a link to a website with lots of articles about it.If you are interested in Natural* health then this website is the most reliable and its all in one place which makes it all easy rather than trawling thorough endless websites wanting to sell you their products as well as the quacks:

http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=vitamin+b17&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=38&sa.y=11&sa=Search&siteurl=www.naturalnews.com%2Fcancer.html#1348 (http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=vitamin+b17&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=38&sa.y=11&sa=Search&siteurl=www.naturalnews.com%2Fcancer.html#1348)

In some cases their is still a case for orthodox cancer treatment in certain cases but having watched a very close relative deteriorate and then die from a rare form of cancer i have mixed feelings on the subject.In some cases like my brother if its in its advanced stages then there is really no alternative to cutting bits out to contain it but its the chemotherapy treatment that i am sceptical of and so was my brother who was convinced he was subjected to the wrong kind of treatment.The consultant/Doctor treating my brother was not a bad guy as himself and others offer what they believe is the best possible treatment possible but that doesnt make them infallible or give them the ability to save a patient 100 percent of the time but it doesnt mean they are Dr Death either.

I dont know if Vit B17 works as a cure apart from what i have read as i have had no direct experience of it but if there is evidence that it does cure cancer then it should be subjected to proper research if it offers an alternative to being pumped full of toxic chemicals while you are in already critcal state of health.

Those are my thoughts on it and everyone is free to think what they like about it as i dont particularly care what others think anyway.

You get good doctors and bad doctors but doctors cant be blamed as they are trained in one school of medicine and if you dont like it then dont go to a doctor as everyone has the choice as its their health and they make their own choices.Your GP only really perscribe in a lot of cases and they act on the info they have been given regarding drugs with the best intentions a lot of the time.

Everything has to black and white to a lot of people but in reality its not like that.

Doctors are not infallible as they get things wrong  and if you are seriously ill then get more than one opinion.A close friend of mine was diagnosed with ME and suffered with it for years and never got a second opinion and then it finally transpired he had a type of Leukemia but by that point it was too late and he was admitted to hospital and went into a coma and then died.

Dont trust orthodox medicine implicitely and dont trust alternative medicine implicitly.Do your own research as the NHS isnt going to do it for you.

Codex Alimentaris is Fascism and denies you choice so Fuck them and as usual with these things it is a trojan horse that is used against you while it is sold as something that is meant to protect you through regulation which it partly does but banning rock salt ????

Denied the right to eat rock salt or to sell it ?

Big govt and the UN care about my health so much that they restrict the sale of all that nasty rock salt that has all those nasty minerals and rare earth elements in it that are so bad for your health as they care about me so much ?

I feel so much more safe and secure without all that nasty rock salt and all those nasty vitamins.

Do me a fucking favor.please..... :lol: :crazy:



In the old days alternative medicine was known as complimentary medicine which meant it was complimentary rather than something that is subjected to criminalisation.

I have been drinking but i have really enjoyed this thread and reading the comments and typing the replies and it brightened up an otherwise boring night.

This thread is becming unhealthy. I prescribe a change of subject.

FIFA have hired Henry Kissenger. Any thoughts?

Henry Kissinger is not in Fifa and never has been.This question has been discounted so please choose another............

*Yes i know its all natural anyway...............
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 11 June, 2011, 12:45:13 AM
[I have been drinking.... :o]

ME TOO :lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 11 June, 2011, 12:46:32 AM
[I have been drinking.... :o]

ME TOO :lol:

I have run out now but i want more :lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 June, 2011, 12:48:50 AM
You can't conduct a clinical trial without the help of doctors. After a drug has been given to healthy people (Phase I) to demonstrate that it is at least non-fatal and reasonably safe and the known side-effects are acceptable, Phase III of a clinical trial - the last before commercialization - is to administer the drug to patients. You can't administer drugs to people without the help of doctors. Doctors are responsible for collecting the data during psae II and Phase III of a clinical trial. If doctors are at all misled about the benefits of a drug, then other doctors further up the chain are at least partly responsible.

Granted. However: Do the doctors administering the drugs know what's in those drugs, or is their impartiality enhanced by not knowing? Whilst doctors do indeed administer and take note, they're basically just acting as glorified Pez dispensers. Furthermore, think about this: It's the drug companies who fund these trials with a view to ending up with a commercially viable product. Which drug company is going to spend £50million testing hemp oil in this way when they won't be able to patent the result? Not only will the drug companies not be able to patent the plant but a positive result will cost them millions, maybe even billions, in cancer drug revenue when it's discovered that a practically free weed does the job of a £5,000 per month artificial, patented drug. This is why you always hear opponents of natural cancer cures (et al) saying things like "there is absolutely no scientific evidence for these claims." There is no scientific evidence because the drug companies refuse to spend the money gathering it. It's a classic Catch 22 situation.

"As Tim Minchin put it: "What do they call alternative medicine that is proven to actually work?. They call it medicine.""

Tim Minchin the comedian? Oh well, that's me sold. If Mr Minchin is satisfied that there is not one single naturally occurring substance on Earth that is effective against cancer then who am I to argue?

Now that's just fucking silly. You're not a stupid man- you know he neither said nor meant that, so why the cheap jibe?

And I do find it curious that you question his opinion (or rather the spin you chose to put on it) because it was stated by a comedian, but are will to accept the word of someone on the internet over that of a fire fighter or metallurgist when the reasons for the collapse of the twin towers are explained.

The cheap jibe was my frustration, and you're right - maybe it was wrong of me to say that. However, DDD also said "Mankind does not and never has found a way to stop the internal destruction that occurs when natural cellular reproduction goes batshit. If fucking peach pits did this, then "big Pharma" would have been establishing vast peach plantations the second it was proved." If he'd bothered to Google any of the cancer therapies I've mentioned so far (or the Gerson Therapy, Vitamin B17, Shark Cartilage, Iscador or the role of the fungus Candida Albicans in possibly causing cancers, or watched the documentary "Cancer: The Forbidden Cures", or any number of other things like that) then he'd see that mankind has known how to cure many (not all) cancers for a great many years. There are Indian medical books from 1,000 years ago that describe the efficacy of certain alkalis on hard to cure cancers.

All this he pooh-poohed because, I assume, he just didn't want to think about it or believe that alternatives to conventional, destructive therapies are the Only Way. Then he throws in a quip by a comedian whose job is to make people laugh as if that's somehow a valid argument. So yes, I got frustrated and made that silly comment. You're right, it was a cheap shot. You're also wrong - it would appear that by making that cheap jibe we have proved that I am indeed a stupid man  :lol:

If a "naturally occuring substance" is proven to have observable, verifiable effects measured in recognised trials against any condition and is subsequently used as the basis of treatment then it is a medicine. Simple as that.

To answer your question about what treatment I'd choose having been diagnosed with cancer. That's also simple. The regime which has a wealth of documented and empiric evidence for its efficacy in the amelioration of my symptoms.

I may be misreading, but you appear to be afflicted with the old "natural good, synthetic bad" malaise....

Going back to your hemp oil. If it is effective against my theoretical cancer then how much should I take and how often?

I hope my earlier waffling answered some of this, Cosh.

As to dosage of hemp oil - without looking it up I can only give a brief, rough description of the process. First, you need a large bucket full of bone dry hemp buds, to which you add about two gallons of solvent like pure naphtha or isopropyl alcohol. It's best to soak the buds more than once to extract all the THC from the hemp. The solvent is then gently boiled off (be VERY careful at this stage as the fumes can easily ignite). Eventually, you will be left with a dark brown or amber oil (not much - say enough to fill a modest syringe). A drop of this oil about the same size as a grain of rice rubbed into the gums two to four times a day for a month is enough to cure most internal cancers. For skin cancers, simply rub the same amount into the exposed melanoma. (Another mealy-mouthed disclaimer here - I wrote that from memory so if you want to do it yourself you'd best look it up to be sure.)

 
...people become doctors and medical scientists to help people.  Any conspiracy to subvert that aim will be resisted by the best and the brightest.  If there were scientifically demonstrable cures of the kind claimed by the alternative community, the medical profession would be all over them.  And with that endorsement Boots would be selling them by the truckload.  And everyone would win.  Sick people don't earn money, dead people don't spend it:  a long prosperous life is in everyone's interests, profit-based and otherwise.

Drug companies do want you to live long lives - long, unhealthy lives. If the drugs they made cured people, their own business Model would destroy them. Drug companies fund medical schools, research, advertising. They send doctors freebies and gifts right from Day 1 of medical school. Doctors have to be clever to learn all they need to learn but just stop and think for a minute; when you go to the doctor's, 90% of the time, what do you come out with? A prescription. The other 10% of the time you come out with a referral to another doctor who is a specialist in a certain area of issuing prescriptions. It is how the doctors have been taught. As for Boots selling "complimentary medicines" - that's what kicked this discussion off: Codex Alimentarius - an attempt to make natural "scientifically unproven" (see above) medicines and additives illegal.

Its apricot kernels that are thought to cure cancer

Really? All cancers? Everything from melanomas to leukemia? REALLY?

Peter's right - although I think peach pits also contain VB17.

Some cancers hare harder to cure than others, but all seem to be curable.The hardest cancer to cure is bone cancer because bones receive very little blood and it is therefore hard to use the bloodstream to administer any treatments.

Jeez - that turned into a bit of a novel, didn't it! Sorry about that!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 11 June, 2011, 01:06:12 AM
Do the doctors administering the drugs know what's in those drugs, or is their impartiality enhanced by not knowing?

No, not if they're doing a double blind test. They do have protocols for these things. Imperical method and all that. Control groups and suchlike. It may not be perfect, but it's fairly rigorous.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 June, 2011, 01:14:31 AM
Let me just state for the record that I'm sure many artificial drugs are perfectly efficacious. If they don't work, they won't make money. If they kill people, they won't make money. If they cause massive side-effects, they won't make money. However, if they cause slight side-effects then they actually make more money because then they can be sold along with other drugs to alleviate the side-effects. What Big Pharma is essentially doing is trying to re-invent the wheel for profit. If any industry should be nationalized, it's the drugs companies. A government would be much better placed to thoroughly test the efficacy of the above mentioned cures and treatments as governments don't need to make a profit. Indeed, government run pharmacological production would probably welcome these much cheaper options leading to, perversely, probably the exact opposite of the situation we have now where they'd rather test dandelions than highly complex chemicals to save money.

All we need is a bit of common sense. A bit of balance.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 June, 2011, 02:35:27 AM
Lawful Disobedience: ARREST THAT JUDGE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6FUawBzSgQ&feature=share (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6FUawBzSgQ&feature=share)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 11 June, 2011, 02:48:02 AM
Perhaps i worded it wrong and fixation was misread as to the exclusion of everything else.


Are you trying to pull the piss out of me Pete?

Because on this forum, I've 'ad th' best.


I've 'ad Rennie, Spurrior, Timson, Teague, the best, Molcher, Wyatt, you hear me... Not to mention the best o' th' rest ?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 11 June, 2011, 09:57:45 AM
Heres a link to a website with lots of articles about it.If you are interested in Natural* health then this website is the most reliable and its all in one place which makes it all easy rather than trawling thorough endless websites wanting to sell you their products as well as the quacks:

http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=vitamin+b17&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=38&sa.y=11&sa=Search&siteurl=www.naturalnews.com%2Fcancer.html#1348

So I then looked up this Wonder drug on other sites and found this:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

Laetrile is the trade name for laevo-mandelonitrile-beta-glucuronoside, a substance allegedly synthesized by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., and registered with the U.S. Patent Office for the treatment of "disorders of intestinal fermentation." This compound is chemically related to amygdalin, a substance found naturally in the pits of apricots and various other fruits... It was tried as an anticancer agent in Germany in 1892, but was discarded as ineffective and too toxic for that purpose. During the early 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., M.D., and his son Ernst, Jr., began using a "purified" form of amygdalin to treat cancer patients. Since that time scientists have tested substances called "Laetrile" in more than 20 animal tumor models as well as in humans and found no benefit either alone or together with other substances.

Who needs 'Big Pharma' when you have these fucking con men ripping off the poor, scared and desperate, eh?

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 11 June, 2011, 11:12:34 AM
Which drug company is going to spend £50million testing hemp oil in this way when they won't be able to patent the result? Not only will the drug companies not be able to patent the plant but a positive result will cost them millions, maybe even billions, in cancer drug revenue when it's discovered that a practically free weed does the job of a £5,000 per month artificial, patented drug. This is why you always hear opponents of natural cancer cures (et al) saying things like "there is absolutely no scientific evidence for these claims." There is no scientific evidence because the drug companies refuse to spend the money gathering it. It's a classic Catch 22 situation.

In pharmaceuticals development, £50 million is chickenfeed, and if you thought that Big Pharma wasn't dipping its toes in the cannabinoid pharmaceuticals market you'd be wrong.

http://www.gwpharm.com/release-sativex-launch.aspx (http://www.gwpharm.com/release-sativex-launch.aspx)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 June, 2011, 02:00:07 PM
Sativex Oromucosal Spray

QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE COMPOSITION
Each ml contains: 38-44 mg and 35-42 mg of two extracts (as soft extracts) from Cannabis sativa
L., folium cum flore (Cannabis leaf and flower) corresponding to 27 mg delta-
9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 25 mg cannabidiol.
Extraction solvent: Liquid carbon dioxide.

 
Each 100 microlitre spray contains:
2.7 mg delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 2.5 mg cannabidiol (CBD).
Each 100 microlitre spray also contains up to 0.04 g alcohol.

List of excipients: Ethanol anhydrous, Propylene glycol, Peppermint oil.

And the cost?  3x10ml Vial = £480.00

Seems a tad expensive for what's in it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 11 June, 2011, 02:37:56 PM
Heres a link to a website with lots of articles about it.If you are interested in Natural* health then this website is the most reliable and its all in one place which makes it all easy rather than trawling thorough endless websites wanting to sell you their products as well as the quacks:

http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=vitamin+b17&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=38&sa.y=11&sa=Search&siteurl=www.naturalnews.com%2Fcancer.html#1348

So I then looked up this Wonder drug on other sites and found this:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

Laetrile is the trade name for laevo-mandelonitrile-beta-glucuronoside, a substance allegedly synthesized by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., and registered with the U.S. Patent Office for the treatment of "disorders of intestinal fermentation." This compound is chemically related to amygdalin, a substance found naturally in the pits of apricots and various other fruits... It was tried as an anticancer agent in Germany in 1892, but was discarded as ineffective and too toxic for that purpose. During the early 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., M.D., and his son Ernst, Jr., began using a "purified" form of amygdalin to treat cancer patients. Since that time scientists have tested substances called "Laetrile" in more than 20 animal tumor models as well as in humans and found no benefit either alone or together with other substances.

Who needs 'Big Pharma' when you have these fucking con men ripping off the poor, scared and desperate, eh?




Fair enough as there is very little evidence that proves it cures cancer and the strongest case for it is that there are tribes of people who live in remote areas whose diets are high in B17 where there are no instances of cancer.

Anyway forget apricot kernels as Turmeric seems to be far more effective in treating cancer and even Cancer Research are talking about it:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NP_RfoLKzl0J:www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/can-turmeric-prevent-bowel-cancer+turmeric+cancer+cure&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NP_RfoLKzl0J:www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/can-turmeric-prevent-bowel-cancer+turmeric+cancer+cure&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8328377.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8328377.stm)

I have experience of this myself and while it doesnt prove turmeric cures cancer its interesting given the fact it is being studied.I had a mole that appeared out of nowhere that grew in size and seemed to have similarities to a Melanoma.I had this when i was at the HI-EX.I went to a GP about it who said it wasnt "sinister" but no tests were done and it was left at that.I didnt bother going to see a specialist.It was itchy and had a scabby surface to it.I didnt know it was cancer for sure but it felt like there was something wrong.

Back in december i started taking a very small amount of ground turmeric daily as a detox and i noticed that what i thought was Melanoma as in the mole started to fade and shrink in size to the point now where there is a very faint trace of the mole and its returning to normal skin as it was before the mole appeared.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 June, 2011, 02:48:19 PM
When one thinks of all the plastics, metals, insecticides, hormones and Christ knows what else that surround us these days it's no wonder so many people are falling ill. When I was at primary school, I only remember one kid having asthma - now it seems like every other child has it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 11 June, 2011, 03:12:00 PM
Anyway forget apricot kernels

No, let's not. It is not acceptable to throw shit like 'Apricot kernels cure all cancer' and then say 'Anyway forget it' when someone presents you with evidence to the contrary, and then follow it up with something equally left field.

If you don't want to be taken to task for making extraordinary claims, then don't make them

I have experience of this myself

You have? Okay...

 
and while it doesnt prove turmeric cures cancer

Ah- so actually you haven't. Why mention it then?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 11 June, 2011, 03:31:53 PM
'Fair enough as there is very little evidence that proves it cures cancer and the strongest case for it is that there are tribes of people who live in remote areas whose diets are high in B17 where there are no instances of cancer'.

They could also have no instances traffic polution, plastic products surrounding them from birth, processed foods, meat injected with protiens and growth hormones...  doesn't prove anything. 

I'd put money on guessing that the tribes that eat long-pig have no instances of cancer, should we all start eating that?

Go to the badscience page, read learn!!  ::)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 11 June, 2011, 03:56:08 PM
Its apricot kernels that are thought to cure cancer

Really? All cancers? Everything from melanomas to leukemia? REALLY?

[I have been drinking.... :o]

Heres a link to a website with lots of articles about it.If you are interested in Natural* health then this website is the most reliable and its all in one place which makes it all easy rather than trawling thorough endless websites wanting to sell you their products as well as the quacks:

http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=vitamin+b17&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=38&sa.y=11&sa=Search&siteurl=www.naturalnews.com%2Fcancer.html#1348 (http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=vitamin+b17&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=38&sa.y=11&sa=Search&siteurl=www.naturalnews.com%2Fcancer.html#1348)

An internal search on someone's website isn't that useful. This would have been better:

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=vitamin+b17+cancer

Just a quick selection from the first page:

The vitamin fraud in cancer quackery - freely available to read online:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129741/

Alternative Cancer Cures: “Unproven” or “Disproven”?

Oncology has always coexisted with therapies offered outside of conventional cancer treatment centers and based on theories not found in biomedicine. These alternative cancer cures have often been described as “unproven,” suggesting that appropriate clinical trials have not been conducted and that the therapeutic value of the treatment is unknown. Contrary to much popular and scientific writing, many alternative cancer treatments have been investigated in good quality clinical trials, and they have been shown to be ineffective. In this article, clinical trial data on a number of alternative cancer cures including Livingston-Wheeler, Di Bella Multitherapy, antineoplastons, vitamin C, hydrazine sulfate, Laetrile, and psychotherapy are reviewed. The label “unproven” is inappropriate for such therapies; it is time to assert that many alternative cancer therapies have been “disproven.”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/canjclin.54.2.110/full

Obviously, if I or a close family member, had cancer I'd want to research things more thoroughly (and someone is always perfectly welcome not to go with the doctor's advice and rub hemp oil on their gums if they want) but on a quick skim there I'd have to say I'd be leaning towards the more unpleasant but effective medical treatments.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 June, 2011, 04:19:47 PM
Let's just hope that none of us ever has to test it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 11 June, 2011, 04:41:51 PM
'Fair enough as there is very little evidence that proves it cures cancer and the strongest case for it is that there are tribes of people who live in remote areas whose diets are high in B17 where there are no instances of cancer'.

They could also have no instances traffic polution, plastic products surrounding them from birth, processed foods, meat injected with protiens and growth hormones...  doesn't prove anything. 



Go to the badscience page, read learn!!  ::)


I was going to say the same thing as its obvious as its a clean enviroment.


Anyway forget apricot kernels

No, let's not. It is not acceptable to throw shit like 'Apricot kernels cure all cancer' and then say 'Anyway forget it' when someone presents you with evidence to the contrary, and then follow it up with something equally left field.

If you don't want to be taken to task for making extraordinary claims, then don't make them

I have experience of this myself

You have? Okay...

 
and while it doesnt prove turmeric cures cancer

Ah- so actually you haven't. Why mention it then?

So when i make statements that are incorrect [despite making no absolute claims as i used terms like "If" and "are thought to"] and i am corrected and state that i am wrong its still not good enough for you ?

I have already said that "there is very little evidence that b17 cures cancer" going by the article you linked to.

This is what happens in debate as its quite normal and if claims i have made are wrong  then that doesnt mean that i dont want to be taken to task over it as i dont object to being taken to task over anything and if i am proved wrong then its part of the learning process and wheni am debating things i am always reasonable but here you are coming across as somewhat unreasonable.

Where have i said i dont want to be taken to task over anything ?

"Ah so you actually havent..."

My comment was self explanatory and what i thought was Melanoma was not diagnosed as Melanoma as i have already explained.So at present its unknown wether or not i had cancer

"Why mention it then ?"

I mentioned it because i wanted to mention it and i thought it might be of interest and if i want to type an anecdote based on personal experience then i will.

Do i have to ask you first ?

As for Turmeric then the orthodox Cancer Research are researching it and so are others so i dont get why you still call it "Left field" in a dismissive way when the whole point of science and research is to investigate and research and test it so that it can produce empirical evidence for it which is what they are doing.

If science didnt investigate and research new things then technology would never improve.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 11 June, 2011, 07:36:51 PM
Anecdotal evidence is nowhere near the same as research.

Admit it - Richmond won that round.

M
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Robin Low 11 June, 2011, 08:55:39 PM
I have experience of this myself and while it doesnt prove turmeric cures cancer its interesting given the fact it is being studied.I had a mole that appeared out of nowhere that grew in size and seemed to have similarities to a Melanoma.I had this when i was at the HI-EX.I went to a GP about it who said it wasnt "sinister" but no tests were done and it was left at that.I didnt bother going to see a specialist.It was itchy and had a scabby surface to it.I didnt know it was cancer for sure but it felt like there was something wrong.

Sounds like a seborrheic keratosis. I had one myself a few years ago - first appeared as a smooth pale brown mole, then suddenly grew rather quickly to a darker, scabbier lump. At this point I went to my GP who gave me, and I quote accurately, "permission to pick". I was advised to rub some greasy moisturiser in to it first. However, all I did was just pick at the edges until it start to bleed, then stopped, then picked again the next day. I'd got rid of it by the end of the week, and now there's no sign it was ever there. (It goes without saying that I'd advise checking these things with GPs before picking, of course.)

We see heaps of bits of skin in the lab every week - sometimes it's hard to comprehend the sheer number of people who've had bits of skin sliced, excised or punched. Same for the number of people who've had tubes stuck up one end or the other to sample their guts.

Regards

Robin
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 11 June, 2011, 09:12:11 PM
When one thinks of all the plastics, metals, insecticides, hormones and Christ knows what else that surround us these days it's no wonder so many people are falling ill. When I was at primary school, I only remember one kid having asthma - now it seems like every other child has it.

I'm struggling with this point. I wouldn't deny that those things can have adverse effects on Human physiology, but, but, almost everything can. The things you've listed are just products of our modern age, and they cause modern problems. So everyone has asthma now? When my Great Granda was alive everyone had consumption.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 12 June, 2011, 12:25:19 AM
Anecdotal evidence is nowhere near the same as research.

Admit it - Richmond won that round.

M

I thought that i already had admitted it above.

*

Moving on from that this video was brought to my attention this morning of all times.I knew nothing of it previously and i have watched three quarters of it earlier today.

I am not commenting on its content or its claims so here it is and if you could try not to shoot the messenger[myself] and presume that by providing the link to it i am advocating anything then that would be appreciated.

The Great Cancer Hoax:

http://www.burzynskimovie.com/ (http://www.burzynskimovie.com/)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 12 June, 2011, 10:21:02 AM
Ah-I broke my own rule about posting on this thread I see! (Plus the general not when drinking one) Glad I didn't fuel any flames - it was the cheeky red's fault.

M
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 12 June, 2011, 11:22:17 AM
Ah-I broke my own rule about posting on this thread I see! (Plus the general not when drinking one) Glad I didn't fuel any flames - it was the cheeky red's fault.

M

You secure that shit next time Mikey !!

 :D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 12 June, 2011, 11:03:55 PM
... this video was brought to my attention this morning of all times.I knew nothing of it previously and I have watched three quarters of it earlier today.

I am not commenting on its content or its claims so here it is and if you could try not to shoot the messenger[myself] and presume that by providing the link to it i am advocating anything then that would be appreciated.

The Great Cancer Hoax:

http://www.burzynskimovie.com/ (http://www.burzynskimovie.com/)

Of course, one must always be careful with documentaries addressing such subjects (indeed, one must be careful of any documentary) but this one does seem to be honest and cites references throughout.

It does demonstrate how a cure for cancer would practically destroy the modern cancer treatment industry and bankrupt many drugs companies. There are conspiracies in the world otherwise the word conspiracy would not exist and films like this expose the naked greed which is behind most of them.

In years to come, I hope Dr Burzynski will be remembered in the same way that Christiaan Barnard or Ignaz Semmelweis are remembered today. The only horror is the millions of people who will suffer and die globally while the zealotry of conventional medicine prevails.

Thanks for posting that link, Peter. A thought-provoking and well made film that should be shown to every doctor and health minister.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Eric Plumrose 12 June, 2011, 11:34:49 PM
(http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/moloch4.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 13 June, 2011, 06:50:28 AM
He knows the score.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: mygrimmbrother 13 June, 2011, 11:34:44 AM
This thread upsets me. On the one hand I don't want to sound like a consipracy nutjob, but on the other anyone who thinks Big Pharma has our best interests at heart, the majority of GPs genuinely want to help people and that herbal medicine is some kind of hustle is genuinely naive.

But that's just, like, my opinion man.
 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 13 June, 2011, 11:41:26 AM
...but on the other anyone who thinks Big Pharma has our best interests at heart, the majority of GPs genuinely want to help people and that herbal medicine is some kind of hustle is genuinely naive.

I'll give you Big Pharma no problem, but the other two?  Yes, that's what I think.  Medical professionals aren't perfect, are of course influenced by the commercial environment and structures they operate within, but ultimately yes, they want to help people be healthier.  

Are you suggesting that homeopaths and the sellers of essential oils are pure altruists and guardians of hidden truths while Doctors aren't?  Because I think the entirety of human history and the bulk of rational thought strongly disagrees with you.  

I used to dig up long-dead people for a living - those folk would have killed for a GP or ER visit, but I bet they had access to all the home-grown herbs going, and they still lost over 50% of their live-birth children before they were five.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 June, 2011, 11:48:31 AM
This thread upsets me. On the one hand I don't want to sound like a consipracy nutjob, but on the other anyone who thinks Big Pharma has our best interests at heart, the majority of GPs genuinely want to help people and that herbal medicine is some kind of hustle is genuinely naive.

But that's just, like, my opinion man.
 

Depends what you mean by 'herbal medicine'.
If you mean bottles of water that, they claim, contain the memory of something else, then I would say yes- they are absolutely on a hustle. They are fakes and con-men.
If you mean herbal remidies that have been proven to work, then of course they are not. As has been pointed out- we call these herbal cures 'medicine'.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 13 June, 2011, 11:48:34 AM
NM
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 13 June, 2011, 11:59:02 AM
jeez, take a chill pill... what do you mean they ain't been tested yet?  ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: mygrimmbrother 13 June, 2011, 12:13:55 PM
I don't mean homeopathy.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 June, 2011, 12:14:59 PM
I don't mean homeopathy.

Then I suspect we're all on the same page!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: mygrimmbrother 13 June, 2011, 12:18:00 PM
Sweet! Carry on...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 13 June, 2011, 01:38:29 PM
Codex Alimentaris is the World Trade Organisation/World Health Organisation working in conjunction with the Bigpharma cartel and international banks so clearly there is nothing untoward going on here at all and its nothing to do with monopolies and the profit motive.

"Harmonisation"

Codex Alimentaris will banish the scourge of vitamin supplements and dietary supplements except for those that they[BigPharma]produce and sell themselves of course at vastly inflated prices which they have licensed themselves to do.Nothing untoward about that.

Theres nothing untoward about drug companies being given a licence to take over the food and health supplements industry wholesale.

Curiously Codex Alimentaris does not require that GM food should be labelled.Nothing untoward about that either.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 June, 2011, 01:54:33 PM
Curiously Codex Alimentaris does not require that GM food should be labelled.Nothing untoward about that either.

You also fail to mention that it is voluntary and countries have no obligation to follow it.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/food/codex-alimentarius/
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 02:17:20 PM
If you mean bottles of water that, they claim, contain the memory of something else, then I would say yes- they are absolutely on a hustle. They are fakes and con-men.

I'm not so sure:

"Recently, chemists have made the surprising discovery that molecules form clusters that increase in size with dilution. These clusters measure several micro-metres in diameter. The increase in size occurs nonlinearly with dilution and it depends on history, flying in the face of classical chemistry. Indeed, there is as yet no explanation for the phenomenon. It may well be another reflection of the strangeness of water that depends on its quantum properties.

"In the mid-1990s, quantum physicists Del Giudice and Preparata and other colleagues in University of Milan, in Italy, argued that quantum coherent domains measuring 100nm in diameter could arise in pure water. They show how the collective vibrations of the water molecules in the coherent domain eventually become phase-locked to the fluctuations of the global electromagnetic field. In this way, long-lasting, stable oscillations could be maintained in the water.

"One way in which ‘memory’ might be stored in water is through the excitation of long-lasting coherent oscillations specific to the substances in the homeopathic remedy dissolved in water. Interaction of water molecules with other molecules changes the collective structure of water, which would in turn determine the specific coherent oscillations that will develop. If these become stabilised and maintained by phase coupling between the global field and the excited molecules, then, even when the dissolved substances are diluted away, the water may still carry the coherent oscillations that can ‘seed’ other volumes of water on dilution." (1)

Of course, this is all Greek to me so I can't say whether water is capable of holding "memories" or not. I can't rule it out, though. If there wasn't something in homeopathy then people wouldn't use it. That something, of course, may be nothing more than a placebo effect or it may be something that modern science doesn't yet understand. I don't know - and to be frank, neither do you.

I'm a great fan of science, but it is not my religion. I say that because some of the responses I've had from science fans in the past (not here on this thread, I hasten to add) on trying to discuss things like homeopathy prompt knee-jerk dismissal and even anger. I find this very curious from a discipline that is supposed to look at things rationally. It's often like listening to some Evangelist screaming about Heaven and Hell.

As with the cancer treatments we've been discussing I think we need to keep open minds. Science should be investigating these claims thoroughly and if it turns out that hemp oil or B17 or sodium bicarbonate can cure cancers then we shouldn't let the accountants overrule the scientists as is happening now.

At the moment, humanity is such a stupid species. We have all this potential around us but instead of using our resources to investigate these things we'd rather squander them on profits or buying bombs to atomise Iraqis with. (Speaking of which, did you know that depleted uranium microparticles, which can cause cancers and birth defects if inhaled, have been found in the UK? (2) It's unclear whether these microparticles which are created when the DU rounds are fired have arrived on the wind from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya (etc) or from weapons testing at home. This is what we'd rather be spending our money on?)

Earlier on in this thread it was suggested that I think natural stuff is all good and artificial stuff is all bad. This is most certainly not the case. Science is, in my opinion, one of mankind's greatest achievements and most precious assets. My beef is that once the accountants get involved even the most useful of tools can become blunted or misapplied. Going back to pure nature is not the answer and neither is relying entirely on science. We need to use all our assets if we are to survive as a species, and if that means throwing our resources into thoroughly investigating the possibility that water has a memory then I'd rather do that than just assume that homeopathy must be bollocks simply because I can't understand how such a thing might work.




(1) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/water3.php
(2) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article732523.ece
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 June, 2011, 02:21:48 PM
I'm not so sure:

Evidence disagrees with you, I'm afraid.

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=129
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 13 June, 2011, 02:28:34 PM
 'can't say whether water is capable of holding "memories" '

if it does we're all drinkling pish! not to mention every other thing that water has been in contact with  ::)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 02:47:23 PM
Curiously Codex Alimentaris does not require that GM food should be labelled.Nothing untoward about that either.

You also fail to mention that it is voluntary and countries have no obligation to follow it.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/food/codex-alimentarius/

Everything is voluntary. Technically, every EU directive is voluntary because we as a nation have no say in which directives the EU issues. Our government simply volunteers to comply. Bombing Iraq is voluntary. Sending ground troops into Libya is voluntary.

Technically speaking, statute law in this country is also voluntary. There is no common law saying that you must pay a speeding fine, for example - any speeding ticket you get is merely a cleverly worded invitation to pay.

I'm not so sure:

Evidence disagrees with you, I'm afraid.

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=129

A quick Whois search reveals the owner of that web page to be David Colquhoun, who is behind the website Improbable Science and was the Hon. Director of the Wellcome Laboratory for Molecular Pharmacology which is owned by the Wellcome supermarket chain, one of the two largest supermarket chains in Hong Kong. There is no evidence on that page - only opinion. The phrase "pure pseudo-scientific gobblydegook" may sound impressive, but it is not backed up by evidence. Unfortunately, the evidence that disagrees with me is not evidence at all.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 June, 2011, 02:52:17 PM
'can't say whether water is capable of holding "memories" '

if it does we're all drinkling pish! not to mention every other thing that water has been in contact with  ::)

I know I'm risking the ire of Mr Shark again... but you should listen to the Tim Michin song/poem Storm, where he makes this very point.


There is no evidence on that page - only opinion

Much the same as yours then?
There is no evidence that water has amemory. It dioesn not matter how it is dressed up or how many times the word quantum is thrown about- there is simply no evidence. If there is, then those with this evidence should present it in a scientific journal, allow it to be peer reviewed and then collect the Nobel proze that would no doubt follow.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 02:52:45 PM
'can't say whether water is capable of holding "memories" '

if it does we're all drinkling pish! not to mention every other thing that water has been in contact with  ::)

Er, whereabouts does it say that water memory (if such a thing exists) lasts forever and can be neither erased nor re-set?  ::)


Edit: Yes, absolutely - I can only speak from my opinion. And in my opinion, it's possible that water has a "memory" - it does, after all, "remember" how to be a solid, a liquid or a gas. (A spurious point, I know, but used here just to illustrate that the very word "memory" may not be exactly the correct one in the first place.)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 13 June, 2011, 02:55:52 PM
Curiously Codex Alimentaris does not require that GM food should be labelled.Nothing untoward about that either.

You also fail to mention that it is voluntary and countries have no obligation to follow it.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/food/codex-alimentarius/

Well i do apologise as it is voluntary on a governmental level but the EU has already fully signed up to it[so has the US] and its now been implemented by the EU through its directives.Every EU country is a member of the CODEX commission but the EU has been making something of a stand against GM which is ongoing so it may be that it is subject to a certain amount of discretion or autonomy which depends on how long any particular country can withstand pressure from corporate lobbyists and pressure from other CODEX members as a whole and from the organisation itself which is the WTO/WHO.

It has been adopted by 120 countries worldwide but i dont know if countries can adopt parts of its directives or wether or not by signing up to it they have to adopt it wholesale.

As for being obliged to follow it there is no wording in it that stipulates that any country has to follow its directives to the letter as the wording in it uses the word "shall" which doesnt in itself state that something is either voluntary or mandatory so in time this may be subject to legal battles.Its what is known as an agreement which is a contract of sorts and is therefore binding in that respect.All trade agreements are contracts.

Its only now being implemented so what happens in the long term remains to be seen as in how aggressively govt agencies like the FDA and the UK equivelant decide to implement it and wether it will be abused.



: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 03:08:24 PM
"Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic." Tim Minchin. Now, this I can agree with - so long as we accept that, so far, not every mystery has been solved.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 June, 2011, 03:09:58 PM
"Every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic." Tim Minchin. Now, this I can agree with - so long as we accept that, so far, not every mystery has been solved.

It'll be a sad day when we run out of mysteries...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Eric Plumrose 13 June, 2011, 03:16:44 PM
I'm not so sure:

Evidence disagrees with you, I'm afraid.

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=129

From that article:

It is sad that an organisation with a respectable sounding title like the Institute of Science in Society is being used to propagate some pure pseudo-scientific gobblydegook. Is it any wonder that journalists and the general public get confused?

Respectable as its title might sound, the Society's acronym is suspiciously esoteric: ISIS (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/about.php), the Egyptian goddess of nature and magic.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 13 June, 2011, 03:21:54 PM
There seems to be an implication that no-one has even tried to investigate homeopathy - nothing could be further from the truth.  The demonstrable facts are that in all scientifically conducted tests, homeopathy has scored no better than placebo time and time again - for the simple reason that it is a placebo: at the dilutions proposed it is water.  

Coupled with no coherent scientific explanation being presented for its claimed effects (timey wimey memory stuff notwithstanding), a clear historical path from outright 18th C quackery of Hahnemann to the pseudo-science of the present day for its practice, and its dismissal as anything other than a complex administration of placebo is not a matter of 'opinion' - it's a matter of rigorous scientific conclusion.  Take it by all means, if it makes you feel better (I do, and it does), but it does not have any value as medicine beyond a sugar pill or flavoured water labelled 'Cure'.

And again, I'll say:  if this stuff worked, if there was a 'molecular memory' to investigate, scientists  would be all over it - new discoveries, practical applications, this is what their dreams are made of.  Scientists do not conspire to hide the secrets of the universe, they shout them as loudly as they can to anyone who will listen - makes for very dull parties, but there you go.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 03:44:41 PM
It'll be a sad day when we run out of mysteries...

Amen!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 04:05:26 PM
Scientists do not conspire to hide the secrets of the universe, they shout them as loudly as they can to anyone who will listen - makes for very dull parties, but there you go.
Absolutely - but accountants are not scientists and corporations are not scientists. As with most things in this day and age, he who pays the piper calls the tune and if the multinational you're doing science for isn't going to pay you to thoroughly investigate something like water memory then you're either going to have to investigate what you're told to investigate or do it on your own dime as an independent researcher with limited resources.

And we all know how society tends to view independent researchers who "shout ... as loudly as they can to anyone who will listen". Scientists are not paragons of virtue who will put their lives and careers on the line for something they don't have the resources to properly investigate - they're just people like you and me and if they get told not to do something enough times, most of them will comply. Science is a job as well as a vocation, so scientists go where the money is - which is generally in big corporations with an interest in maximising the profits of science, not the benefits of science.

Now, I'm not saying that science should accept every theory or hypothesis that's thrown at it, but it seems to me that good old fashioned skepticsm is in danger of being replaced entirely by pointless, automatic denial.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 June, 2011, 04:18:55 PM
Now, I'm not saying that science should accept every theory or hypothesis that's thrown at it, but it seems to me that good old fashioned skepticsm is in danger of being replaced entirely by pointless, automatic denial.


I'd agree with this if homeopathy (as that is what we're talking about) had not already been tested under scientific conditions- repeatedly- and found wanting every single time.
How many times must something be tested by science before the results of that testing are accepted?
I would suggest that the billions of pounds being made every year by people selling this stuff is the reason for the denial of evidence..
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 13 June, 2011, 04:34:47 PM
'can't say whether water is capable of holding "memories" '

if it does we're all drinkling pish! not to mention every other thing that water has been in contact with  ::)

Er, whereabouts does it say that water memory (if such a thing exists) lasts forever and can be neither erased nor re-set?  ::)

that would be a very handy (wavey) solution  :lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 04:49:39 PM


I'd agree with this if homeopathy (as that is what we're talking about) had not already been tested under scientific conditions- repeatedly- and found wanting every single time.
How many times must something be tested by science before the results of that testing are accepted?
I would suggest that the billions of pounds being made every year by people selling this stuff is the reason for the denial of evidence..

Every single time? Really?

In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal (1) This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive.

The professors concluded, "The amount of positive results came as a surprise to us." Specifically, they found that:
--13 of 19 trials showed successful treatment of respiratory infections,
--6 of 7 trials showed positive results in treating other infections,
--5 of 7 trials showed improvement in diseases of the digestive system,
--5 of 5 showed successful treatment of hay fever,
--5 of 7 showed faster recovery after abdominal surgery,
--4 of 6 promoted healing in treating rheumatological disease,
--18 of 20 showed benefit in addressing pain or trauma,
--8 of 10 showed positive results in relieving mental or psychological
problems, and
--13 of 15 showed benefit from miscellaneous diagnoses.

A recent clinical trial evaluating homeopathic medicine was a unique study of the treatment of asthma(2). Researchers at the University of Glasgow used conventional allergy testing to discover which substances these asthma patients were most allergic to. Once this was determined, the subjects were randomized into treatment and placebo groups. Those patients chosen for treatment were given the 30c potency of the substance to which they were most allergic (the most common substance was house dust mite). The researchers called this unique method of individualizing remedies "homeopathic immunotherapy" (homeopathic medicines are usually prescribed based on the patient's idiosyncratic symptoms, not on laboratory analysis or diagnostic categories). Subjects in this experiment were evaluated by both homeopathic and conventional physicians.

This study showed that 82% of the patients given a homeopathic medicine improved, while only 38% of patients given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief. When asked if they felt the patient received the homeopathic medicine or the placebo, both the patients and the doctors tended to guess correctly.

A study of the homeopathic treatment of migraine headache was conducted in Italy(3). Sixty patients were randomized and entered into a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Patients regularly filled out a questionnaire on the frequency, intensity, and characteristics of their head pain. They were prescribed a single dose of a 30c remedy at four separate times over two-week intervals. Eight remedies were considered, and prescribers were allowed to use any two with a patient. While only 17% of patients given a placebo experienced relief of their migraine pain, an impressive 93% of patients given an individualized homeopathic medicine experienced good results.


I could go on and on and on, and I too would like to ask the same question you did: "How many times must something be tested by science before the results of that testing are accepted?"

(1) J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild, G. ter Riet, "Clinical Trials of Homoeopathy," British Medical Journal, February 9, 1991, 302:316-323.
(2) David Reilly, Morag Taylor, Neil Beattie, et al., "Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?" Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.
(3) Bruno Brigo, and G. Serpelloni, "Homeopathic Treatment of Migraines: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Study of 60 Cases," Berlin Journal on Research in Homeopathy, March 1991, 1,2:98-106.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 04:51:29 PM
(http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p147/the_legendary_shark/2000ADonline%20Images/scotty_likes_this.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 June, 2011, 06:49:43 PM
In 1991,

And... the twenty years of research since then?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 13 June, 2011, 07:08:44 PM
I know a GP that uses St. John's Wort. He also admits (as do two other GPs that I know) that his main function as a GP is to get people out of the door as quickly as possible.  They're not bad people and wouldn't, as far as I'm aware, ever do you wrong on purpose- but all agree that if they'd really wanted to help people, then they'd have been nurses instead.

I have my own thoughts on placeboes- and homeopathy in general- but nothing that hasn't already been covered.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 June, 2011, 07:15:28 PM
Here is the science behind homeopathy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpC8BvHyorg&feature=related

Please- do not try and tell me this in in any way a real science.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 08:49:26 PM
In 1991,

And... the twenty years of research since then?


No idea. I'm sure more recent studies could be found but, what's the point? Was science before 1991 all wrong and science after 1991 all right? (A very quick search yielded "Effects of homeopathic medications Eupatorium perfoliatum and Arsenicum album on parasitemia of Plasmodium berghei-infected mice" (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491606001019 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1475491606001019)) - although this was published in 2006 and may also be too old to be relevant.)

It's not my job or intent to defend homeopathy or convince anyone that it works or doesn't work. The examples I cited in my last post were merely an attempt to demonstrate that your assertion of homeopathy being repeatedly found wanting may need some revision.

Here is the science behind homeopathy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpC8BvHyorg&feature=related

Please- do not try and tell me this in in any way a real science.

Okay, I won't. Anyone can make a YouTube video and without closely examining his content, qualifications or methods I'm not in a position to pass any kind of judgement on Mr Benneth or his claims.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 June, 2011, 09:01:08 PM
Was science before 1991 all wrong and science after 1991 all right?

I'm assuming here that you are again deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I said for some reason, but doing so does make debating the subject with you very difficult.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 13 June, 2011, 09:07:06 PM
"Recently, chemists have made the surprising discovery that molecules form clusters that increase in size with dilution. These clusters measure several micro-metres in diameter. The increase in size occurs nonlinearly with dilution and it depends on history, flying in the face of classical chemistry. Indeed, there is as yet no explanation for the phenomenon. It may well be another reflection of the strangeness of water that depends on its quantum properties.

"In the mid-1990s, quantum physicists Del Giudice and Preparata and other colleagues in University of Milan, in Italy, argued that quantum coherent domains measuring 100nm in diameter could arise in pure water. They show how the collective vibrations of the water molecules in the coherent domain eventually become phase-locked to the fluctuations of the global electromagnetic field. In this way, long-lasting, stable oscillations could be maintained in the water.

"One way in which ‘memory’ might be stored in water is through the excitation of long-lasting coherent oscillations specific to the substances in the homeopathic remedy dissolved in water. Interaction of water molecules with other molecules changes the collective structure of water, which would in turn determine the specific coherent oscillations that will develop. If these become stabilised and maintained by phase coupling between the global field and the excited molecules, then, even when the dissolved substances are diluted away, the water may still carry the coherent oscillations that can ‘seed’ other volumes of water on dilution."

What this all amounts to is an untested hypothesis. Some quantum physicists have suggested a possible pathway/process/mechanism by which water could retain memory in the manner claimed by homeopaths. That doesn't mean to say it actually happens. I believe it was Einstein who explained theoretically the physics involved in time travel. It doesn't mean time travel is necessarily achievable though.

On a different note, even if it were possible for water to retain memory of previously diluted content that is no longer present in any detectable quantity (i.e. it is just water), that doesn't mean to say that such an infinite dilution is effective as medicine.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 09:12:52 PM
Was science before 1991 all wrong and science after 1991 all right?

I'm assuming here that you are again deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I said for some reason, but doing so does make debating the subject with you very difficult.

No, no. I'm not having that.

You said "I'd agree with this if homeopathy (as that is what we're talking about) had not already been tested under scientific conditions- repeatedly- and found wanting every single time.
How many times must something be tested by science before the results of that testing are accepted?"

I cited three references where homeopathy has not been found wanting and you complained that I didn't cite anything after 1991 (even though a December 10, 1994 issue of the Lancet was also cited). You implied that homeopathy has never, ever been shown to have any positive effects whatsoever and I presented data that would seem to indicate the contrary. How is this deliberately misunderstanding and misrepresenting what you said?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 09:17:06 PM
What this all amounts to is an untested hypothesis...

There are many untested hypotheses in science. The Big Bang theory, black holes, the brain as the seat of memory. Science does not know as much as it pretends.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 13 June, 2011, 09:23:58 PM
The brain as the seat of memory. Science does not know as much as it pretends.

On that one I'm fairly convinced by the well-documented case studies of brain injuried people suffering loss of memory. There's a good correlation between Alzheimer's and loss of memory too. I don't know much about astrophysics and cosmology. They're not in my field and I'm not very interested in them, so I tend not to worry about it too much.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 13 June, 2011, 09:29:05 PM
I believe it was Einstein who explained theoretically the physics involved in time travel. It doesn't mean time travel is necessarily achievable though.


In the interest of balance, Stephen Hawking also described the Chronology Protection Conjecture, which describes the impossibility of Time Travel. That doesn't mean it's impossible though.

Science does not know as much as it pretends.

I take offense at this. Science does not pretend to know anything. The default scientific position on many subjects, homeopathy included, is 'We really just don't know'. The only people claiming to 'know' anything, while citing a scientific basis, are people with an agenda.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 13 June, 2011, 09:34:02 PM
I've used homeopathic remedies a few times over the years for minor ailments, (and major insomnia), in spite of being more than a bit sceptical of the whole "memory of water" thing. I reckoned there was no harm in giving them a go.

None of them worked.

So they're rubbish.

So there.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 June, 2011, 09:42:19 PM
I cited three references where homeopathy has not been found wanting and you complained that I didn't cite anything after 1991

You cite a Dutch study from 1991. I can find no reports of this in anywhere but homeopathy sites, so really I can make no comment on it if there is no balanced reporting of it- and I can not find one that cites an actual source for this report (although of course there may be one out there).

Anyone can make a YouTube video and without closely examining his content, qualifications or methods I'm not in a position to pass any kind of judgement on Mr Benneth or his claims.

Mr Benneth is a homeopath. A quick google search would have told you that. So if he is what he claims to be, then it would be reasonable to think he is speaking from a position of knowledge on the subject, don't you think?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 10:07:17 PM
Mr Benneth is a homeopath. A quick google search would have told you that. So if he is what he claims to be, then it would be reasonable to think he is speaking from a position of knowledge on the subject, don't you think?

Here is the science behind homeopathy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpC8BvHyorg&feature=related

Please- do not try and tell me this in in any way a real science.

If you get anywhere near a coherent position, please let me know   ;)

Science does not know as much as it pretends.

I take offense at this. Science does not pretend to know anything. The default scientific position on many subjects, homeopathy included, is 'We really just don't know'. The only people claiming to 'know' anything, while citing a scientific basis, are people with an agenda.

Fair enough, I retract that and replace it with "Science does not know as much as laypeople tend to believe."

The brain as the seat of memory.

On that one I'm fairly convinced by the well-documented case studies of brain injuried people suffering loss of memory. There's a good correlation between Alzheimer's and loss of memory too. I don't know much about astrophysics and cosmology. They're not in my field and I'm not very interested in them, so I tend not to worry about it too much.

In Lashley's experiments (1929, 1950), rats were trained to run a maze. Tissue was removed from their cerebral cortices before re-introducing them to the maze, to see how their memory was affected. Increasingly, the amount of tissue removed degraded memory, but more remarkably, where the tissue was removed from made no difference.

(My statement "The brain as the seat of memory" was incorrect - I should have said "the unknown seat of memory in the brain." Apologies. There is also some suggestion that the heart may also store memories.)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 11:15:50 PM
Anyway, UFOs...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 13 June, 2011, 11:34:25 PM
Anyway, UFOs...

You are using an unlogical non-sequiterial fallacy i:e non-argumental that informally appeals to emotion instead of authority that obscures the logical argument while affirming the consequent as proof by verbosity along with connotation fallacies that alude to all UFOs being unidentified leading to equivocation.



 ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 13 June, 2011, 11:35:23 PM
Anyway, UFOs...

WHERE?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 June, 2011, 11:40:45 PM
You are using an unlogical non-sequiterial fallacy i:e non-argumental that informally appeals to emotion instead of authority that obscures the logical argument while affirming the consequent as proof by verbosity along with connotation fallacies that alude to all UFOs being unidentified leading to equivocation.



 ;)

I knew you'd say that*...  :-\

UAP, then?


*no I didn't.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 14 June, 2011, 07:25:06 AM
If you get anywhere near a coherent position, please let me know

Fair enough- if you're determined to misunderstand (I assume on purpose) what I'm saying to this extent, then there's no point carrying on this conversation.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 14 June, 2011, 02:08:00 PM
If you get anywhere near a coherent position, please let me know

Fair enough- if you're determined to misunderstand (I assume on purpose) what I'm saying to this extent, then there's no point carrying on this conversation.

Come on, Rich - don't be like that. I was having fun debating here with you.

I have to say that I don't understand what you're saying. Do you think that homeopathy has any merit whatsoever or not? You post a YouTube clip of Mr Benneth with the implication that he's talking rubbish and then suggest that he must know what he's talking about. Please forgive me, but how can both be true? He's either talking rubbish or he isn't. (Although, I suppose he could be compared to a Star Trek nerd; someone who knows a very great deal about something that is essentially a fiction - is that what you're saying?)

Just to be clear, my position is that I honestly don't know whether homeopathy has any merits or not as I have never used it and I don't know anyone who has. I'm reluctant to either dismiss it out of hand or to believe it without question. My position is that there seems to be evidence suggesting homeopathy may be efficacious in certain cases - how and why this might be so, I don't know.

What is your position? Explain it to me like I'm stupid (which I am, to be honest).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 14 June, 2011, 02:31:32 PM
It's the Star Trek thing.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 14 June, 2011, 08:19:33 PM
Look at this rubbish:

Israel nukes Fukushima:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fAmK7HlepA4J:crisisjones.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/israel-nuked-fukushima-sure-as-hell-for-them-looks-that-way-cj/+israel+nukes+fukushima&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fAmK7HlepA4J:crisisjones.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/israel-nuked-fukushima-sure-as-hell-for-them-looks-that-way-cj/+israel+nukes+fukushima&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk)

It makes a claim then provides nothing at all to explain it other than "It sure looks that way"

Garbage. :lol:

[I sort of know whos website it is and they asked if i wanted to contribute to it.I didnt reply as i wasnt interested and i only visited it to read what info there was about Israel nuking Fukushima which turned out to be nothing.The author is in my opinion a twat who had a habit of launching verbal attacks and abuse on all and sundry for no apparent reason on another websites comments section]

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 14 June, 2011, 10:36:59 PM
"Pay your debt (which we created out of nothing) or we'll seize your country."

I can hear you laughing at that idea from here. I laughed too, because nobody would ever be stupid enough to even suggest such a thing, would they? Except that it's already starting to happen. Greece has been told that if it doesn't pay back its loans quickly enough, the bankers will move in to collect taxes from the people - stripping the Greek government and people of the power to control their own destiny. Who will lose their sovereignty next? Portugal? Spain? Ireland?

It's way past time to begin to see that banks like JP Morgan and the IMF (amongst others) are enemy forces and debt is their weapon of conquest. Would you like your country to be owned by a banking consortium? Because it's coming - if we don't stop it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-bailout-will-require-loss-of-sovereignty-2011-5 (http://www.businessinsider.com/greek-bailout-will-require-loss-of-sovereignty-2011-5)

This means countries effectively going into receivership with the banking cartel being the receivers.

I was just reading elsewhere that Bilderberg were concerned about the state of the Eurozone and countries like Greece defaulting and the collapse of it and what you are talking about here is definately possible as its alright to say they should default but the bankers may very well let it all collapse and capitalise on the fallout of the collapse of the Euro by taking direct control of their spending and tax revenue etc etc for the foreseeable future as in being administrators/receivers with each country being in receivership.Or they will use the imminent collapse of the Euro as the pretext to take complete control.

The Budget will be decided by them while the acting Chancellor of the Exchequer and the treasury in our case simply rubber stamp everything on behalf of the banking cartel.The bankers wont do it themselves as they will get the civil servants of a bankrupt nation to do it for them.

The eurozone could have been designed to fail as part of a problem-reaction-solution as the idea of a single currency linked to seperate countries is otherwise deeply flawed because the constant bailing out of individual nations by others within the Eurozone and the US is simply unsustainable in the long term because countries cant keep borrowing to plug a hole which isnt getting any smaller.A currency that is linked to individual economies is flawed because if one or two or more countries are close to bankruptcy then it has an effect on all the other eurozone members which would not be there if they all had their seperate economies so having them all sharing the same currencies creates a much bigger problem and creates more instability and more debt which might have been the plan all along.......

Since no jobs are being created it means no recovery all the while this situation is allowed to continue but i dont see it happening here yet as the UK has a fairly strong service sector which is about the only thing keeping it going for the time being.....

Its seems like the Eurozone was planned to coincide with the planned/manufactured depression.

The single currency was supposed to bring stability not instability which was probably reverse speak as those who planned it all out must have realised this as its obvious so i see it as a problem-reaction-solution but wether the Euro is replaced by something else remains to be seen but if its left up to the bankers they will do the above and keep the Euro for the time being as the alternative isnt up and running yet.

There is only one permanent solution to this problem or the problem of the banking cartel.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 14 June, 2011, 10:45:13 PM
I think they want to destroy the dollar and replace it with the amero first. Then, down the line, when Africa gets the Afro and Asia the Asio it'll be easier to roll the whole lot up into the Mega City One like Cred.

I also half suspect that this current financial crisis is actually spinning out of control of even the economic engineers who set it all up. This debt is spreading like wildfire and it needs to - the whole system needs to burn down to ash so we can return money creation and control to sovereign governments again. Let the banks who lit the fuse burn, that's what I say.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 15 June, 2011, 01:16:34 AM
What this all amounts to is an untested hypothesis...

There are many untested hypotheses in science. The Big Bang theory, black holes, the brain as the seat of memory.

Except they have been tested.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Crisis Jones 16 June, 2011, 01:28:21 AM
Look at this rubbish:

Israel nukes Fukushima:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fAmK7HlepA4J:crisisjones.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/israel-nuked-fukushima-sure-as-hell-for-them-looks-that-way-cj/+israel+nukes+fukushima&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fAmK7HlepA4J:crisisjones.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/israel-nuked-fukushima-sure-as-hell-for-them-looks-that-way-cj/+israel+nukes+fukushima&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk)

It makes a claim then provides nothing at all to explain it other than "It sure looks that way"

Garbage. :lol:

[I sort of know whos website it is and they asked if i wanted to contribute to it.I didnt reply as i wasnt interested and i only visited it to read what info there was about Israel nuking Fukushima which turned out to be nothing.The author is in my opinion a twat who had a habit of launching verbal attacks and abuse on all and sundry for no apparent reason on another websites comments section]

You know Peter, for someone who spends all of his time attacking people, you really are not very good at it.

I placed all of the facts on the table, and you did not look at a single one, you simply engaged in your normal personal attacks without addressing a SINGLE fact.

You are one disappointing individual!

Now, maybe you should move on to another forum, as you normally do when you have been discredited.  ;)

-Crisis Jones
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Crisis Jones 16 June, 2011, 01:46:32 AM
Oh, to set the record straight, I NEVER asked you to contribute to the report Peter.

I invited you to comment on the original reports and articles put out by the highly qualified researchers and writers at the Crisis Jones Report.

Jealously is so unattractive....... 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 16 June, 2011, 01:54:12 AM
To be honest, Israel nuking Japan doesn't seem very feasible, practical or profitable. I haven't read the whole report yet, but one thing I can tell you is that lots of explosions look like mushroom clouds. You can get a spectacular mushroom cloud just from throwing a snowball into a tub of burning oil.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 16 June, 2011, 05:19:42 AM
Look at this rubbish:

Israel nukes Fukushima:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fAmK7HlepA4J:crisisjones.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/israel-nuked-fukushima-sure-as-hell-for-them-looks-that-way-cj/+israel+nukes+fukushima&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fAmK7HlepA4J:crisisjones.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/israel-nuked-fukushima-sure-as-hell-for-them-looks-that-way-cj/+israel+nukes+fukushima&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk)

It makes a claim then provides nothing at all to explain it other than "It sure looks that way"

Garbage. :lol:

[I sort of know whos website it is and they asked if i wanted to contribute to it.I didnt reply as i wasnt interested and i only visited it to read what info there was about Israel nuking Fukushima which turned out to be nothing.The author is in my opinion a twat who had a habit of launching verbal attacks and abuse on all and sundry for no apparent reason on another websites comments section]

You know Peter, for someone who spends all of his time attacking people, you really are not very good at it.

I placed all of the facts on the table, and you did not look at a single one, you simply engaged in your normal personal attacks without addressing a SINGLE fact.

You are one disappointing individual!

Now, maybe you should move on to another forum, as you normally do when you have been discredited.  ;)

-Crisis Jones


Firstly out of decency i apologise for linking to your website here and the comment but you did say distributer it so i did.I dont feel good about it in retrospect.I should have commented there instead of here.

You claim that every one of those points is a fact when its not but why let facts get in the way of something that claims to be a fact ?

Your points:

1: I do not spend all my time attacking people where you know me from and the only commenters i have ever attacked are trolls which you have been witness to and i rarely resort to personal attacks attacks when arguing even with trolls because i win by arguing as you know.But i dont keep scores and constantly brag about it like you do constantly each time you appear.before it gets too personal i will leave it at that.

All my comments are archived and so are the responses to them.All the proof i need is there.

The last time you appeared it was yet more insults to all and sundry and personal attacks when you linked to your website the other day to plug it and really my patience snapped as i was just tired of it.
I did rubbish your article without explaining why so thats right that you called me out on that but the majority of the time i comment and explain my reasoning and this is all logged.

I will add a comment about this here that partly explains my thinking.I am not buying the idea that this all originates from Japan offering to provide enriched uranium to Iran as it was official and had US approval and it involved the IAEA and the UN etc etc and the CFR etc.So its not like it was a covert operation so it does not make sense that Israel would attack Japan for that reason as if Israel didnt have any say in it in the first place and if Israel didnt want them to then they could have stopped that program anytime they liked without resorting to bombing nuclear facilities.If it was a threat to going to war with Iran as the Japanese wanted to see peace with Iran then Japan would have been warned not to and i dont see that Japan would have put its own people and country at risk by going a head with it.

Iran rejected the offer anyway.

France and Russia previously offered to enrich uranium and they werent bombed.

I wont be going anywhere as i havent been discredited  or moved on from any forums so i dont know where you get "Normally do" from.Never been discredited.

Lastly about contributing all i recall is an invite to your website a while back along with 2 others which was to contribute as you specifically wanted my comments and thats what i meant and you know that i am not a highly qualified researcher. I am not the jelous type either.

Thats it but i had to reply to your comments as i had no choice but again i apologise for rubbishing your research in the way that i did.

I am really curious how you traced my comment here as unless i am missing something i tried various searches that would provide a link to my comment here that didnt produce any results.It took you a day to find it so you must have been either searching for it or monitoring how many links you get to your website and web traffic etc. :-\



: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Tiplodocus 16 June, 2011, 12:55:10 PM
Oh get a room you two.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 16 June, 2011, 01:24:25 PM
http://youtu.be/3QTVtAsVrEg (http://youtu.be/3QTVtAsVrEg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: GordonR 16 June, 2011, 01:35:56 PM
"...a fight between two bald men over a comb.” - Jorge Luis Borges
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 16 June, 2011, 02:19:09 PM
I think they want to destroy the dollar and replace it with the amero first. Then, down the line, when Africa gets the Afro and Asia the Asio it'll be easier to roll the whole lot up into the Mega City One like Cred.


Isn't the Mega City One cred just for Mega City One though, not a federal or unified currency?

Doesn't matter anyway, all currencies are contracting as are all economies, exponential growth eventually leads to exponential contraction. We live in a finite world and there's only so much the greedy few can extract for themselves without putting any back in.

No matter who's pulling what strings or if the strings are now all tangled as to not even matter anymore, the strings will eventually be cut so the limp puppet falls in a heap- we will be returning to very base level societies unless the magic vacuum-energy-making machine is discovered.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 16 June, 2011, 02:23:56 PM
I wonder who does create and control the money supply in MC1? It's hard to envisage the banks having as much power over the Justice Department as our contemporary banks have over our governments.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 16 June, 2011, 02:27:28 PM
Obviously the Judges have say in the money supply, the banks are just a vessel to store it and give it out just as in Communist Russia.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 16 June, 2011, 02:38:52 PM
Possibly. The very word "Credit", though, seems to indicate that it it isn't actual money that's used but credit - just like our money today. Money is created by privately owned banks and then lent into society at interest as credit. Does the Justice Department print bonds which it exchanges for money/credits or does it create its own money/credit with no interest to pay?

What a boring Dredd story this would make!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 16 June, 2011, 02:44:41 PM
I doubt it's fractional reserve banking but rather a more 'accounted', 'balanced' method of exchange, there may even be different subsets of 'credit' depending on you status considering a whole group of people -judges- don't use it personally.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 16 June, 2011, 02:58:04 PM
I've seen Dredd pay street vendors for food (I think) with a voucher and Justice Dept as a whole must use money to purchase goods and services from outside contractors. If Justice Dept creates and controls all the city's money then the welfare that just about all the citizens receive would be interest free and  therefore a lot cheaper than the system we use today. If Justice Dept borrows money from private banks like our governments do, the interest rates would be crippling.

The only way to discover where MC1s money comes from is to discover whether the City has the equivalent of a national debt. National debt = private money; no national debt = social money.

That said, interest on loans etc is a great way to control a population (as we can see every day just by looking around us) so maybe Justice Dept does create and control the money supply but charges interest too purely in order to exert that control. It might be a legal way to control people, but is it just?

Looking at the riots going on in places like Greece at the moment, maybe it wouldn't be such a boring Dredd story after all!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 16 June, 2011, 04:02:27 PM
An interesting debate, and I reckon there's quite a body of factoids tangentially about MC-1's economy to draw from. 

Some examples:

I seem to recall they bring a selection of various currencies on the Judge Child mission, as well as bullion and trade goods, which may suggest that the Mc-1 Cred is of dubious value beyond the walls. 

Accountant Judge Winslow is certainly concerned about the budget for that mission, and later on for Bonny Crickle's op, so Justice Department presumably audits its own expenditure.

In Bob's Law it's Justice Department that gives out the 100 cred Sector Relocation Bonus, and Justice Department that subsequently taketh away (Bob's Third Law).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 16 June, 2011, 04:33:01 PM
Hooray! At last we're into the realms of 'space maths' and all that boring stuff about the end of the world and who controls what can take a temporary hike.

The Mega-City economy is neither a closed nor a sustainable system. As for the citizens being welfare-dependent and economically non-productive, that's only possible due to most of Mega-City One's wealth being generated off-planet.

Mega-City One imports huge quantities of minerals, energy and food from off-world, which is why its colonies and interplanetary trade relations are so important. Granted, it tries to resuse and recycle everything it can and we've seen the use the city makes of renewable energy sources, but the whole thing is kept going by a constant input of value by dipping into free interstellar resources the way one might dip into the ocean with a trawler net and just scoop out fish you've put no effort into growing. It's the logical solution when you've all but exhausted your own world's natural resources: start on the natural resources of other worlds.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 16 June, 2011, 04:57:04 PM
It's the logical solution when you've all but exhausted your own world's natural resources: start on the natural resources of other worlds.

Aye, but there's still a price to pay, and it's Mandroids who bear the cost.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 16 June, 2011, 05:50:14 PM
I think they want to destroy the dollar and replace it with the amero first. Then, down the line, when Africa gets the Afro and Asia the Asio it'll be easier to roll the whole lot up into the Mega City One like Cred.


Isn't the Mega City One cred just for Mega City One though, not a federal or unified currency?

Doesn't matter anyway, all currencies are contracting as are all economies, exponential growth eventually leads to exponential contraction. We live in a finite world and there's only so much the greedy few can extract for themselves without putting any back in.

No matter who's pulling what strings or if the strings are now all tangled as to not even matter anymore, the strings will eventually be cut so the limp puppet falls in a heap- we will be returning to very base level societies unless the magic vacuum-energy-making machine is discovered.

I had to laugh at Africa gets the Afro.

What is going on in the US with the dollar and its economy is the economy is contracting as it is in a depression but the dollar supply is expanding with quantative easing-the reckless and deliberate mass printing of Fedres funny money but a lot of the cash that is being printed is virtual cash.The dollar supply that is expanding isnt going into the economy as its all going offshore and god knows where but at the same time it is driving down the value of the dollar.Its being done to sabotage the dollar and the US economy.

Yet at the same time the US[figuatively speaking] being in a depression is launching wars across the Middle East/North Africa which will cost
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ assisted by NATO of course.Its apparently official now that the US is going to send an occupational force into Libya in October.

It should be very clear by now that this is a serious problem
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 16 June, 2011, 06:51:31 PM
That shit's so-last-page Peter, we're into more important shit now like fiscal responsibility in the Meg, back on 'current topic'...I assume saving's not particularly encouraged in the Meg?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 16 June, 2011, 08:13:57 PM
I reckon The Justice Department gets all the money it needs from confiscating all the profits from the crazy fad-merchants. The banking cabals probably don't have enough financial leverage to influence Judicial legislation
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 16 June, 2011, 09:07:00 PM
There is definite potential for some stories in the economic history of the mega cities (especially after watching Andrew Marr's series, which makes 2000AD seem awfully prophetic). So, for example, you'd imagine in the early years that all the Mega Cities were heavily mining the asteroid belt, that right there is a chance for some friction and drama, bringing some nice parallels with the Chinese rush to space.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: O Lucky Stevie! 17 June, 2011, 03:59:41 AM
Asteroid mining also solves the question of How can the SJS afford all those ships in Insurrection?

What Justice Department has to cough up the readies for is initial seed ships with robotic crews & possibly a small number of human overseers.

These target asteroid belts in other star systems (Epsilon Eridani, for example, has at least two that we know of), set up shop & manufacture more robots. When they've a sufficient number then switch to the next phase of production:  hollowing out asteroids & churning out ships.

The SJS fighting forces can be speed cloned in situ using freely available CHON* harvested from comets, ice moons & Kuiper-type objects.

Volia! Instant(ish) space fleet.

Money in the bank!

*Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen & Nitrogen.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 17 June, 2011, 05:03:55 AM
Indeed. As the Justice Department seem to have got to the Moon first you'd have a good base for exploiting the asteroid belt - probably with people first (attracting the tough breed who run oil rigs or go out crab fishing off Alaska) followed later by robots. I can't see how you'd get the materials for MC1 without it and you'd generate some serious income selling metal to the others mega cities (while having a hand on the throttle of their development), plus you could then start building orbital factories to build ships to push out further into the Solar System (to Titan) and then make the jump to the stars.

You'd have to assume the first wave of colonisation of extra solar systems was via Von Neumman probes/seeder ships, punted up to a reasonable fraction of the speed of light. The Justice Department can then catch-up with them later when FTL is developed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_probe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeder_ship

So you could probably work out a rough timeline that'd parallel that of MC1 -  you'd be looking at say the early to mid-2020s (possibly earlier) for some kind of permanent settlement off planet, probably driven by environmental problems on Earth and dwindling resources (the Helium 3 on the Moon becomes vital as do things like space-based solar arrays). You'd presumably build mass drivers on the Moon and in orbit to shunt people and cargo around, so you could use them to fire out probes and then miners into the asteroid belt, where they'd build them to send material back. This would then be in full-swing by the time MC2 and Texas City start to get built in the later 2030s/early 2040s. The money raised would help fund more ambitious missions to other stars. Then you have the Atomic war in 2070, which would have set everything back and probably resulted in loss of contact with the colonies, the establishment of a proper colony on the Moon in 2088 would be a sign they are getting back to the stars again and probably starting the job of taming what would probably be quite an unruly mess in the rest of the Solar System. I'm not sure when FTL was developed but they had time travel in 2107, so possibly before that but the colonies will have been on their own for decades before then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega-City_One#History

Something like that.

Lots of potential for stories there - perhaps an Outland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outland_%28film%29)-style tale with early Judges in the Asteroid Belt.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 17 June, 2011, 07:37:55 AM
What infuriates me is these two jerks thinking 2000ad forum is just another vessel for their useless opinions. Especially Peter. He really grinds my pulses. Dick.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 17 June, 2011, 07:58:13 AM
Don't sit on the fence now Krombasher!

M
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 17 June, 2011, 08:28:40 AM
Yeah, sorry Mikey, I'm pushing it with the rules of the board. Apologies folks. Except vociferous masturbaters of the delusive ill-informed, half- formed, half understood kind. Can there be a comic forum with room for such inept badly thought out transcripts anywhere on the planet? Besides the John Byrnes one? Without it looking a bit stupid?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: O Lucky Stevie! 17 June, 2011, 08:57:40 AM
So you remain unconvinced by Von Neumann machines Krom?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 17 June, 2011, 09:00:18 AM
He really grinds my pulsating Dick.

I didn't know the new-look forum was that kind of place, but if this is what it takes to get Roger back, I guess it's time to start shipping KromWolf.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 17 June, 2011, 09:18:27 AM
Roger is here, like the breath of the great dragon, Tordleneck.

And the only thing I want to know about Von Neumenn, Stevie is whether or not its twinned with a town I've encountered or sings in a new wave electro band.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 17 June, 2011, 09:25:44 AM
Yeah, sorry Mikey, I'm pushing it with the rules of the board. Apologies folks.

I don't think you need to apologise, not to me anyway - over the 8 or so years I've been here, there's been much worse said by a lot of people. You're just expressing your opinion after all, which, if I read it correctly and to paraphrase Bill Rawles of Baltimore PD, what you see is two people "fucking a dog."

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 17 June, 2011, 11:12:07 AM
I'm sorry Peter, for calling you a dick.

What I should do is thank you. I almost became someone like you.  One of the worst manifestations of self righteous  blinkered thuggery wrapped up in pseudo-intellectualism, not even interested in the comic, only when it suited my purposes to keep me on a message board to continue with my slow advance of changing peoples minds to accepting my opinion. Something to do with turning my gaze on my own self loathing in there too, but the key thing is Petey, you define what it is for me to avoid becoming. So pray dear boy, carry on. I'll be watching. And you know I don't react to your absurdities every time. I'm just up to here with your blatant autistic approach to world problems, that its gotten to a point where your "opinions" have leaked in from another board! It made me feel cheap! You 're compulsive in your "opinions"!

Right. I think that is all I'll say on the matter. Peter can reply all he likes, the situation will still be as above. I'm sure he'll enjoy the "any publicity is good publicity" he now has gained from his manifesto. But be sure. this is my last word on the matter. I'll probably put him back on ignore sooner rather than later.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 17 June, 2011, 11:47:37 AM
"Here's Tom with the weather."
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 17 June, 2011, 12:43:29 PM
"Thanks Mandy. It's going to be a rough day in Missouri as the CIA controlled HAARP rays cause toxic rain and hot wind to push up from the Gulf..."
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 17 June, 2011, 01:01:54 PM
Much as I am in hushed awe of Krom's unparalleled Level 36 smackdown skillz (a savaging so elegant that the recipient can only be flattered, as if thrust into the role of the blushing subject of a petrarchan sonnet), I would note that this is a thread created by TLS for the showcasing of various looneytoons ideas without derailing other threads (no offence, Shark), and thus should be considered as segregated from General Population - a sort of nonce-wing for conspiracy theorists those who question received orthodoxies.  If Peter is going to engage in inter-forum conflict with fellow nutters, this is the place to do it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 17 June, 2011, 01:10:28 PM
I'm sorry Peter, for calling you a dick.

What I should do is thank you. I almost became someone like you.  One of the worst manifestations of self righteous  blinkered thuggery wrapped up in pseudo-intellectualism, not even interested in the comic, only when it suited my purposes to keep me on a message board to continue with my slow advance of changing peoples minds to accepting my opinion. Something to do with turning my gaze on my own self loathing in there too, but the key thing is Petey, you define what it is for me to avoid becoming. So pray dear boy, carry on. I'll be watching. And you know I don't react to your absurdities every time. I'm just up to here with your blatant autistic approach to world problems, that its gotten to a point where your "opinions" have leaked in from another board! It made me feel cheap! You 're compulsive in your "opinions"!

Right. I think that is all I'll say on the matter. Peter can reply all he likes, the situation will still be as above. I'm sure he'll enjoy the "any publicity is good publicity" he now has gained from his manifesto. But be sure. this is my last word on the matter. I'll probably put him back on ignore sooner rather than later.

Sure enough i could attack you for typing that comment but i am not that interested as i have been through this before with you as you have had an axe to grind for a long time.I dont understand you and i never will and you come across to me as slightly odd which is why i dont normally reply to you and you admit that its the same for yourself.

Do what you want to do as i dont know why you think i am interested in your personal baggage.

One point you do make is a valid criticism in that i dont talk about the comic enough here while i talk about another subject too much for your liking and it is compulsive as there is no denying it but to suggest that i use this place purely to push my opinions on others is just pain wro9ng and that stems from your long term dislike of myself that is ongoing.I dont talk about the comic very much and my passion for comics or this comic is refelected in the fact that i spend a lot of my time at present quietly improving my artwork and inking which i dont talk about much or publicise here.

First you say "I'll be watching" and then you say you will be ignoring so you need to make your mind up but if you choose not to ignore then i dont want to hear your complaints as you have the choice and unless you can deal with it in an adult fashion instead of your juvenile namecalling ignoring is the best option for you and that being the ignore function since you dont seem to able to  ignore without the ignore function.

Look at the name of thread for a clue.I dont like the Unicorn thread as i find it annoying so what is the point in me visiting that thread and then complaining that it is full of Unicorns ?

I dont like hitting my finger with a hammer so i dont keep doing it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 17 June, 2011, 01:36:19 PM
This is an emotive thread that is bound to cause friction due to its very nature. For example, I think I upset Rich earlier on - this was not my intent but I'm not going to apologise for it. We all have our opinions and beliefs which we are protective of and to have someone question those opinions and beliefs causes knee-jerk anger. This can't be helped.

Let's just say that what happens on the "Truth?" thread stays on the "Truth?" thread. If we can't play nice like sensible adults with differences of opinion then we might as well ask the mods to lock this thread right now. I personally don't want that to happen as I enjoy talking about this stuff.

I now return you to your regular bitching... :)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 17 June, 2011, 01:51:51 PM
For example, I think I upset Rich earlier on - this was not my intent but I'm not going to apologise for it.

Nah- I'm not upset! I will admit to being frustrated, but it's only an interweb conversation, after all!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 17 June, 2011, 02:14:11 PM
We all have our opinions and beliefs which we are protective of and to have someone question those opinions and beliefs causes knee-jerk anger.

I've noticed folk only tend to get really angry if the conflicting belief is something which they think may be detrimental to other people, especially if their own opinion is completely ignored.

This is the case whether they believe homeopathy is a load of guff, (which it is), or they believe the planet's being controlled by evil space lizards like out of V, (which it probably isn't).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 17 June, 2011, 02:15:06 PM
Let's see...I can confirm I haven't been drinking and I'm not posting from my phone,so...

Homeopathy is probably bollocks. Avogadro's constant tells me so.

Notice I don't say 'might be' as that would imply that there's a 50% chance it might not be bollocks. Holding that the only way to quantify the effective use of any substance as medicine is to identify it's active chemical components and their effect on living organisms or their pathogens, it's probably bollocks.  I think the real issue raised is about multinationals again, not medical science in any real sense.

And the comments made about scientists just go where the money is and are dictated to by accountants - that's a rather convenient view to hold if you don't want to trust what you see as part of the establishment, which is how I feel a lot of people view yer actual scientists. I could pretty much guarantee that the vast majority of scientists of the world are not earning big money and do not work for multinational corporations. Industry may fund research, but there's a difference between the grey literature produced by such companies themselves and peer reviewed research articles in quality journals, even if produced by industry scientists. Research must stand on it's own merit. This may be seen as a quixotic view, but that's what's always there in the background. Peer review has it's own pitfalls, but that's another topic altogether...

(Plus I'm stealing that 'science fan' comment TLS!)

Does that help steer it back on topic? It's even a bit necro posty! Just doing my bit... :D

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 17 June, 2011, 03:03:36 PM
I love this thread!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 17 June, 2011, 03:04:24 PM
What infuriates me is these two jerks thinking 2000ad forum is just another vessel for their useless opinions.

O Lucky Stevie! and I are awfully sorry :(
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 17 June, 2011, 05:47:43 PM
This thread isnt named what it is for nothing.

One musnt make simplistic generalisations about Science and the pharmaceutical industry that are based on your own prejudices against certain sections of the scientific/pharmaceutical community and industry.

There should be a Twat thread where anyone can act like a Twat or an idiot as much as they like and reply to others comments with cliched pejorative comments and statements.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 17 June, 2011, 06:03:09 PM
Tch. Intellectuals, eh?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Something Fishy 17 June, 2011, 06:28:50 PM
ooo. I popped in here for a quick look and it's all a bit dark.

Would it help if I were to suggest big hugs all round?

I'll back out anyway, your fishy friend was never one for confrontation.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 17 June, 2011, 06:31:33 PM
Well, this thread was started by a shark...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 17 June, 2011, 06:38:25 PM
Hmmph. A comment has disappeared and now my previous comment makes less sense.

It's a flippin' conspiracy, that's what it is!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Something Fishy 17 June, 2011, 10:04:42 PM
Well, this thread was started by a shark...

gulp. i never do too well around them.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 18 June, 2011, 04:32:09 AM
I dont like the Unicorn thread as i find it annoying so what is the point in me visiting that thread and then complaining that it is full of Unicorns ?

Dude...I used to think you were cool...but..but..you don't like unicorns?

What kind of a monster are you? ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 18 June, 2011, 12:16:52 PM
"Here's Tom with the weather."

thanks, now the genetic sport...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 18 June, 2011, 04:55:21 PM
I dont like the Unicorn thread as i find it annoying so what is the point in me visiting that thread and then complaining that it is full of Unicorns ?

Dude...I used to think you were cool...but..but..you don't like unicorns?

What kind of a monster are you? ;)

The kind that doesnt like Unicorns.Stupid things with those stupid horns sticking out their heads.They dont seem to do anything other than hang around next to rainbows and waterfalls.

Unicornist.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 19 June, 2011, 11:40:02 AM
This thread isnt named what it is for nothing.

One musnt make simplistic generalisations about Science and the pharmaceutical industry that are based on your own prejudices against certain sections of the scientific/pharmaceutical community and industry.

There should be a Twat thread where anyone can act like a Twat or an idiot as much as they like and reply to others comments with cliched pejorative comments and statements.

Who you calling a twat?!

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: SmallBlueThing 19 June, 2011, 03:52:24 PM
Fucking hell, peter, you don't like unicorns?! right, that's it- not only am i now going to mass-market reprint meltdown man in colour, and with rewritten 'street' dialogue, but im going to have to insist on unicorns being added to the backgrounds throughout. The associated rainbows and waterfalls they frollic around with be nice and colourful and complement the hues of their big dewy eyes and long lashes. I'll have it ready for london in july.
SBT
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 19 June, 2011, 10:56:28 PM
This thread isnt named what it is for nothing.

One musnt make simplistic generalisations about Science and the pharmaceutical industry that are based on your own prejudices against certain sections of the scientific/pharmaceutical community and industry.

There should be a Twat thread where anyone can act like a Twat or an idiot as much as they like and reply to others comments with cliched pejorative comments and statements.

Who you calling a twat?!

M.

Where did i call you a twat ??

Can you quote exactly where i stated that you are a twat anywhere in this thread ?

I didnt think so and really i will just have to put you back on ignore for that.  ;)

Fucking hell, peter, you don't like unicorns?! right, that's it- not only am i now going to mass-market reprint meltdown man in colour, and with rewritten 'street' dialogue, but im going to have to insist on unicorns being added to the backgrounds throughout. The associated rainbows and waterfalls they frollic around with be nice and colourful and complement the hues of their big dewy eyes and long lashes. I'll have it ready for london in july.
SBT

I really really like unicorns and i wasnt being serious before.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: O Lucky Stevie! 20 June, 2011, 07:40:58 AM
O Lucky Stevie! and I are awfully sorry :(

You may be Emperor but Stevie certainly isn’t. If peeps want to hide under the sink clutching their adzes when the Starchild comes a-knocking then that’s their loss.

So you could probably work out a rough timeline that'd parallel that of MC1 -  you'd be looking at say the early to mid-2020s (possibly earlier) for some kind of permanent settlement off planet, probably driven by environmental problems on Earth and dwindling resources (the Helium 3 on the Moon becomes vital as do things like space-based solar arrays). You'd presumably build mass drivers on the Moon and in orbit to shunt people and cargo around, so you could use them to fire out probes and then miners into the asteroid belt, where they'd build them to send material back. This would then be in full-swing by the time MC2 and Texas City start to get built in the later 2030s/early 2040s. The money raised would help fund more ambitious missions to other stars. Then you have the Atomic war in 2070...

Blimey, so that was Bad Bob's game then eh?  Not content with nuking the opposition to merely rule a despoiled planet of diminishing resources he hoped to to gain a monoploy of the very heavens in the upshot?

Are you proud of yourself now Mr Pournelle?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: O Lucky Stevie! 20 June, 2011, 07:42:05 AM
O Lucky Stevie! and I are awfully sorry :(

You may be Emperor but Stevie certainly isn’t. If peeps want to hide under the sink clutching their adzes when the Starchild comes a-knocking then that’s their loss.

So you could probably work out a rough timeline that'd parallel that of MC1 -  you'd be looking at say the early to mid-2020s (possibly earlier) for some kind of permanent settlement off planet, probably driven by environmental problems on Earth and dwindling resources (the Helium 3 on the Moon becomes vital as do things like space-based solar arrays). You'd presumably build mass drivers on the Moon and in orbit to shunt people and cargo around, so you could use them to fire out probes and then miners into the asteroid belt, where they'd build them to send material back. This would then be in full-swing by the time MC2 and Texas City start to get built in the later 2030s/early 2040s. The money raised would help fund more ambitious missions to other stars. Then you have the Atomic war in 2070...

Blimey, so that was Bad Bob's game then eh?  Not content with nuking the opposition to merely rule a despoiled planet of diminishing resources he had hoped to to gain a monoploy of the very heavens in the upshot?

Are you proud of yourself now Mr Pournelle?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 20 June, 2011, 09:32:17 AM
: Peter Wolf link=topic=32312.msg612253#msg612253 [/quote

Where did i call you a twat ??

Can you quote exactly where i stated that you are a twat anywhere in this thread ?

I didnt think so and really i will just have to put you back on ignore for that.  ;)


"It was a joke, you fuck!"

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 20 June, 2011, 09:46:17 AM
A heavy dose of these are in order for this thread.

(http://www.glogster.com/media/4/36/64/43/36644313.jpg)




V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dunk! 20 June, 2011, 10:01:04 AM
A discussion of this nature getting heated!

What the fuck?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 20 June, 2011, 10:09:12 AM
I'm not wound up! Not in the slightest... I'm quoting Tommy in 'Goodfellas' when he tells Frankie Carbone to make the coffee to go, and Frankie takes him at his word..for what I hoped would be comedy effect!

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 20 June, 2011, 10:11:37 AM
You're a funny guy, Mikey...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 20 June, 2011, 10:31:41 AM
What? Like I'm a fuckin clown? Like I amuse you? Just what the fuck is so funny about me?

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 20 June, 2011, 10:39:33 AM
Your theme Mikey.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0





V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 20 June, 2011, 10:40:56 AM
It's just, you know. You're just funny, it's... funny, the way you tell the story and everything
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 20 June, 2011, 10:48:17 AM
I worry about you Richmond. I think you may fold under questioning.

M.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 20 June, 2011, 11:18:02 AM
Looks like we got a coupla wiseguys, eh?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 20 June, 2011, 11:57:51 AM
I hate that film. It disgusts me.

As you were.  :-X
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 20 June, 2011, 12:01:10 PM
Film..?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 20 June, 2011, 12:02:29 PM
Film..?

LOL.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 20 June, 2011, 02:28:20 PM
Film..?

Yeah HoU, they're obviously talking about frozen pizza.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 20 June, 2011, 02:46:41 PM
Bada BING! In stores with ice compartments!

M.

I'll stop it now...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 20 June, 2011, 05:18:59 PM
O Lucky Stevie! and I are awfully sorry :(

You may be Emperor but Stevie certainly isn’t. If peeps want to hide under the sink clutching their adzes when the Starchild comes a-knocking then that’s their loss.

Yeah, I was lying ;)

So you could probably work out a rough timeline that'd parallel that of MC1 -  you'd be looking at say the early to mid-2020s (possibly earlier) for some kind of permanent settlement off planet, probably driven by environmental problems on Earth and dwindling resources (the Helium 3 on the Moon becomes vital as do things like space-based solar arrays). You'd presumably build mass drivers on the Moon and in orbit to shunt people and cargo around, so you could use them to fire out probes and then miners into the asteroid belt, where they'd build them to send material back. This would then be in full-swing by the time MC2 and Texas City start to get built in the later 2030s/early 2040s. The money raised would help fund more ambitious missions to other stars. Then you have the Atomic war in 2070...

Blimey, so that was Bad Bob's game then eh?  Not content with nuking the opposition to merely rule a despoiled planet of diminishing resources he hoped to to gain a monoploy of the very heavens in the upshot?

Wellll perhaps not that cynically but you've got to ask yourself what the underlying causes of tensions were - even today we are seeing the West and India and China making landgrabs in Africa because their resource footprint is larger than their available land. As climate change kicks in and megacities start to sprawl there is going to be increasing friction thanks to the need for water and other resources. so it can't be long before people start looking to the stars for salvation. Some of the architecture put in place could be used offensively (like orbital mass drivers but just imagine what havoc you could spread with space mirrors) and so even establishing a permanent presence to access resources could turn nasty, before you have different countries pushing to get the best positions.

Are you proud of yourself now Mr Pournelle?

He helped save the world with the power of fiction, so he should be ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 20 June, 2011, 05:20:36 PM
A heavy dose of these are in order for this thread.

(http://www.glogster.com/media/4/36/64/43/36644313.jpg)




V

I wonder what that has got in it ?

Ecstacy and Ketamine ?

I will have a few of those off you if you can spare any but if its from BigPharma then i am not going to take any of those thanks as they are trying to kill you.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 23 June, 2011, 02:20:24 AM
Hi, I just wanted to tell you people I noticed this thread dropping off the radar. I want Shark to know or venerable in understanding to know, I did not set out with the intentions to kill this thread. Just to argue justly;"What is the truth? And do we give a fuck who gives it us?" Truly. Seems I overstepped the mark or challenged a point of view. Again this was not my intention but more, I wanted to break down the double standard.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 23 June, 2011, 02:26:54 AM
I don't think anyone blames you for anything, Krombasher - I certainly don't. This thread rises and falls periodically as the conspiracies come and go.

Anyone who lets a thread like this upset them is probably too fragile to be here anyway. Chill, bro - it's all good and truth is subjective anyway.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 30 June, 2011, 12:11:30 AM
I read the news today, oh boy...

No-one is in control. They're making this shit up as they go along
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 30 June, 2011, 09:28:23 PM
I read the news today, oh boy...

No-one is in control. They're making this shit up as they go along

I read the headlines on alternative media political websites every day and its getting more insane by the day and you dont get slow news days anymore and its been that way for the last couple of years.

As far as the shit they are making up as they go along some time ago i read an article written by a couple of fiction writers saying that they couldnt make this shit up as its insanity on a daily basis.I am well into politics and current events but lately i find i have to switch off from it more and more often as there is simply too much of it.Like this evening i think fuck this i am going to do some drawing and listen to music or something as there is only so much insanity i can take.

"They" are in control to an extent unfortunately and before anyone accuses me of paranoia dont even think about it as i wish i was paranoid and it was all a figment of my imagination but unfortunately that is not the case.


Planet Earth = Planet Absurd
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 30 June, 2011, 10:21:12 PM
You give "They' too much credit.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 30 June, 2011, 10:42:46 PM
You give "They' too much credit.

Well we have the manufactured banking collapse and bailouts etc etc,Globalisation,overseas UN/US/NATO military intervention/invasions etc,The IMF taking over deliberately bankrupted and sabotaged nations,the Arab Spring,the spurious War On Terror,private central banks like the FEDRES and the list goes on and on and on.............
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 30 June, 2011, 11:25:36 PM
Yet you can still sit and listen to the radio and draw...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 01 July, 2011, 09:42:53 AM
You give "They' too much credit.

Very true!

In the words of Steve Earle:

"Now there ain't no one out to get you, They've got to walk in their own shoes"
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 01 July, 2011, 12:38:48 PM
Depends what you mean by "they" and who you assume them to be.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 01 July, 2011, 01:29:14 PM
Me an some friends a mine stayed up all night
Drinking that truth
Truth Serum.

We soon realised the mistake we made and went our seperate ways.
I went up on the roof, to see if I could find some truth
There beneath the stars.
Questions followed me.

"Do you miss me when I go?"
Aw, honey I love you. An that's all you need to know.
"Well then. What is love?"
Love is an object kept in an empty box.
"How can something be in an empty box?"
Well, well, well, well. Gimme another shot of that truth serum.

I went back downstairs to check on my friends
Because truth has a way. A beginning and end.
Big bruiser Ken walks in, says " I like men".
I excuse myself and go back up on the roof again.
Questions follow me.

"Is death really the end?"
Honey I love you, that's all you need to know.
"Well then, what is life?"
Well, that's a good song without you by my side.

People, people there's a lesson here that's plain to see.
There's no truth in you.
There's no truth in me.
The truth is between.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 01 July, 2011, 01:40:07 PM
"They" is Bill Callahan?!?  Grudamnit, I trusted that guy, never figured him for the engineering-economic-collapse sort.  Still, read it on the internet so etc. 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 01 July, 2011, 01:57:50 PM
Truth is like a diamond, it has many facets and - no matter in which facet you look - you will always see your own reflection.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 01 July, 2011, 02:09:20 PM
"They" is Bill Callahan?!?  Grudamnit, I trusted that guy, never figured him for the engineering-economic-collapse sort.  Still, read it on the internet so etc.

Nope. Smog was they, now it's Bill. And why do ye think he's always so hang dog? GUILTY CONSCIENCE!

Truth is like a diamond, it has many facets and - no matter in which facet you look - you will always see your own reflection.

Native diamond or cut?  ;)

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 01 July, 2011, 02:43:16 PM
Either, really.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 02 July, 2011, 03:07:34 PM
Can anyone handle the truth about Gadaffi and Libya and the people of Libya and who and what they overwhelmingly support ?

Can anyone handle the fact that the vast majority of Libyans support Gadaffi to the point that Gadaffi arms them en masse with no comebacks ?

Can anyone handle the fact that Gadaffi has been purposefully demonised by the MSM who print lies about pro-Gadaffi Libyans raping women en masse and the lies about attack helicopters strafing anti-Gadaffi protestors etc etc ?

Can anyone handle the fact that the MSM virtually ignored deliberately the million + pro-Gadaffi demonstration in Libya yesterday while dutifully reiterating the words and warnings of  Hitlary Clinton etc ?

Can anyone handle the fact that if US/NATO ground forces are sent into Libya which is getting closer by the day is going to be a disaster for US/NATO ground forces as they will be seen as an enemy that will be surrounded by very angry Libyans ?

Can anyone handle the fact that its an act of insanity sending ground forces into Libya ?

Libya was removed from the list of known state sponsors of terrorism in 2007 but of course if Libyans attack US/NATO forces that will be labelled as terrists and insurgents if they resist an occupation and that Gadaffi is being told to renounce power as the only way to guarantee the Libyan peoples well being as in its the only way to stop the bombing campaigns which is blackmail that is holding the Libyan people to ransom in effect.

Already the pretext for bombing campaigns against Libya has changed from [fake] humanitarianism over to Libya being a threat to national security as the humanitarian angle is now played out unless anyone still thinks humanitarianism equares to bombing campaigns against soft targets in residential areas who under the terms of the UN resolution were legitimate targets since they were and still are pro-Gadaffi supporters.

Also in todays news it transpires that Ireland is going to be bailed it again as its economy is not able to recover sufficiently even if it wanted to and therefore avioding being bailed out again so for Ireland its Hobsons Choice as its fucked either way.





: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 02 July, 2011, 03:14:07 PM
Can anyone handle the truth about Gadaffi and Libya and the people of Libya and who and what they overwhelmingly support ?

Can anyone handle the fact that the vast majority of Libyans support Gadaffi to the point that Gadaffi arms them en masse with no comebacks ?

Can anyone handle the fact that Gadaffi has been purposefully demonised by the MSM who print lies about pro-Gadaffi Libyans raping women en masse and the lies about attack helicopters strafing anti-Gadaffi protestors etc etc ?

Can anyone handle the fact that the MSM virtually ignored deliberately the million + pro-Gadaffi demonstration in Libya yesterday while dutifully reiterating the words and warnings of  Hitlary Clinton etc ?

Can anyone handle the fact that if US/NATO ground forces are sent into Libya which is getting closer by the day is going to be a disaster for US/NATO ground forces as they will be seen as an enemy that will be surrounded by very angry Libyans ?

Can anyone handle the fact that its an act of insanity sending ground forces into Libya ?

Libya was removed from the list of known state sponsors of terrorism in 2007 but of course if Libyans attack US/NATO forces that will be labelled as terrists and insurgents if they resist an occupation and that Gadaffi is being told to renounce power as the only way to guarantee the Libyan peoples well being as in its the only way to stop the bombing campaigns which is blackmail that is holding the Libyan people to ransom in effect.

Already the pretext for bombing campaigns against Libya has changed from [fake] humanitarianism over to Libya being a threat to national security as the humanitarian angle is now played out unless anyone still thinks humanitarianism equares to bombing campaigns against soft targets in residential areas who under the terms of the UN resolution were legitimate targets since they were and still are pro-Gadaffi supporters.

Also in todays news it transpires that Ireland is going to be bailed it again as its economy is not able to recover sufficiently even if it wanted to and therefore avioding being bailed out again so for Ireland its Hobsons Choice as its fucked either way.

(http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/web-focus/events/workshops/webmaster-2008/talks/currall/slides/images/panam_103.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 02 July, 2011, 03:25:16 PM
Not that easy RC.

Lockerbie is very much contested a 'truth' and not in a silly tin-foil-hat kind of way.

The Libya ‘link’
So was Libya even involved in the Lockerbie bombing? The answer is that nobody knows. Libya certainly had a grim record in state-sponsored terrorism, but there was scant evidence to link it directly to Lockerbie at the Zeist trial. The links to Libya came from the suggestion that a fragment of a timing device which survived the blast was an MST-13 timer produced by a Swiss company, Mebo, which had supplied some to Libya. But it had also supplied them to East Germany; and in any event Libya could have sold them on. Libya could well have had links with the PFLP and PPF cells; but again there was no evidence of such a link.


http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&article=122

On January 31, after an eight-month trial, three Scottish judges, sitting in a special court at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands, found a Libyan intelligence officer, Ali Al-Megrahi, guilty of the Lockerbie bombing - Britain's biggest mass murder - acquitting his colleague, Khalifa Fhimah.
Two days earlier, senior Foreign Office officials briefed a group of journalists in London. They painted a picture of a bright new chapter in Britain's relations with Colonel Gadafy's regime. They made it quite clear they assumed both the Libyans in the dock would be acquitted.

The FO officials were not alone. Most independent observers believed it was impossible for the court to find the prosecution had proved its case against Megrahi beyond reasonable doubt.

It was not only the lack of hard evidence - something the judges admitted in their lengthy judgment. The case was entwined, if the judges were right, in a sequence of remarkable coincidences.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/19/lockerbie.comment

“The endgame came down to damage limitation," said the former CIA officer Robert Baer, who took part in the original investigation, "because the evidence amassed by [Megrahi's] appeal is explosive and extremely damning to the system of justice." New witnesses would show that it was impossible for Megrahi to have bought clothes that were found in the wreckage of the Pan Am aircraft - he was convicted on the word of a Maltese shopowner who claimed to have sold him the clothes, then gave a false description of him in 19 separate statements and even failed to recognise him in the courtroom.

The new evidence would have shown that a fragment of a circuit board and bomb timer, "discovered" in the Scottish countryside and said to have been in Megrahi's suitcase, was probably a plant. A forensic scientist found no trace of an explosion on it. The new evidence would demonstrate the impossibility of the bomb beginning its journey in Malta before it was "transferred" through two airports undetected to Flight 103.

A "key secret witness" at the original trial, who claimed to have seen Megrahi and his co-accused, al-Alim Khalifa Fahimah (who was acquitted), loading the bomb on to the plane at Frankfurt, was bribed by the US authorities holding him as a "protected witness". The defence exposed him as a CIA informer who stood to collect, on the Libyans' conviction, up to $4m as a reward.


http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2009/09/pilger-megrahi-justice
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: I, Cosh 02 July, 2011, 03:59:15 PM
Not that easy RC.

Lockerbie is very much contested a 'truth' and not in a silly tin-foil-hat kind of way.
Interesting. I had thought Libyan state involvement at some level was pretty cut and dried and the arguments were over the role (or lack thereof) of Al Megrahi and his mate.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 02 July, 2011, 04:06:06 PM
Despite all that Lockerbie was not the pretext for the US/NATO attacking Libya anyway as  Libya was officially forgiven for that by the international community years ago.Of course now Libya is a now a problem to national security as you cant expect there not to be a comeback from Gadaffi and Libyans.Thats a presumption and it doesnt help the cause of Gadaffi and Libyans that Gadaffi apparently threatened Europe with attacks at all and it was a very stupid thing to do as he is playing right into the hands of those who are attacking Libya and who want Gadaffi out particularly as attacks could be staged and instigated that would be blamed on Libya to legitimise the US/NATO.

Of course you might think that Libya has a legitimate reason to do so as in an eye for an eye but in this case it wasnt as bombing soft targets in Europe makes you no better than the US/NATO.What a way to weaken their own cause  :crazy: as in shooting themselves in the foot and now that it has been said by Gadaffi they are now a threat to national security etc which will be capitalised on by the US/NATO etc etc.

A stupid stupid stupid threat to make and there isnt any proof as of yet that its lies and propaganda.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 02 July, 2011, 04:20:20 PM
I might be able to shed some more light on the subject of Libya/Lockerbie but that wont be until Monday onwards and i cant divulge who or what my source of information is as its a sensitive matter but if i find out anything of interest i will post it but i cant promise that i can add anything to what info is already freely available.

[apologies for the double post but i ran out of editing time]
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 02 July, 2011, 04:48:33 PM
Not that easy RC.

Lockerbie is very much contested a 'truth' and not in a silly tin-foil-hat kind of way.
Interesting. I had thought Libyan state involvement at some level was pretty cut and dried and the arguments were over the role (or lack thereof) of Al Megrahi and his mate.


Nothing is cut-and-dried with Megrahi, even the reasons for his release.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 02 July, 2011, 04:51:05 PM
Not that easy RC.

Lockerbie is very much contested a 'truth' and not in a silly tin-foil-hat kind of way.
Interesting. I had thought Libyan state involvement at some level was pretty cut and dried and the arguments were over the role (or lack thereof) of Al Megrahi and his mate.


Nothing is cut-and-dried with Megrahi, even the reasons for his release.

Cheers, Joe- some interesting reading there.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 03 July, 2011, 07:59:08 AM
The fact that the French are illegally (Although there is a clause that they are arming civvies to protect themselves) supplying the rebels with arms doesn't really surprise me in the least. If it was another nation the French would be up in arms (pardon the pun).
http://aljazeera.co.uk/news/africa/2011/06/2011629234644934286.html
Devils advocate: Surely there are pro Gaderffii civvies who need to protect themselves

The French did back the UN into starting operations against Lybia.
http://warsclerotic.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/french-air-force-in-action-over-libya-at-start-of-broad-anti-qaddafi-operation/

The whole affair is turning into one big cluster fuck and can only get worse.




V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 03 July, 2011, 12:04:57 PM
Not that easy RC.

Lockerbie is very much contested a 'truth' and not in a silly tin-foil-hat kind of way.
Interesting. I had thought Libyan state involvement at some level was pretty cut and dried and the arguments were over the role (or lack thereof) of Al Megrahi and his mate.


Nothing is cut-and-dried with Megrahi, even the reasons for his release.

Cheers, Joe- some interesting reading there.

Hand in your internet 'blustering buffoon' card, immediately!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 03 July, 2011, 12:16:25 PM
Not that easy RC.

Lockerbie is very much contested a 'truth' and not in a silly tin-foil-hat kind of way.
Interesting. I had thought Libyan state involvement at some level was pretty cut and dried and the arguments were over the role (or lack thereof) of Al Megrahi and his mate.


Nothing is cut-and-dried with Megrahi, even the reasons for his release.

Cheers, Joe- some interesting reading there.

Hand in your internet 'blustering buffoon' card, immediately!

Errr- by 'interesting reading' I of course mean, Fuck you asshole! I don't need you to tell me what to think!

(Phew, I think I got away with that one...)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 03 July, 2011, 03:57:59 PM
What is going on is the US/NATO/UN are just doing what they like regardless of anything or anyone else and it demonstrates the problem with world govt and a self appointed supreme authority who are answerable to noone except themselves but they are being held accountable and are being scrutinised.

Another stupid thing that the UK and France issued death threats to Gadaffi stating that they were sending in a team of assassins to get rid of Gadaffi which was very stupid because if you announce it then you lose the element of surprise but having said that its not the first time the UK[amongst others] has attempted to assassinate Gadaffi and they have failed every time.Also the security around Gadaffi will be very very very tight and anyone attempting to assassinate Gadaffi wont even get close enough and there is no chance of infiltrating Gadaffis security forces and if any of them are unlucky enough to be caught they will either be imprisoned if they are lucky or sent back to where they came from in bits.

Gadiffi is proving very difficult to get rid of which is frustrating the UN/US/NATO forces so they will get more and more desperate as the days and weeks go by and their last resort is to send in ground forces as the US/UN/NATO will not back down or retreat.

I am hoping that the military will refuse as its a suicide mission.The military in Afghanistan and Iraq were initially welcomed by a large amount of the population of those countries so its not hard to imagine the consequences of being unwelcome except for a minority of western backed rebel forces of which a percentage have switched to supporting Gadaffi as they realised that they were losing and because Gadaffi gave them an amnesty.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 03 July, 2011, 05:05:22 PM
Wait... Are we talking about Gadaffi, here?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 03 July, 2011, 07:09:19 PM
What is going on is the US/NATO/UN are just doing what they like

Fixed that for you.

The UN doesn't do anything. If Aliens invaded tomorrow*, the UN would probably take three months to decide that they should freeze all their assets. A pointless, impotent organization is what they are

*who's to say they're not already among us?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 03 July, 2011, 07:43:17 PM
The UN - a great concept rendered ineffective at best and dangerous at worst by bureaucracy and selfishness.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 03 July, 2011, 08:11:51 PM
Wait... Are we talking about Gadaffi, here?
I wasn't. I was talking about Gaderffi
 (http://www.star.etmortius.net/equipement/weapons/images/Star%20Wars%20-%20D6%20-%20Weapons%20Stats%20Netbook_img_9.jpg)




V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 03 July, 2011, 10:15:46 PM
What is going on is the US/NATO/UN are just doing what they like

Fixed that for you.

The UN doesn't do anything. If Aliens invaded tomorrow*, the UN would probably take three months to decide that they should freeze all their assets. A pointless, impotent organization is what they are

*who's to say they're not already among us?



I was talking about Gadaffi.The UN are impotent as and when it suits them to be impotent which is the majority of the time as its a corrupt and criminal organisation which is obvious now that it doesnt abide by its own resolutions or international law and it launches a war or "kinetic military action" as they like to call it and uses civil unrest within Libya as a window of opportunity to do so.A sad side effect of it all was not allowing Libyan students abroad to continue their studies simply because their studying was subsidised by Gadaffi.

Bombing campaigns = Humanitarianism

Humanitarianism = Stealing billions that belongs to Libyans and then giving it way after imposing sanctions and freezing its assets.

Humanitarianism = Bombing civilian targets and using DU munitions and drone attacks.

Humanitarianism = The collapse of the Lbyan economy and manufacturing base and everything else.

War = Peace

The Fukushima earthquake and resulting nuclear catastrophe was the perfect opportunity for the UN to demonstrate that it has a purpose yet it has done   n o t h i n g   in response to that while at the same time that was unfolding it was launching military action against Libya.The UN have also been a complete and utter failure in Haiti.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 03 July, 2011, 10:25:38 PM
Ye forgot one there Mr. Wolf

Humanitarianism= Appointing people like Geri Haliwell as 'Goodwill Ambassadors', send them to impoverished countries to speak to the natives, and then broadcasting what the most insightful, politically aware and culturally sensitive member of the Spice Girls thinks about the whole frightful business of poverty
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 04 July, 2011, 04:10:09 AM
Evidence of technology on Mars? That thing to the top right of centre doesn't half look artificial:

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/p/1402/2P250825588EFFAW9DP2432R1M1.HTML
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 04 July, 2011, 09:41:11 AM
More like evidience of geology.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 04 July, 2011, 09:55:04 AM
More like evidience of geology.

You man it's a naturally formed rock but it came all the way from Earth?  Amazing!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: GordonR 04 July, 2011, 10:22:44 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giants-causeway-in-ireland.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giants-causeway-in-ireland.jpg)

Evidence of technology in Ireland? Those things don't half look artificial.

Possibly constructed by a race of giants?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 04 July, 2011, 10:28:00 AM
More like evidience of geology.

You man it's a naturally formed rock but it came all the way from Earth?  Amazing!


I was going to type areology -neologism- but it looks too much like arseology.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 04 July, 2011, 10:30:41 AM
Possibly constructed by a race of giants?

And PJ.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 04 July, 2011, 10:32:14 AM
Possibly constructed by a race of giants?

And PJ.


The Nipper of ancient days.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 04 July, 2011, 10:35:32 AM
I was going to type areology -neologism- but it looks too much like arseology.

It's okay, I miss Roger too.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 04 July, 2011, 06:09:52 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giants-causeway-in-ireland.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giants-causeway-in-ireland.jpg)

Evidence of technology in Ireland? Those things don't half look artificial.

Possibly constructed by a race of giants?

It was constructed to stop coastal erosion @ about 20,000 BC using a material that was cast in hexagonal lengths and constructed in interlocking sections of varying height.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Something Fishy 04 July, 2011, 08:05:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giants-causeway-in-ireland.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Giants-causeway-in-ireland.jpg)

Evidence of technology in Ireland? Those things don't half look artificial.

Possibly constructed by a race of giants?

It was constructed to stop coastal erosion @ about 20,000 BC using a material that was cast in hexagonal lengths and constructed in interlocking sections of varying height.

constructed back then?

By Neanderthals?

Says here it was caused by natural phenomena http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giants_causeway

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 04 July, 2011, 08:30:55 PM

constructed back then?

By Neanderthals?


Trans-Time inc.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Something Fishy 04 July, 2011, 08:45:46 PM

constructed back then?

By Neanderthals?


Trans-Time inc.

ah ha.. good point.  Same people that turned up on their mobile phone in that old cine-reel recently.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 04 July, 2011, 08:49:57 PM
It's a Well Known Fact that the Giant's Causeway was a giant Bee-Hive built by a race of Giant Bees.
When they were hunted to extinction, the Huns and Fenians didn't have a common enemy anymore. That's how The Troubles started. The whole Fairy-Tale about Fionn MacCumhaill has to be one of the worst attempts at a cover-up ever.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 04 July, 2011, 10:05:46 PM
constructed back then?

By Neanderthals?

No need for our big nosed brothers, plenty of H. s. sapiens around in northern Europe by 20,000BC (and no evidence of the former in Ireland, ever - present company excepted).  Whether they would have been able to assemble precast under 3km of ice during the last glacial maximum is another matter.  The giant bee explanation has more merit, not least the prospect of cracking open some of those columns to feed on sweet, sweet subglacial honey.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 05 July, 2011, 06:35:45 PM
8 reasons why the US/NATO* are attacking Libya with a view to taking it over as there is more to this than oil as uneducated people keep saying "Its the oil - Its about oil - "They want the oil" etc etc as if they think they are letting you in on a secret and as they think they are so much more enlightened than you are while missing out the rest.

1: The control of water as there are huge freshwater aquifers under Libya.

2: Cash.Libya was going to produce its own gold backed Dinars which would have become the national currency of Africa.Libya also printed its own debt free currency which was printed in the UK.

3: Banking.Libya is one of the few countries left that doesnt have a privately owned central bank although now it does also have a privately owned central bank that was set up by the so called "Rebel forces".

4: Control of Africa.Libya is the most successful nation in Africa and it had long term plans to assist/lead the rest of Africa to become free and independent and was/is going to assist the rest of Africa to access its underground water supplies amongst other things.

5: Oil.No need to elaborate on that.

6: Independence.Libya is a totally independent self determining country as is Gadaffi who didnt kow tow to the UN/Globalist/Global governance agenda.

7: Theft: The theft/control of Libyan cash and assets and land and resources.


8: Setting a bad example.Libya was setting a very bad example to the world in how a govt and a country could be self reliant to a large extent and how to have a monetary system that doent implode by design and how to invest its cash in itself and how to provide for its people financially and through a welfare system and how to never borrow cash and end up in massive debt and how to become prosperous and the list goes on.....

There are probably more reasons i have not listed.


*On behalf of private interests
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 05 July, 2011, 10:37:31 PM
I'm also pretty sure- and you can correct me if I'm wrong here- that Gadaffi is an evil bastard.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 05 July, 2011, 10:44:07 PM
I'm also pretty sure- and you can correct me if I'm wrong here- that Gadaffi is an evil bastard.


Never a criteria for invasion though.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 06 July, 2011, 12:07:48 AM
I'm also pretty sure- and you can correct me if I'm wrong here- that Gadaffi is an evil bastard.

Plenty of evil bastards out there in the world, some running countries. The criteria for whether we are allies with them (or at the very least flogging them weapons) or kicking their teeth down their throat seems to be a rather cynical cost/benefit analysis.

Just take a look Uzbekistan - we are quite happy to look the other way as the regime their boils people alive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_boiling#Modern_times), because they let us use their airbases.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 06 July, 2011, 12:23:41 AM
Another reason is the 100 minute speech given by Gadaffi to the UN assembly where he threw the UN charter back at Banki Moon and called them criminals amongst many other things as it was highly critical of war in Iraq and the US fighting the Taliban and just about everything else.He has called for a new inquiry into the JFK assassination and has called the West or those that control the West criminals who steal wealth and resources and who control and instigate coups and revolutions.

In its entirity :

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289093-2 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289093-2)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dunk! 06 July, 2011, 09:16:31 AM
JFK - the one that won't go away...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 06 July, 2011, 09:39:33 AM
Another reason is the 100 minute speech given by Gadaffi to the UN assembly where he threw the UN charter back at Banki Moon and called them criminals amongst many other things as it was highly critical of war in Iraq and the US fighting the Taliban and just about everything else.He has called for a new inquiry into the JFK assassination and has called the West or those that control the West criminals who steal wealth and resources and who control and instigate coups and revolutions.

In its entirity :

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289093-2 (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/289093-2)

Lybia was invaded because he asked for an enquiry into the JFK killing?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 06 July, 2011, 12:40:50 PM
Hey, Gaddafi's just telling it like he sees it. And what he sees, gentlemen, is The Man fuckin a dog.

I love Gaddafi - he's fuckin nuts and drives a golf buggy.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Q27G2fzNlw4/TW7J8qfp9ZI/AAAAAAAADqY/kvzvBMzuFvE/golf+car.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Old Tankie 06 July, 2011, 04:38:47 PM
Wasn't aware that Libya's been invaded by anybody, Richmond!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 06 July, 2011, 05:19:03 PM


Not so long ago....

(http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Blair-Gaddafi-Masonic-Handshake-01.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 06 July, 2011, 05:21:33 PM
Wasn't aware that Libya's been invaded by anybody, Richmond!

Er, how about the invasion of airspace? The invasion of bombs into Libyan property? The (admittedly very small) invasion of "military advisors"?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 06 July, 2011, 05:22:52 PM


Not so long ago....

(http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Blair-Gaddafi-Masonic-Handshake-01.jpg)

Despot the Difference?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Old Tankie 06 July, 2011, 05:53:16 PM
If military advisors are a sign of invasion, Sharky, we're currently being "invaded" by Australia, Canada, Russia, France, USA, Poland, Spain, Germany, India, etc., etc. and, as for air space, all you've got to do is look in the sky where I live and the good ole U S of A is "invading" us all the time, by your criteria!!!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 06 July, 2011, 06:00:17 PM
If military advisors are a sign of invasion, Sharky, we're currently being "invaded" by Australia, Canada, Russia, France, USA, Poland, Spain, Germany, India, etc., etc. and, as for air space, all you've got to do is look in the sky where I live and the good ole U S of A is "invading" us all the time, by your criteria!!!

You just keep telling yourself that, eh?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Old Tankie 06 July, 2011, 06:03:23 PM
Oh!  Thanks for your okay on that, Richmond!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 06 July, 2011, 06:05:00 PM
Oh!  Thanks for your okay on that, Richmond!

No problem- anything else you want to know how to think about, just ask.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Old Tankie 06 July, 2011, 06:07:59 PM
Cheers, Richmond, I'll be in touch!!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 06 July, 2011, 06:11:19 PM
Letting people stay at your house is not the same as having squatters.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 06 July, 2011, 06:21:51 PM
I'm also pretty sure- and you can correct me if I'm wrong here- that Gadaffi is an evil bastard.

Plenty of evil bastards out there in the world, some running countries. The criteria for whether we are allies with them (or at the very least flogging them weapons) or kicking their teeth down their throat seems to be a rather cynical cost/benefit analysis.

Just take a look Uzbekistan - we are quite happy to look the other way as the regime their boils people alive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_boiling#Modern_times), because they let us use their airbases.

That is just horrific.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 06 July, 2011, 06:29:44 PM
because they let us use their airbases.

and pipe oil out
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 06 July, 2011, 06:38:48 PM
Indeed. From 2003 - "Tony Blair's new friend (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/oct/28/foreignpolicy.usa)":

There are over 6,000 political and religious prisoners in Uzbekistan. Every year, some of them are tortured to death. Sometimes the policemen or intelligence agents simply break their fingers, their ribs and then their skulls with hammers, or stab them with screwdrivers, or rip off bits of skin and flesh with pliers, or drive needles under their fingernails, or leave them standing for a fortnight, up to their knees in freezing water. Sometimes they are a little more inventive. The body of one prisoner was delivered to his relatives last year, with a curious red tidemark around the middle of his torso. He had been boiled to death.

His crime, like that of many of the country's prisoners, was practising his religion. Islam Karimov, the president of Uzbekistan, learned his politics in the Soviet Union. He was appointed under the old system, and its collapse in 1991 did not interrupt his rule. An Islamist terrorist network has been operating there, but Karimov makes no distinction between peaceful Muslims and terrorists: anyone who worships privately, who does not praise the president during his prayers or who joins an organisation which has not been approved by the state can be imprisoned. Political dissidents, human rights activists and homosexuals receive the same treatment. Some of them, like in the old Soviet Union, are sent to psychiatric hospitals.

But Uzbekistan is seen by the US government as a key western asset, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq once was. Since 1999, US special forces have been training Karimov's soldiers. In October 2001, he gave the United States permission to use Uzbekistan as an airbase for its war against the Taliban. The Taliban have now been overthrown, but the US has no intention of moving out. Uzbekistan is in the middle of central Asia's massive gas and oil fields. It is a nation for whose favours both Russia and China have been vying. Like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, it is a secular state fending off the forces of Islam.

So, far from seeking to isolate his regime, the US government has tripled its aid to Karimov. Last year, he received $500m (£300m), of which $79m went to the police and intelligence services, who are responsible for most of the torture. While the US claims that its engagement with Karimov will encourage him to respect human rights, like Saddam Hussein he recognises that the protection of the world's most powerful government permits him to do whatever he wants. Indeed, the US state department now plays a major role in excusing his crimes. In May, for example, it announced that Uzbekistan had made "substantial and continuing progress" in improving its human rights record. The progress? "Average sentencing" for members of peaceful religious organisations is now just "7-12 years", while two years ago they were "usually sentenced to 12-19 years".

...

So what of Tony Blair, the man who claims that human rights are so important that they justify going to war? Well, at the beginning of this year, he granted Uzbekistan an open licence to import whatever weapons from the United Kingdom Mr Karimov fancies. But his support goes far beyond that. The British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has repeatedly criticised Karimov's crushing of democracy movements and his use of torture to silence his opponents. Like Roger Casement, the foreign office envoy who exposed the atrocities in the Congo a century ago, Murray has been sending home dossiers which could scarcely fail to move anyone who cares about human rights.

Blair has been moved all right: moved to do everything he could to silence our ambassador. Mr Murray has been threatened with the sack, investigated for a series of plainly trumped-up charges and persecuted so relentlessly by his superiors that he had to spend some time, like many of Karimov's critics, in a psychiatric ward, though in this case for sound clinical reasons. This pressure, according to a senior government source, was partly "exercised on the orders of No 10".

I may have missed the news that we have cut our links with Uzbekistan after Tony Blair stepped down...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 06 July, 2011, 08:23:47 PM

Lybia was invaded because he asked for an enquiry into the JFK killing?

No but it goes to show that Gadaffi is seen as a problem and a liability by the "international community".Its well worth watching the entire speech and without making light of the very serious subject matter it does have a certain amount of entertainment value.

I admit that i am biased towards Gadaffi and i never thought i would support a dictator but there is a first time for everything.Gadaffi isnt perfect either as there is no such thing as a dictator/despot who has a perfect record of no abuses of power and sure enough there are problems with Gadaffi in this respect but on the plus side look at what he has done for the Libyan people.Someone will be along in a minute to say "look what Chairman Mao did for the people of China !" or Hitler or Stalin or PolPot etc etc but Gadaffi is not in that kind of league or anywhere near it.

I am tired and i have lost track of what i was going to type so it will have to wait till later.

Libyan airspace has been invaded and taken over by a hostile foreign military force so i am not sure what aspect of that is difficult to understand.It is what it is and there will be  US/NATO troops on the ground before this year is out and again this is an invasion as Gadaffi didnt invite them.

Nice country - We will take it !


: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 06 July, 2011, 08:33:36 PM
If gaderffii had the power and strength of both Stalin and Hitler he would be up there in their price range.




V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 06 July, 2011, 09:39:50 PM
I admit that i am biased towards Gadaffi and i never thought i would support a dictator but there is a first time for everything.

Peter, you know that as a man of strongly voiced opinions, you'd be dead, in jail or disappeared long ago if you lived in Gaddafi's Libya?  Despite the many flaws of western plutocracies they do tend to let us rabbit on in public, protest, and (while I know you think it makes no difference) even vote on occasion.  It's hard to hear someone voicing their support for someone who'd have them executed on the spot.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 06 July, 2011, 09:51:00 PM
Peter, you know that as a man of strongly voiced opinions, you'd be dead, in jail or disappeared long ago if you lived in Gaddafi's Libya? 


Orwell often called-out the left-wing/socialists in the UK when they showed naive/comfortable bias for Stalin, it can be easy when throwing boquets and bullets from the other side but you must condemn/stand-up for all equally, the power-of-facing as he called it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 06 July, 2011, 09:56:23 PM
We simply suffer from a different flavour of tyranny. What we have in Britain, at least for the moment, is Tyranny Lite.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 06 July, 2011, 10:09:19 PM
We simply suffer from a different flavour of tyranny. What we have in Britain, at least for the moment, is Tyranny Lite.

In the same way a sniffle is Tuberculosis Lite.  One is irritating, the other will kill or cripple you.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 06 July, 2011, 10:19:34 PM
I admit that i am biased towards Gadaffi

Then you are a fucking idiot.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Old Tankie 06 July, 2011, 10:20:32 PM
If I'm living in tyranny, Sharky, I'm all for it.  I don't think my grandfather would agree with your description of tyranny, mate.  He had the numbers tattooed on his arm by real tyranny.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: GordonR 06 July, 2011, 10:30:05 PM
If I'm living in tyranny, Sharky, I'm all for it.  I don't think my grandfather would agree with your description of tyranny, mate.  He had the numbers tattooed on his arm by real tyranny.

You know, I rarely - if, in fact, ever - agree with a single political opinion you've come out with. Except this one.

Buffoons who talk on public forums in this country about how we live in a dictatorship/tyrannical system don't even fucking know they're born.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 06 July, 2011, 10:41:14 PM
Most of the time it's a misaligned frustration borne of the collusion of 'good' governments with the 'naughty' ones and the resulting feeling of impotency to ever change it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 06 July, 2011, 10:48:57 PM
I admit that i am biased towards Gadaffi and i never thought i would support a dictator but there is a first time for everything.

Peter, you know that as a man of strongly voiced opinions, you'd be dead, in jail or disappeared long ago if you lived in Gaddafi's Libya?  Despite the many flaws of western plutocracies they do tend to let us rabbit on in public, protest, and (while I know you think it makes no difference) even vote on occasion.  It's hard to hear someone voicing their support for someone who'd have them executed on the spot.

I would blame the US/UN/NATO for my support of Gadaffi and i am expected to support the US/NATO/UN but i chose to talk up Gadaffi instead of falling in line with the evil brutal dictator rhetoric as obviously i dont support for what falls under the description of the US/NATO /UN and their plan for Libya.I dont support Gadaffi wholesale as i was just pointing out the positive aspects rather then the negatives and i wont condemn outright purely on the basis that you pointed out although i am aware of all that.As i am an outsider of Libya then i have the luxury of being objective about Gadaffi  and i am not an apologist.

Thank you Globalist western Plutocrats for letting me speak my mind.Thank you so much as i am so grateful as you are so powerful and benevolent but at the same time they would try to remove freedom of speech anytime if they didnt fear the backlash that would ensue but at the same time they doing other things like financially raping us and all the rest that i wont go into.Free speech is an inalienable right.


I admit that i am biased towards Gadaffi

Then you are a fucking idiot.
.

Thats not very condusive for intelligent chat and debate.

There are degrees of tyranny so quoting extreme examples of tyranny doesnt cancel out less extreme examples of tyranny or creeping and encroaching tyranny unless you dont understand the subject.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 06 July, 2011, 10:55:11 PM
I would blame the US/UN/NATO for my support of Gadaffi and i am expected to support the US/NATO/UN but i chose to talk up Gadaffi instead of falling in line with the evil brutal dictator rhetoric as obviously i dont support for what falls under the description of the US/NATO /UN and their plan for Libya.I dont support Gadaffi wholesale as i was just pointing out the positive aspects rather then the negatives and i wont condemn outright purely on the basis that you pointed out although i am aware of all that.As i am an outsider of Libya then i have the luxury of being objective about Gadaffi  and i am not an apologist.


I don't understand why you feel the need to choose a side, there is no logic in your thinking other than what you choose to ignore and leave out, it's a very reactionary/typical response from a propangadised individual -thought to take a side, doesn't matter which one, as long as it's not understood- who reponds in terms of reflex and feelings but without depth or degree of pragmatic thought.

Cut-to-the-chase, they are both bad for Libya.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 06 July, 2011, 11:01:50 PM
I would blame the US/UN/NATO for my support of Gadaffi and i am expected to support the US/NATO/UN but i chose to talk up Gadaffi instead of falling in line with the evil brutal dictator rhetoric as obviously i dont support for what falls under the description of the US/NATO /UN and their plan for Libya.I dont support Gadaffi wholesale as i was just pointing out the positive aspects rather then the negatives and i wont condemn outright purely on the basis that you pointed out although i am aware of all that.As i am an outsider of Libya then i have the luxury of being objective about Gadaffi  and i am not an apologist.


I don't understand why you feel the need to choose a side, there is no logic in your thinking other than what you choose to ignore and leave out, it's a very reactionary/typical response from a propangadised individual -thought to take a side, doesn't matter which one, as long as it's not understood- who reponds in terms of reflex and feelings but without depth or degree of real pragmatic thought.

Cut-to-the-chase, they are both bad for Libya.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 06 July, 2011, 11:24:57 PM
I would blame the US/UN/NATO for my support of Gadaffi and i am expected to support the US/NATO/UN but i chose to talk up Gadaffi instead of falling in line with the evil brutal dictator rhetoric as obviously i dont support for what falls under the description of the US/NATO /UN and their plan for Libya.I dont support Gadaffi wholesale as i was just pointing out the positive aspects rather then the negatives and i wont condemn outright purely on the basis that you pointed out although i am aware of all that.As i am an outsider of Libya then i have the luxury of being objective about Gadaffi  and i am not an apologist.


I don't understand why you feel the need to choose a side, there is no logic in your thinking other than what you choose to ignore and leave out, it's a very reactionary/typical response from a propangadised individual -thought to take a side, doesn't matter which one, as long as it's not understood- who reponds in terms of reflex and feelings but without depth or degree of pragmatic thought.

Cut-to-the-chase, they are both bad for Libya.

You must be talking to someone else.Keep your condescending BS about being propagandised thanks and the rest of it.I have already explained that i am aware of the negatives of Gadaffi as i chose to talk up Gadaffi/the Gadaffi regime so thats hardly responding in terms of reflex.

The flipside to this is if i had chosen to demonise and talk about the negative aspects of the Gadaffi regime and Gadaffi then i would not have been criticised and if i said that i supported NATO etc bombing the murdering dictator i would not have been criticised or it would have been a lot less likely.

"I dont understand why you feel the need to choose a side"

Its because i sympathise with their predicament and because of the nature of those that are bombing their country and i am not looking for yours or anyones approval.

Problem with that anyone ?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 06 July, 2011, 11:29:18 PM
Do you sympathise with Libya or with Gadaffi?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 06 July, 2011, 11:39:31 PM
Buffoons who talk on public forums in this country about how we live in a dictatorship/tyrannical system don't even fucking know they're born.

You're quite right, very few of us know we are born. Everything we need as an individual is made available to us, more or less. We have to pay for everything of course but it's all there, more or less. But that's not freedom, is it? That's just infrastructure.

Did your government ever set out to deliberately deprive you of shelter, food, water or medicine? Of course not. Does your government sit up at nights dreaming up ever more elaborate plots for complete domination? Of course not. Is your government tyrannical? Well, I'm not exactly certain what our government is. It's not a complete tyranny because we have freedom of speech and Magna Carta and suchlike - but then again it's not a real democracy either because they never ask us whether we want to go to war or not. They just do it. Did your grandfather fight for that? I know mine didn't.

I could point out tyrannical elements in our government, of course I could. I could point out good things, too - I love the idea of the House of Lords, for example, and the constitutional monarchy. But these things are no longer holding the sway they should in our country. They have been subverted, subtly and slowly, by small groups of powerful people.

Every penny in tax you pay goes into paying off the national debt - that is, money a sovereign country (ours) has borrowed at interest from private banks that create the money out of nothing. So, who has more say in that relationship? The government that should serve the people is beholden to the private banks. If you suddenly can't pay for your mortgage, it doesn't matter in the slightest if all your children and your spouse vote to keep the house, the bank will take it off you.

This is the tyranny we have. It holds us back because money is the most effective social control ever devised, but only if created and controlled by privately owned banks and financial institutions. It is also the most effective social energizer ever devised, but only if created and controlled by a society, by a government.

The tyranny we live under may not sport a natty moustache or march people into death camps, but it does bomb innocents in your name. It contaminates pregnant women with uranium in your name. It helps the richest people in the country get richer at your expense.

If you will not see it, how can you ever be free? If you will not see it, how can we ever fix it? It wouldn't be hard to fix, not at all. But every day that passes makes it harder.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 06 July, 2011, 11:40:47 PM
Thats not very condusive for intelligent chat and debate.

I wasn't chatting or debating, just telling you what I think.


There are degrees of tyranny

Are there? I suppose there are degrees of murder too? Degrees of rape? Degrees of racism?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 06 July, 2011, 11:55:48 PM
You know everyone's looking up the degrees of murder now Rich  ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 06 July, 2011, 11:58:58 PM
Thats not very condusive for intelligent chat and debate.

I wasn't chatting or debating, just telling you what I think.


There are degrees of tyranny

Are there? I suppose there are degrees of murder too? Degrees of rape? Degrees of racism?

I didnt say you were chatting or debating as i said that your comment was not condusive to chat and debate.Hopefully i wont have to explain that again.

Also there are degrees of murder recognised by law as you can look them up.There are degrees of racism as well which is obvious.I dont know about rape but thats probably more cut and dried but its not something i have ever read up on.

Degrees are like a sliding scale and there are degrees of tyranny as there are various regimes past and present that have very different ways of enforcing tyranny and in how people are treated and some dictatorships are very harsh while others are milder or more benevolent but they all have one thing in common which is zero tolerance for dissent.


Do you sympathise with Libya or with Gadaffi?

Both under the circumstances.If was any other country i would be supportive of them if they were being bombed and invaded by the US/NATO.As for dictators i wouldnt support any dictator by default like i didnt support Saddam Hussein and if it was North Korea i wouldnt support KimJungIl but because Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime have positive aspects i support them on that basis but not on the basis of abuses of power.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 07 July, 2011, 12:00:17 AM
You know everyone's looking up the degrees of murder now Rich  ;)

Indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#Degrees_of_murder_by_country
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 07 July, 2011, 12:04:40 AM
The flipside to this is if i had chosen to demonise and talk about the negative aspects of the Gadaffi regime and Gadaffi then i would not have been criticised and if i said that i supported NATO etc bombing the murdering dictator i would not have been criticised or it would have been a lot less likely.

That's a different matter though, if true, and doesn't really equate with the notion of supporting Gadaffi himself.


Its because i sympathise with their predicament and because of the nature of those that are bombing their country and i am not looking for yours or anyones approval.

Problem with that anyone ?


Considering Libya is not Gadaffi, that's a different issue akin to who would you support in Greece, the people or the Government/Troika?

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 07 July, 2011, 12:16:21 AM
As for dictators i wouldnt support any dictator by default like i didnt support Saddam Hussein and if it was North Korea i wouldnt support KimJungIl but because Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime have positive aspects i support them on that basis but not on the basis of abuses of power.

Okay... What are the positive aspects?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 07 July, 2011, 12:23:55 AM
President Museveni cites positives for Gaddafi:  http://rosebellkagumire.com/2011/03/21/part-two-president-museveni-cites-positives-for-gaddafi/
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 12:33:15 AM
As for dictators i wouldnt support any dictator by default like i didnt support Saddam Hussein and if it was North Korea i wouldnt support KimJungIl but because Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime have positive aspects i support them on that basis but not on the basis of abuses of power.

Okay... What are the positive aspects?

Why dont you go and look them up for yourself apart from those that i have already listed in this thread like the issuance of debt free currency or the funding of overseas students or the investment back into Libya and its people or the irrigation project or the possible introduction of a gold backed currency or the goodwill extended towards the rest of Africa etc etc etc

I am not an advocate of dictatorships or dictators as all i am doing is pointing out some facts.As for the negatives of Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime i have read up on it and i waiting to talk to my friend as it were who has first hand insight into the goings on inside the Gadaffi regime and the prisons etc etc but my friend is presently unavailable so that will have to wait.

I also said that i support Gadaffi because he is standing up to the western Plutocrats that want to take over Libya and i like the fact that he spoke his mind to the UN and told them some home truths.

Someone else could always post some of the negative aspects that are factual in the meantime befiore i do.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 07 July, 2011, 01:42:21 AM
So the positives are that he's friends with his neighbours, good with money and doesn't like people that you don't like?

What about decades of backing international terrorist groups, including the IRA?  I presume you don't advocate that either?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 07 July, 2011, 01:52:46 AM
Since when were people either good or bad? Things all seem so simple, these days. So cut and dried. This is a good guy, this is a bad guy.

He's a mass of contradictions, dichotomies, mysteries, experiences, emotions, beliefs and knowledge just like the rest of us. In short, he's just as human as anyone else and just dismissing him as one thing or another makes him two dimensional. It de-humanizes him. Makes him easy to dismiss, easy to hate. God forbid our perfect leaders would attack human beings like you or me. No, they only attack bad people - not real people.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 02:13:46 AM
So the positives are that he's friends with his neighbours, good with money and doesn't like people that you don't like?

What about decades of backing international terrorist groups, including the IRA?  I presume you don't advocate that either?

You presumed correctly.

The upshot of this fucking pointless conversation that is a waste of my time is that you can only condemn or focus on the negative or else you are met with a chorus of disapproval.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 07 July, 2011, 03:03:28 AM
No, Peter. The upshot is that you said that you support a man who is directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people. If you can't see why some would have a problem with that, then there's something very, very wrong with the way you think.


Since when were people either good or bad? Things all seem so simple, these days. So cut and dried. This is a good guy, this is a bad guy.

He's a mass of contradictions, dichotomies, mysteries, experiences, emotions, beliefs and knowledge just like the rest of us. In short, he's just as human as anyone else and just dismissing him as one thing or another makes him two dimensional. It de-humanizes him. Makes him easy to dismiss, easy to hate. God forbid our perfect leaders would attack human beings like you or me. No, they only attack bad people - not real people.

I am well aware of this. I judge people by their actions, not by what list some other three-dimensional political human being git happens to have them on at the time.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 07 July, 2011, 03:14:40 AM
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron - all directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people. I'm not defending Gadaffi on this point - but I wouldn't defend any of the first three either.

To be honest, I don't think any of our leaders deserve our complete respect.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 07 July, 2011, 03:17:58 AM
Gadaffi's been around longer.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 03:33:05 AM
No, Peter. The upshot is that you said that you support a man who is directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people. If you can't see why some would have a problem with that, then there's something very, very wrong with the way you think.




The upshot of this argument is just what i said it was.

I said very very clearly that i supported the positive aspects of Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime but NOT the negative aspects which means that i dont support the deaths of innocent people.

Its not my problem that you are thick or that you cant read plain English or that you can only see things in simplified black and white polarised terms.You are not even interested in the subject other than to criticise my comments with your simplistic sanctomonious view of things and you havent bothered to look any of it up as you reiterated my points without adding anything to the argument.

Boring timewaster.

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron - all directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people. I'm not defending Gadaffi on this point - but I wouldn't defend any of the first three either.

To be honest, I don't think any of our leaders deserve our complete respect.

They all vote for them as well but thats alright because they are different but they do it in your name.The only way any of you dont sanction the murder of innocents abroad is if you dont vote for any of the 3 mainstream political parties so you can all go away and think about that.Anyone who pays taxes which is all of you in one way or another pays for the murder of innocent people.

Thats reality.





Not so whiter than white now are you ?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 07 July, 2011, 05:15:51 AM
Richmond was right.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 07 July, 2011, 07:32:35 AM
Richmond was right.

Cool!

I said very very clearly that i supported the positive aspects of Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime

And you have yet to tell us what they are. Instead of doing so you demanded we find out for ourselves. I dunno- do you think his best feature is selling guns and explosives to the IRA or perhaps the killing of policewoman in London? Which one do you think is his most positive aspect?


Or perhaps- and this is me just thinking out loud- your entire argument is full of shit.



(This is the bit you storm off in a faux huff claiming your being picked on and don't have to answer to anyone, by the way)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 07 July, 2011, 08:23:57 AM
Which one do you think is his most positive aspect?

Maybe it's supporting Milosevic, another stalwart dictator who the west done wrong? 

(A man who was quick enough to use the UN Charter to oppose his trial for war crimes, BTW).

I think I can see what Peter is saying, that reducing everything to black and white ignores both the good that even the most villainous government can do, and the crimes that their opponents perpetrate, and that this tendency is particularly unfortunate when it falls in with the global party line.  But really, 'accentuating the positive' of a persistently nasty fucker like Gaddafi just undermines all that attempted subtlety by virtue of being ridiculous.

 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 07 July, 2011, 09:11:12 AM
I tried, I really did. I give you the information, even a picture which is easier than having to read. Is NO ONE interested in him driving a golf buggy about? I think that's important. Are alla yous fuckin thick?

Pfft!

I'm away to talk to someone who already agrees with me.

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 10:19:41 AM
Richmond was right.

Cool!

I said very very clearly that i supported the positive aspects of Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime

And you have yet to tell us what they are. Instead of doing so you demanded we find out for ourselves. I dunno- do you think his best feature is selling guns and explosives to the IRA or perhaps the killing of policewoman in London? Which one do you think is his most positive aspect?


Or perhaps- and this is me just thinking out loud- your entire argument is full of shit.



(This is the bit you storm off in a faux huff claiming your being picked on and don't have to answer to anyone, by the way)

Its clear to me that you are entirely full of shit because you refuse to see my point.

Its you thinking out loud and your inability to understand my argument and your inability to argue against it properly.

You obviously cant read either since i have listed them in previous comments so go back and read them.You obviously cannot read because just above your comment i stated that i dont advocate funding and arming the IRA.Dont advocate means i dont support.Its very simple so go back and read it.As for demanding i didnt demand anything as i suggested that others could look them up for themselves.

As for storming off in a faux huff that is utter nonsense as i didnt storm off in a faux huff as i signed off and went to bed as it was late.

 You are a complete arse sometimes like now when you argue in these threads.

Now i hyave to sign off and go and do some work so you can think that i am storming off in a faux huff as well if you like.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 07 July, 2011, 10:28:56 AM
Its clear to me that you are entirely full of shit because you refuse to see my point.

Your point being what? Gadaffi isn't really that bad?

Well sorry Peter- he is. And you even thinking otherwise is the most monumentally fucking stupid and disgusting thing you have ever come out with- and that's a long fucking list.

As for demanding i didnt demand anything as i suggested that others could look them up for themselves.

Now who is the one misunderstanding how it works?
You claim this is a debate. Well, in a debate one person will make a satement ('Gadaffi isn't that bad') and then follow up that staement with examples to prove that point. DO you see? Do you see how it works?
You however, did not do that, and when asked to do so refused and told people to find out for themselves... do I really need to explain to you any further?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Eric Plumrose 07 July, 2011, 10:59:51 AM
: Peter Wolf
I said very very clearly that i supported the positive aspects of Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime

Peter, your praise is wee bit premature, no? Libya doesn't even have a rail service, never mind one that runs on time.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 07 July, 2011, 12:25:01 PM
Why hasn't Gaddafi just been assassinated? If the Arab Spring's Libya wing was orchestrated or endorsed by outside bodies or whatever, why wait to go through all that when you could off him some other way? Is it because it was a genuine popular movement? Are 'them' actually concerned that pinkos would be very upset if a national leader was just offed by international consensus? Surely if them's all up to it and have the measure of control some suspect, they wouldn't give a shit and we'd never find out.

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: IAMTHESYSTEM 07 July, 2011, 01:18:38 PM
It's illegal to assassinate any Head of State surely? Otherwise as soon as someone got into power they'd be 'offed' by their Politicial rivals/jealous siblings/CIA,SVR,MOSSAD,MI6 etc and the struggle for power would begin again.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 07 July, 2011, 01:35:43 PM
It doesn't really matter how twisted or evil a head of state is. So long as he takes our credit, buys our goods and services and gives us first dibs on his resources, why then he can do just about whatever he wants to his own people. As soon as our profits dip, though, a no-nonsense ally can become a tyrannical enemy in a heartbeat.

Distasteful though it is, most of the monsters in this world are made, elevated and kept in power by us mainly to fund our materialistic addictions.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 06:53:15 PM
Its clear to me that you are entirely full of shit because you refuse to see my point.

Your point being what? Gadaffi isn't really that bad?

Well sorry Peter- he is. And you even thinking otherwise is the most monumentally fucking stupid and disgusting thing you have ever come out with- and that's a long fucking list.

As for demanding i didnt demand anything as i suggested that others could look them up for themselves.

Now who is the one misunderstanding how it works?
You claim this is a debate. Well, in a debate one person will make a satement ('Gadaffi isn't that bad') and then follow up that staement with examples to prove that point. DO you see? Do you see how it works?
You however, did not do that, and when asked to do so refused and told people to find out for themselves... do I really need to explain to you any further?

You really are impossible and we seem to have reached an impasse here.

My point was to list the positive acheivements of Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime without being an apologist which is what i did.So far i havent pointed out any or very few of the negatives concerning Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime but in time i will do so to balance things out.Gadaffi may be a complete psychopath but those positives exist nonetheless.That was my point.Even if i strenously deny that i support funding the IRA,torture and imprisonment and the abuses of power that i havent listed but i am aware of its still not enough for you.I dont have a problem understanding others points of view even if i dont agree with them but you seem to have a problem with this because if an opinion doesnt fit into your own worldview you reject it outright and deny that i have outlined my reasoning.

The positives exist alongside the negatives of Gadaffi and its called objectivity as i have already pointed out.The positives dont negate the negatives and vice versa.

As i have already pointed out half a dozen times i have already listed the positives in this thread in previous comments which are there for you and anyone else to read but i have to draw the line at repeating myself  on demand as its stupid and unreasonable.

Again i will point out that i did not tell or demand anyone to do anything as i suggested that they either read my comments or look it up for themselves.Its all there in the comments and there is no denying it.

Do i need to explain this again ?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 07 July, 2011, 07:06:59 PM
.Gadaffi may be a complete psychopath but those positives exist nonetheless.

No more questions, your honour.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Robin Low 07 July, 2011, 07:24:06 PM
I think there are some people who should be judged according to the best things they've done. There are also some people who should be judged according to the worst things they've done.

It's quite important to know (or at least think about seriously) who falls into which category.


Regards

Robin
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 07:44:28 PM
Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron - all directly responsible for the deaths of innocent people. I'm not defending Gadaffi on this point - but I wouldn't defend any of the first three either.



That is what i find utterly distasteful about the whole thing is their hypocritical self righteousness apart from many other aspects that i find utterly distasteful and sickening  :sick: about our elected PMs.And its their abhorrent hypocritical self righteousness etc that was the reason that i talked up Gadaffi in the first place as previously i didnt have much of an opinion on Gadaffi.They are only[failed] humanitarians when there is something in it for them.

Who is going to pay to repair the country once the bombing campaign and invasion is over  presuming that there will be an end to the invasion/occupation ?

Will the Libyans be any better off if Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime is deposed ?

An educated guess says they wont so we will all see how this works out.......

Imagine that i was writing a thesis or a book on Gadaffi as if i was i would have to list the positives as well as the negatives but you will all get the negatives soon enough about what went on inside the prisons and the political dissidents and the torture etc.I dont want to quote from websites regarding that business yet and i did try to find some info from the internet but i gave up looking as it was a plethora of articles written very recently that i dont trust as they all seemed to be loaded articles that were supportive of the US/NATO/UN.

What i did hear about which was appalling was that there was a boatload of Libyan refugees that were stranded out at sea and that NATO ignored their distress calls amd only 9 out of 72 survived the 16 days at sea with no food or water.

Africa rejects the skewed International Criminal Courts arrest warrant for Gadaffi :

Articles:

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=999&bih=629&q=africa+rejects+the+ICC&btnG=Google+Search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&biw=999&bih=629&q=africa+rejects+the+ICC&btnG=Google+Search)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 07 July, 2011, 08:13:07 PM
I'm not really wanting to fuel this, but Peter,to be honest you're not usually too objective about what you write about so it comes across as you rooting for Col. G because he said some things you agree with. If you're now going to investigate the other things, I think that means you weren't in a position to claim objectivity.

Anyway-is no one interested in his choice of transport? Really?

M
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 07 July, 2011, 08:20:24 PM
Anyway-is no one interested in his choice of transport? Really?


The 'rebels' can't be much good if they're unable to catch him in that.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 07 July, 2011, 08:22:33 PM
Africa rejects the skewed International Criminal Courts arrest warrant for Gadaffi :

The African Union?  An organisation explicitly working towards creating the United States of Africa, and of which Gaddafi was Chairman.  So you're happy to heed this body's opinion, but meanwhile everything the EU says or does is part of a conspiracy of power-hungry self-interest?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 08:30:37 PM
Africa rejects the skewed International Criminal Courts arrest warrant for Gadaffi :

The African Union?  An organisation explicitly working towards creating the United States of Africa, and of which Gaddafi was Chairman.  So you're happy to heed this body's opinion, but meanwhile everything the EU says or does is part of a conspiracy of power-hungry self-interest?

Please dont shoot the messenger as the article was submitted with out comment other than pointing out that the ICC is skewed.The EU or my opinion of it is off topic.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 08:32:12 PM
Africa rejects the skewed International Criminal Courts arrest warrant for Gadaffi :

The African Union?  An organisation explicitly working towards creating the United States of Africa, and of which Gaddafi was Chairman.  So you're happy to heed this body's opinion, but meanwhile everything the EU says or does is part of a conspiracy of power-hungry self-interest?

Please dont shoot the messenger as the article was submitted with out comment other than pointing out that the ICC is skewed.The EU or my opinion of it is off topic.


My god though Africans working for their own self interest !

Whatever next !
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 07 July, 2011, 08:34:40 PM
Please dont shoot the messenger as the article was submitted with out comment other than pointing out that the ICC is skewed.The EU or my opinion of it is off topic.


Blaming someone else?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 08:41:36 PM
Please dont shoot the messenger as the article was submitted with out comment other than pointing out that the ICC is skewed.The EU or my opinion of it is off topic.


Blaming someone else?

No idea what you are talking about.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 07 July, 2011, 08:47:23 PM
Can't understand plain English, Peter?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 07 July, 2011, 08:48:22 PM
Please dont shoot the messenger as the article was submitted with out comment other than pointing out that the ICC is skewed.The EU or my opinion of it is off topic.


Blaming someone else?

No idea what you are talking about.


t'was the article's/author's fault for your selection of it?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 07 July, 2011, 09:02:30 PM
No real problem with the African Union, Peter, just surprised to see you citing them as a source.  You wouldn't generally be known for your trust of federalising super states or their aspirants.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 09:13:17 PM
Can't understand plain English, Peter?

Not if its not clear i dont but i m sure that if it is clarified i will.Of course now simply linking to an article is a loaded statement but i am still not clear whos fault it is.

No real problem with the African Union, Peter, just surprised to see you citing them as a source.  You wouldn't generally be known for your trust of federalising super states or their aspirants.

Since it was the African Union who have rejected the ICC and noone else what else can i do but refer to the African Union ?

Like i have said i submitted the articles without comment.

It is interesting and curious how very very few of those present here and my critics say what they think about Libya,Gadaffi and the US/NATO/UN.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 07 July, 2011, 09:18:11 PM
It is interesting and curious how very very few of those present here and my critics say what they think about Libya,Gadaffi and the US/NATO/UN.


Don't have much good to say for any of 'em.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 07 July, 2011, 09:27:13 PM
Ditto. 

Peter, just out of interest... weighing up the positives and negatives, if you could elect Gadaffi as prime minister of the UK, would you? Would you choose him over the likes of Cameron or Miliband?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 07 July, 2011, 09:34:32 PM
It is interesting and curious how very very few of those present here and my critics say what they think about Libya,Gadaffi and the US/NATO/UN.

Once upon a time a foreign government supplied weapons to a bunch of unsupported rebels. Does that story sound familiar?

It's what the UN are doing in Libya now.

It's what Gadaffi did to my wee country.

That's all I have to say about that.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 09:37:10 PM
It is interesting and curious how very very few of those present here and my critics say what they think about Libya,Gadaffi and the US/NATO/UN.


Don't have much good to say for any of 'em.

I know that you have said what you think already and it certainly helps that you have a clue about this sort of thing.I dont know that much about the African Union as i havent really read up on them as there are only so many things i can read up on at any given time or even know the ins and outs of.

Ditto. 

Peter, just out of interest... weighing up the positives and negatives, if you could elect Gadaffi as prime minister of the UK, would you? Would you choose him over the likes of Cameron or Miliband?

Now this is just getting stupid.Of course i wouldnt elect a tyrant control freak but i am no more likely to vote for Milliband or Cameron.Some of you people manage to make debating or even arguing as tedious and unpleasent and timewasting as possible rather than enjoyable as i ususally enjoy debate and arguing.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Eric Plumrose 07 July, 2011, 09:55:50 PM
. . . or their aspirants.

Gah!! Don't bring Big Pharma into it!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 07 July, 2011, 09:56:44 PM
Some of you people manage to make debating or even arguing as tedious and unpleasent and timewasting as possible

Well why don't you stop then?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 07 July, 2011, 09:58:08 PM
Just trying to get a handle on how you think, PW. The fact you see arguing as something to enjoy is interesting if nothing else.

Bit of a cop-out answer, though. Let's say your life depended on it, (or the lives of lots of cute little orphan kittens or something). - if you had to pick one to vote for... could you? Or are they all just as bad as one another?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 07 July, 2011, 09:58:22 PM
. . . or their aspirants.

Gah!! Don't bring Big Pharma into it!
:lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 07 July, 2011, 10:00:54 PM
To me Gadaffi is just another elite with a personal interest in domineering the weaker elements of Africa, if he really believed he was in 'trouble', he'd as soon as get around the table with Western elites and make a deal that benefitted themselves..
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 07 July, 2011, 10:06:42 PM
Some of you people manage to make debating or even arguing as tedious and unpleasent and timewasting as possible

Well why don't you stop then?

I wouldn't presume to answer on anyone's behalf, but my guess would be because everyone wants to have the last word on this.

Start a separate Gadaffi thread if it's that important. I need advice on the proper configuration of my tin-foil hat, and none of this Gadaffi Rhubarb is of any use to me
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 10:18:00 PM
Just trying to get a handle on how you think, PW. The fact you see arguing as something to enjoy is interesting if nothing else.

Bit of a cop-out answer, though. Let's say your life depended on it, (or the lives of lots of cute little orphan kittens or something). - if you had to pick one to vote for... could you? Or are they all just as bad as one another?

If i didnt enjoy arguing and debate i wouldnt be involved in these threads.I say i enjoy arguing but only on the basis that it is something worth arguing about and it is enjoyable to me because it is challenging but at the same time i wouldnt ever choose to argue if there was an alternative to it as  i would much rather debate than argue.

The trick to arguing though especially online is to never take anything personally or bear grudges as lifes too short but i think a lot of others enjoy it as well.If i have insulted you or offended you then keep it in the context of what was being said at the time.

Now to your question about who i would vote for if a loaded gun was pointed at my head i would vote for ...........wait for it................................................................................Cameron ! or do i die by my principles and say none of them ?

I expect more abuse now for that answer !!

The kittens would win out though as i wouldnt be able to bear the thought of anything terrible happening to them so you have found one of my weak points.

Some of you people manage to make debating or even arguing as tedious and unpleasent and timewasting as possible

Well why don't you stop then?

Thats making it too easy for you and giving you what you want but keep in mind i very rarely start arguments and attack others points of view as i usually just post a comment that is not posted with the intent of starting an argument but you choose to argue with me as it takes two or more to argue.I could choose not to reply to you but then you wouldnt get any personal enjoyment or satisfaction out of it.I know that this is as much to do with what i say as the fact that is myself saying it so enough said about that as i wasnt born yesterday and i understand psychology  ;)

There wouldnt be a shitstorm in this thread if it wasnt for me.

To me Gadaffi is just another elite with a personal interest in domineering the weaker elements of Africa, if he really believed he was in 'trouble', he'd as soon as get around the table with Western elites and make a deal that benefitted themselves..

Human nature never changes and its the same wherever you go.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 07 July, 2011, 10:25:24 PM
Some of you people manage to make debating or even arguing as tedious and unpleasent and timewasting as possible

Well why don't you stop then?

I wouldn't presume to answer on anyone's behalf, but my guess would be because everyone wants to have the last word on this.

Start a separate Gadaffi thread if it's that important. I need advice on the proper configuration of my tin-foil hat, and none of this Gadaffi Rhubarb is of any use to me

I'd like to retract this.

There wouldnt be a shitstorm in this thread if it wasnt for me.

To be fair, ye chose the right thread in which to start a shitstorm. As i understand it, this thread meant to be a shitstorm-container. A digital tea-cup, if I may employ an idiom. The title is a bit mis-leading. It should be:

"Outrageous, controversial opinions? You can't handle the outrageous, controversial opinions!"


Human nature never changes and its the same wherever you go.

That's why shitstorms happen ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 07 July, 2011, 11:00:28 PM
Now to your question about who i would vote for if a loaded gun was pointed at my head i would vote for ...........wait for it................................................................................Cameron ! or do i die by my principles and say none of them ?

I expect more abuse now for that answer !!

Okay, I'll bite: it is the politics thread after all.

What. The Hell. Would David Cameron do for you that Labour wouldn't? How are your interests and David Cameron's aligned in any conceivable way whatsoever?


Edit: Oh bollocks. Wrong thread. Feel free to disregard the question. I don't want to know.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 07 July, 2011, 11:22:45 PM
Now to your question about who i would vote for if a loaded gun was pointed at my head i would vote for ...........wait for it................................................................................Cameron ! or do i die by my principles and say none of them ?

I expect more abuse now for that answer !!

Okay, I'll bite: it is the politics thread after all.

What. The Hell. Would David Cameron do for you that Labour wouldn't? How are your interests and David Cameron's aligned in any conceivable way whatsoever?


Edit: Oh bollocks. Wrong thread. Feel free to disregard the question. I don't want to know.

Not so fast...........

Labour and Conservatives are all the same to me these days so it was down to the fact that David Cameron comes from a good background and went to a good school.

 ;)  :lol:

Conservatives are not aligned to my interests in any way.Milliband is a complete drip but preferable to his brother by a long way.



: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 07 July, 2011, 11:41:41 PM
Milliband is a puppet. One of Nick Park's puppet to be precise
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 08 July, 2011, 09:27:45 AM
It is interesting and curious how very very few of those present here and my critics say what they think about Libya,Gadaffi and the US/NATO/UN.

If that's an attempt to retreat to the moral high ground, it's piss. What's so curious about it? Do you really care what other people think, seeing as you've said before if people don't understand it like you they're stupid? Hardly a reasonable position to debate from is it?

Bottom line is, you made a statement of personal opinion you claimed was an objective assessment only when you were challenged on it. The shit storm was caused by that rather than anything to do with you I reckon.

M.

Gaddafi is a paranoid idiot without the sense to fuck off when he should.

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: GordonR 08 July, 2011, 10:06:07 AM
Gaddafi Peterwolf is a paranoid idiot without the sense to fuck off when he should.

Fixed that for you, mate.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 08 July, 2011, 12:51:55 PM
You're a bad man Mr Rennie. You'll get into trouble!

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 08 July, 2011, 06:29:45 PM
Who cares whether Gadaffi has a good side or not? He's only a human being and, as we all know, human beings just aren't of any value any more. The only things that matter are property, profit and position. If Gadaffi stood up to the bankers, no matter how despicable he is, he'd have my support in that particular battle. God knows, our own Prime Minister's too feeble to stand up to them and we've got virtually an entire government comprised of similar MPs, all too weak, feeble, afraid, greedy or stupid to discern the civil war that is going on around the world between the People and the Banks, who are using our own governments like human shields.

"Sell, sell, sell: everything must go in great fire sale. Europe's most indebted countries – and Britain – have put prized assets up for grabs to bolster their creditworthiness."  http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/01/indebted-european-countries-privatisation-assets?INTCMP=SRCH (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/01/indebted-european-countries-privatisation-assets?INTCMP=SRCH)

"Greek sell-off 'threat to sovereignty'"  http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/03/greece-bailout-privatisation-juncker-treuhand?INTCMP=SRCH (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/jul/03/greece-bailout-privatisation-juncker-treuhand?INTCMP=SRCH)

I forget who it was that called me a buffoon for daring to suggest that our country labours under tyranny, I've been called much worse so I really don't care, but here's a little more proof that we are indeed slipping ever deeper into that very real tyranny. Sovereign countries are now expected to sell off national assets to help pay for debts incurred through borrowing money from private banks. Don't forget, a country is perfectly entitled to create its own money instead of borrowing. (I know, I know - I sound like a broken record, but this is just because I can't believe that anyone who understands this could dismiss it as irrelevant or fail to be angered by it. Private money bad, social money good.) So, these bankers caused the debts and now who are the only people left with enough money to buy up national assets? Whatever. Never mind. It's probably not important and I'm probably a buffoon for even considering that our governments have steered the Ship of State up Shit Creek either by accident or design.

Where will it end? Will all roads eventually belong to the banks? All hospitals, fire engines, trees, rivers, lakes, clouds, livestock, crops, houses... people? It certainly feels like we're being conquered. Not by armies or bombers or terrorists - but by pounds, shillings and pence. Everyone's focussed on the War on Whatever, political theatre and X-Factor while all our assets are slowly drained away almost without us noticing - or at least without us noticing where all that wealth, all our wealth, is going. It's being concentrated into the hands of the power elite. They want to own it all and charge us money for using our own planet to live on. The corporatization of the world, started many decades ago, is nearing fruition. If your government doesn't even have ownership of your country's assets on your behalf, what good is it? Is it still sovereign? Is it still relevant? Is it still yours?

Mussolini said, that“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power” - which is exactly the way the world seems to be going.

I'll sign off this particular rant with a quotation allegedly from Sir Josiah Stamp (21 June 1880 - 16 April 1941), fellow buffoon and director of the Bank of England, amongst other things. He understood the real shape of the banking industry (and banking is an industry driven to make a profit like any other - what banking should be is a utility like water or electricity.) Anyway, here's the famous and still painfully relevant quote:  "Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money."

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 08 July, 2011, 06:38:41 PM
Some rob you with a sixgun, some with a fountain pen...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 08 July, 2011, 08:30:50 PM
It is interesting and curious how very very few of those present here and my critics say what they think about Libya,Gadaffi and the US/NATO/UN.

If that's an attempt to retreat to the moral high ground, it's piss. What's so curious about it? Do you really care what other people think, seeing as you've said before if people don't understand it like you they're stupid? Hardly a reasonable position to debate from is it?

Bottom line is, you made a statement of personal opinion you claimed was an objective assessment only when you were challenged on it. The shit storm was caused by that rather than anything to do with you I reckon.

M.

Gaddafi is a paranoid idiot without the sense to fuck off when he should.

M.

It certainly wasnt that.No problem with being challenged either but i am interested in what others think about it all particularly from the US/UN/NATO side of things and i thought that more of that would have been forthcoming.The comments about stupidity were because i was being misunderstood and having to repeat myself.

As for the comment only being objective it was always objective right from the start but you are suggesting that i was backpedalling when i wasnt.I had to explain that it was objective as some chose to read it as something different probably because they wanted to.

As for Gadaffi having to fuck off when he should there are better ways to go about this than what NATO etc are up to on behalf of a minority of "Rebel forces" and ALCIADA who are funded and armed by NATO etc.Besides that 2 or 3 times Gadaffi offered to engage in talks with NATO etc but it was rejected.

What happens if the majority of Libyans support Gadaffi ?

Do the US/UN/NATO have the right to dictate to them who they can and cant support ?

Who are they to dictate what goes on within a sovereign nation ?

Perhaps if they really were a force for good in the world then they would have some kind of legitimacy but that isnt the case.Their fake humanitarianism is selective anyway.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 08 July, 2011, 09:15:37 PM
So, when someone doesn't understand what you're saying, they get called thick, but if you don't understand what someone else is saying, it 's because it isn't clear enough?

I can't see how that works. I must be too stupid.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 08 July, 2011, 09:49:29 PM
...there are better ways to go about this than what NATO etc are up to on behalf of a minority of "Rebel forces" and ALCIADA who are funded and armed by NATO etc.

There probably are better ways of going about it. When foreign governments* start backing a minority of rebels**, to further their own goals, things can get ugly. The fall from that sort of wreckless behaviour could last years.

*Gadaffi's Regime
**The IRA
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 08 July, 2011, 09:58:34 PM



So, when someone doesn't understand what you're saying, they get called thick, but if you don't understand what someone else is saying, it 's because it isn't clear enough?

I can't see how that works. I must be too stupid.


Calling you thick/stupid was a result of having to repeat myself as in having my patience tried as in others as well as yourself claiming that i didnt or havent listed any positives when i had already listed them along with the frustration of being misunderstood that was partly wilful.You even read them and then said i hadnt listed them.I didnt get the impression that you didnt understand anything.

I was called a "fucking idiot" by someone along with another personal attack yet i went out of my way to be polite in return to that comment and others but the fact is it was a heated debate/argument and even though i was going out of my to keep things as civil as possible i dont fuck about with words or saying what i think to others.

As it was you who i called thick then i sincerely apologise.

The comment from @Garageman was a bit ambiguous as in i wasnt sure what it was referring to.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 08 July, 2011, 10:03:10 PM
I suppose you could say Hitler had positives.
When Germany was on it's knees from the crippling reparations from the aftermath of WWI, he rose to power and literally turned them round to one of the most powerful nations of the time.
Does that make what he did right? Did it fuck.
People like that should never have power and there are far too many today with those kind of tendencies leading countries.
You need to look at the over all person rather than spouting out small positives.

This isn't directed at anyone it is just input from reading four pages of mayhem.





V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 08 July, 2011, 10:16:38 PM
Gaddafi Peterwolf is a paranoid idiot without the sense to fuck off when he should.

Fixed that for you, mate.

Now go and fix your face.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 08 July, 2011, 10:20:05 PM
I suppose you could say Hitler had positives.
When Germany was on it's knees from the crippling reparations from the aftermath of WWI, he rose to power and literally turned them round to one of the most powerful nations of the time.
Does that make what he did right? Did it fuck.
People like that should never have power and there are far too many today with those kind of tendencies leading countries.
You need to look at the over all person rather than spouting out small positives.

This isn't directed at anyone it is just input from reading four pages of mayhem.





V

reductio ad hitlerum:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 08 July, 2011, 11:02:55 PM
As it was you who i called thick then i sincerely apologise.
Apology not accepted.

You also said that I couldn't read plain English, could only see things in simplified, black and white polarised terms, wasn't interested in the subject*, had a simplistic, "sanctomonious" (sic) view of things and hadn't bothered to look anything up. None of which is even remotely true.

Neither is any of this....

Calling you thick/stupid was a result of having to repeat myself as in having my patience tried as in others as well as yourself claiming that i didnt or havent listed any positives when i had already listed them along with the frustration of being misunderstood that was partly wilful.You even read them and then said i hadnt listed them.I didnt get the impression that you didnt understand anything.

When did I say you hadn't listed them? Are you backing up your paranoia with hallucinations now?

And how in hell would understanding things but ignoring or misinterpreting them on purpose make me thick? A bit of a git, maybe, but not stupid. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

I'm done here. You've wandered too far into the town of Doolally. No point talking to someone who changes reality to justify their outlook.

* Bit rich that you'd have a problem with someone commenting on something they have no interest in anyway, given your past history.  "I don't really care as it's not something I'm interested in" was pretty much all you seemed to say at one point.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 08 July, 2011, 11:49:19 PM
This is excellent - humanity in microcosm. The people of the world are facing great challenges as war, debt and tyranny threaten to engulf us and all we can do is snipe at one another over details.

Maybe, and this is just a wild thought, we* should start putting our heads together instead of banging them together?

*We as in humanity in general, not just on this thread.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 08 July, 2011, 11:57:40 PM
Go smoke some pot, ya gruddam hippie shark  ;P
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 09 July, 2011, 12:08:16 AM
I think this whole thread is a ruse so peterwolf can get to 10000 posts in the fastest time possible.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: LARF 09 July, 2011, 12:11:41 AM
At the next con just have a big fight, It'll be great, just like wrestling in the eighties.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 09 July, 2011, 12:13:11 AM
Go smoke some pot, ya gruddam hippie shark  ;P

You do realise that what you're suggesting is illegal under statute law? However, as statute laws are laws enacted by a government elected by consent and therefore laws of consent I can refuse to be bound by them if I so choose (so long as I cause no harm, loss or injury to others under Common Law).

Convoluted legal argument in place. Now, where's me bong?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 09 July, 2011, 12:16:28 AM
As it was you who i called thick then i sincerely apologise.
Apology not accepted.

You also said that I couldn't read plain English, could only see things in simplified, black and white polarised terms, wasn't interested in the subject*, had a simplistic, "sanctomonious" (sic) view of things and hadn't bothered to look anything up. None of which is even remotely true.

Neither is any of this....

Calling you thick/stupid was a result of having to repeat myself as in having my patience tried as in others as well as yourself claiming that i didnt or havent listed any positives when i had already listed them along with the frustration of being misunderstood that was partly wilful.You even read them and then said i hadnt listed them.I didnt get the impression that you didnt understand anything.

When did I say you hadn't listed them? Are you backing up your paranoia with hallucinations now?

And how in hell would understanding things but ignoring or misinterpreting them on purpose make me thick? A bit of a git, maybe, but not stupid. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever!

I'm done here. You've wandered too far into the town of Doolally. No point talking to someone who changes reality to justify their outlook.

* Bit rich that you'd have a problem with someone commenting on something they have no interest in anyway, given your past history.  "I don't really care as it's not something I'm interested in" was pretty much all you seemed to say at one point.

Here are your comments:

Cut and pasted as i cant backtrack that far when quoting:


Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
« Reply #540 on: 07 July, 2011, 12:16:21 AM »

    * Quote

Quote from: Peter Wolf on 06 July, 2011, 11:58:58 PM

    As for dictators i wouldnt support any dictator by default like i didnt support Saddam Hussein and if it was North Korea i wouldnt support KimJungIl but because Gadaffi and the Gadaffi regime have positive aspects i support them on that basis but not on the basis of abuses of power.


Okay... What are the positive aspects?
Report to moderator   Logged
http://malcolmkirk.blogspot.com/

That implies that you hadnt read my previous comments or couldnt understand plain english.No paranoia or hallucinations

There it is and that was well after i had already listed them and theres more than that.If you want to nitpick then you have come to the right place for it.Someone else also claimed that i hadnt listed any positives yet they are there further up the thread.

Alternatively you and the other had not read the previous comments.

You can reject the apology if you like but the fact is i still apologised.and the fact that you are overly concerned and slighted over being called thick says a lot about in the fact you wouldnt let it lie.I have been called far worse far more times yets its water off a ducks back to me.Get a thick skin instead of being delicate and easily slighted or dont get in the ring.



: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 09 July, 2011, 12:32:12 AM
It's not being called thick I don't like, Peter, you delusional twat. It's being told that I said, did or thought something which I did not.

Now piss off. I've got to go save the world or something.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 09 July, 2011, 12:42:13 AM
I seem to remember posting a link to some Gadaffi positives. Ah yes, here it is...

President Museveni cites positives for Gaddafi:  http://rosebellkagumire.com/2011/03/21/part-two-president-museveni-cites-positives-for-gaddafi/

This article talks about:

1: Gaddafi has had an independent foreign policy. “Muammar Gaddafi, whatever his faults, is a true nationalist.”

2: Pursued Fair oil prices

3: Growth, infrastructure and employment creation. ”Is the conflict in Libya economic or purely political?”

4: Gaddafi’s secularism and women’s rights

Certainly not a Nobel Peace Prize candidate like the weasely mass-murdering corporate puppet Barry Soetoro but certainly no Stalin, either. An interesting article entitled "Why Gaddafi's Crimes Look Worse Than Gbagbo's" at http://allafrica.com/stories/201103220249.html (http://allafrica.com/stories/201103220249.html) postulates that Gadaffi is over-demonized by the west because of his alleged involvement in the deaths of white people. If he'd killed a million blacks, we wouldn't give a damn about him.

To quote a line from the TV show "The West Wing" that has always stuck with me; "Why is the life of an American worth more than the life of a foreigner?"  "I don't know, but it is."
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 09 July, 2011, 12:59:26 AM
An interesting article entitled "Why Gaddafi's Crimes Look Worse Than Gbagbo's" at http://allafrica.com/stories/201103220249.html (http://allafrica.com/stories/201103220249.html) postulates that Gadaffi is over-demonized by the west because of his alleged involvement in the deaths of white people. If he'd killed a million blacks, we wouldn't give a damn about him.

I don't think race has very much to do with it, (the west does not consist entirely of white folk), but it stands to reason that people are going to be a bit more concerned with things happening right on their doorstep, (almost literally, in some cases).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 09 July, 2011, 01:08:13 AM
I agree. However, I also think that evil, like beauty, is largely in the eye of the beholder.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 09 July, 2011, 01:16:48 AM
...and sometimes it's the same thing.


(I seem to have turned into Philip Marlowe. I do apologise).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 09 July, 2011, 01:20:42 AM
I remember now why i don't venture in here!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 09 July, 2011, 01:42:42 AM
I remember now why i don't venture in here!

Is it because you can't handle the truth?  :lol:  :o  :(
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 09 July, 2011, 01:46:11 AM
More due to the negative waves,,,,,always with the negative waves.......woof woof  :D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 09 July, 2011, 01:57:59 AM
Heres the good bit where i admit that i have fucked up and that i may be delusional as i have backtracked and i cant find where i listed the positives where in actual fact i had only named a few positives over two or 3 comments some way back and then 5 positives in a reply to @MIK.I could have sworn that i had listed them earlier than that......I dont mind admitting i am wrong as its self evident but it was a shock backtracking to find something that i imagined was there - the awful truth.

What a complete utter moron.

Apologies.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 09 July, 2011, 02:13:14 AM
(http://www.livelifeready.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/spelling-mistake.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 09 July, 2011, 02:15:22 AM
a slightly lighter note.......mind you it could be a cunning plan my the lizard people!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 09 July, 2011, 02:19:53 AM
"Shcool" is the noise the lizard-people make as they consume our children.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 09 July, 2011, 05:16:23 AM
AFRICOM :

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h0chhgV9L5MJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Africa_Command+africom&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h0chhgV9L5MJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Africa_Command+africom&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk)

VS

The African Union :

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8XEfNfc4EhIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union+african+union&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8XEfNfc4EhIJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union+african+union&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk)

The US is trying to ease its way into Africa through Obama to set up a US military jurisdiction and militarisation over Africa - AFRICOM that was set up by Donald Rumsfeld under GW Bush who was backed by Halliburton,Bechtel,The Carlyle Group,Dynecorp under the pretext of fighting terrorism and Humanitarianism.The vast majority of African nations have rejected Africom but others have signed into AFRICOM like Ethiopia as they received/were bribed with funding from AFRICOM which is easy with corrupt despots and warlords etc.AFRICOM has surrounded Africa with military bases and sections of the military dedicated to AFRICOM who want to assist Africa in a military capacity.Also AFRICOM wants to drive out China from Africa.

The US wanted to take Libya but it has potentially cost them the rest of Africa and the almost certain failure of AFRICOM.The situation in the Ivory coast hasnt helped either.THe US military has merged with NATO military forces as it is overstretched.

The Libyan conflict has worked against AFRICOMs presence in Africa and plans for it and .AFRICOMs mission statement under "Theater Security Objectives" clearly states :

"Defeat the Al-Qaeda terrorist organizations and
its associated networks."

Yet in Libya the US is funding and logistically supporting ALQuaeda members amongst Libyan rebel forces.Gadaffi had previously informed the US that ALQuaeda were active in Libya but these warnings were ignored/not acted upon.

AFRICOM also state the following under their heading of "US Africa Command Mission" as a mission statement:

U.S. Africa Command Mission
United States Africa Command, in concert with
other U.S. government agencies and international
partners, conducts sustained security engagement
through military-to-military programs, militarysponsored
activities, and other military operations
as directed to promote *a stable and secure African
environment in support of U.S. foreign policy*."

So what this means is that if Africa signs up to AFRICOM then they support or will in time support US foreign policy so if US foreign policy decides that there is a problem within Africa [after signing up to AFRICOM]that requires a US military presence for reasons of terrorism or whatever else then they wont have a say in it themselves as US foreign policy isnt set out by Africans so Africa could very easily become a victim of US foreign policy.If African nations sign up to AFRICOM then the US will set up a permanent military base in its country.Obviously Africa is a huge potential marketplace for the arms trade etc or "We will supply you military equipment in return for your resources".Africas political/military leadership have rejected having an AFRICOM headquarters on African soil.

[no idea why there is a line through the text as i didnt do it deliberately and i have no idea how to get rid of it]



Resist AFRICOM:

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1552/t/5734/content.jsp?content_KEY=3855 (http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/1552/t/5734/content.jsp?content_KEY=3855)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 09 July, 2011, 09:36:23 AM

[no idea why there is a line through the text as i didnt do it deliberately and i have no idea how to get rid of it]


Dude, don't freak out, but I think 'they' are on to you and are trying to censor you.

Also, as my Daddy used to day, 'GET UP 'EM STAIRS AND GO TO BED!'
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 09 July, 2011, 03:30:32 PM
Gaddafi Peterwolf is a paranoid idiot without the sense to fuck off when he should.

Fixed that for you, mate.

Now go and fix your face.

:lol: Peter wins the thread!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 09 July, 2011, 03:51:32 PM

[no idea why there is a line through the text as i didnt do it deliberately and i have no idea how to get rid of it]


Dude, don't freak out, but I think 'they' are on to you and are trying to censor you.

Or it is the strikethrough markup - this button: (http://2000adonline.com/forum/Themes/default/images/bbc/strike.gif). You can turn it on or off, or just remove the [ s ] markup. However, to err on the side of caution, I'd go with pops1983 option ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 09 July, 2011, 04:06:16 PM
All you fucks are redacted.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 09 July, 2011, 06:21:47 PM
Gaddafi Peterwolf is a paranoid idiot without the sense to fuck off when he should.

Fixed that for you, mate.

Now go and fix your face.

:lol: Peter wins the thread!

As well as losing the thread by denying that i hadnt done something when i thought that i had.Or something like that but i am a bit confused about it all. :-\

I will post one more comment about something else then i am opting out of this thread for a bit as its getting to be a bit much.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 09 July, 2011, 06:59:41 PM
i am opting out of this thread for a bit as its getting to be a bit much.


Understatement of the year.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 09 July, 2011, 07:59:47 PM


9/11 Road Trip:

The BBC are airing a documentary on 9/11 in September to debunk 9/11 conspiracies featuring Charlie Veitch[the love police] as the presenter to discover the truth about 9/11.Some of you may have heard of Charlie Veitch while others may not have.I have heard of him and i have to say that i never liked him as i think he is a bit of a Tit with his stupid shouting through a megaphone and claiming that what he was saying was biting and scathing satire when it was student level juvenile rubbish of no use to anyone like an idiot.

Charlie Veitch is well known in the truth movement and he was recently arrested and detained for publicising that he was going to disrupt the recent royal wedding so he was arrested before the event and then complained about it as well as his girlfriend whining about it on alternative media websites which was a bit daft because its obvious that if he had kept his mouth shut then he wouldnt have been arrested and would have been able to protest.Charlie actively seeks publicity and always has done so it makes me wonder if Truth and protesting was just a vehicle for publicity in the first place.

Anyway Charlie being an enthusiastic "Truther" was hired by the BBC to present this forthcoming documentary airing in September to commemorate 9/11 and the BBC commissioned the documentary with a view to debunking 9/11 conspiracies as its very very very very very unlikely that the BBC would air a 9/11 documentary that was supportive of 9/11 conspiracies so it seems unlikely that Charlie was going to go with the 9/11 conspiracies on camera as the documentary wouldnt have been shown on TV and Charlie wouldnt have been paid so it seems that despite Charlie being shown evidence that was utterly compelling while in New York as per the official version of events he must have signed up knowing what the remit of the documentary was or he wouldnt have signed up or been hired if he was against it so it was all a foregone conclusion while Charlie was/is claiming to be objective about it all.

Further to that he cant have been open minded about it all as if compelling evidence was presented during filming that supported the official version of events then it would be undeniable if you are objective about it all but Charlie talks of being a member of the 9/11 truth movement and then Charlie describes it as being like a member of a cult.If you had your mind changed by being shown compelling evidence that supported the official version of events which is fair enough then there wouldnt be any reason to describe the 9/11 truth movement as being a cult afterwards because surely up to the point of being shown the compelling evidence he would have had no problem with being a "truther" as it was up until that point something that was completely legitimate ??

I dont like him but he can think and say what he likes and no one is saying that he cant but its tempting to think that the authorities had words with him while he was detained as he had been under surveillance for some time.

Its going to cause a shitstorm in the truth movement [its already started] and Charlie wont be taken seriously by the truth movement anymore so he will probably become a TV presenter instead but he wont be able to complain about being called a sellout and a shill.

What evidence was he shown that was so utterly compelling that isnt already freely available that he wont discuss ?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 09 July, 2011, 08:13:28 PM
Its going to cause a shitstorm in the truth movement [its already started] and Charlie wont be taken seriously by the truth movement anymore so he will probably become a TV presenter instead but he wont be able to complain about being called a sellout and a shill.

If there's one thing that's 'true' it's that the 'truth movement' can't agree on anything, the squabbling will continue and no one will pay any attention, so nothing new.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 09 July, 2011, 08:33:38 PM
If there's one thing that's 'true' it's that the 'truth movement' can't agree on anything...

This of course being the true nature of truth.  The things people agree on are compromises, and that's not truth at all.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 09 July, 2011, 08:44:28 PM
This of course being the true nature of truth.  The things people agree on are compromises, and that's not truth at all.

Consensus I believe, a lot better than democracy.


For some reason I'm compelled to post this...fucking...madness...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Hzh1jZPOkU&feature=player_embedded#at=185



Fuckin' 'peak' credibility has been reached.


: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Trout 10 July, 2011, 06:56:18 PM
Hello, all.

I've had a proper look at this thread for the first time and, boy, what a pile of insane, paranoid shite it is.

It does indeed seem the proper place to object to the excesses of people who don't read comics but are happy to use 2000AD's website as a place to post their ill-informed bile.

However, I do take the point that this site doesn't exist for people to have arguments on, so I'm happy enough to leave it for now. If Peter wants to continue our discussion, that's fine. He can post here. If not, we'll leave it at that.

All the best

- Trout
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 10 July, 2011, 08:09:50 PM
Tsk! "I think you're stupid- but let's not fight about it! I'm off now!"

:lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 10 July, 2011, 08:14:55 PM
I feel admonished! Don't judge me-i broke me duck while pissed. In fact i'm 3 sheets to the wind now. Mmmm...sweet tempranillo dulls the pain...

M
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Trout 10 July, 2011, 09:15:00 PM
Hmmm... Having had a proper, proper look now (my favourite point was when another conspiracy theorist, a total stranger, turned up out of the blue to call Peter a liar and a coward), I get the point of this thread.

It's Argue With Scojo Except It's For Peter!

So why is it on this site? Why not delete this sort of content and set up a group where he can sit by himself, spouting his poison in a way that doesn't affect 2000AD, and the rest of us can simply not go there?

I mean: support for the murderer Gaddafi? Why is this site used for that?

- Trout
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 10 July, 2011, 09:33:20 PM
An audience can be hard to find.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 10 July, 2011, 10:00:29 PM
Hmmm... Having had a proper, proper look now (my favourite point was when another conspiracy theorist, a total stranger, turned up out of the blue to call Peter a liar and a coward), I get the point of this thread.

It's Argue With Scojo Except It's For Peter!

So why is it on this site? Why not delete this sort of content and set up a group where he can sit by himself, spouting his poison in a way that doesn't affect 2000AD, and the rest of us can simply not go there?

I mean: support for the murderer Gaddafi? Why is this site used for that?

- Trout

Come on- don't be a cock.  He has opinions that you don't agree with- that you probably find a bit mental.  That's fine.  It's not the same as him spamming up the board, replying to his own witless rants and/or repeating the same message, over and over, in multiple threads- all at the same time.

What's especially annoying is that we've just talked about this on Twitter and you've still wandered back here to effectively join in the pile on.  If I was to do that to some of the people I don't like on this board, you'd be accusing me of bullying.

For the most part, there are two threads that effectively contain this stuff and they're easy enough to avoid.  I'm pretty sure you've championed off-topic threads in the past- so why are these any different?  Apart from the fact that you think they're pish, of course? 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 10 July, 2011, 10:14:01 PM
"After about one hundred years of domination, the system of capitalism and the existing world order has proved to be unable to provide appropriate solutions to the problems of societies and thus is coming to an end.

"...One can analyze the current governance of the world by examining three events:

"First, the event of the 11th September 2001 which has affected the whole world for almost a decade. All of a sudden, the news of the attack on the twin towers was broadcast using numerous footages of the incident. Almost all governments and known figures strongly condemned this incident. But then a propaganda machine came into full force; it was implied that the whole world was exposed to a huge danger, namely terrorism, and that the only way to save the world would be to deploy forces into Afghanistan. Eventually Afghanistan, and, shortly thereafter, Iraq were occupied.

"Please take note: it was said that some three thousands people were killed on September 11th, for which we are all very saddened. Yet, up until now, in Afghanistan and Iraq hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, millions wounded and displaced and the conflict is still going on and expanding.

"In identifying those responsible for the attack, there were three viewpoints.

"1- That a very powerful and complex terrorist group, able to successfully cross all layers of the American intelligence and security, carried out the attack. This is the main viewpoint advocated by American statesmen.

"2- That some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime. The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view.

"3- It was carried out by a terrorist group but the American government supported and took advantage of the situation. Apparently, this viewpoint has fewer proponents. The main evidence linking the incident was a few passports found in the huge volume of rubble and a video of an individual whose place of domicile was unknown but it was announced that he had been involved in oil deals with some American officials. It was also covered up and said that due to the explosion and fire no trace of the suicide attackers was found.

"There remain, however, a few questions to be answered:

"1- Would it not have been sensible that first a thorough investigation should have been conducted by independent groups to conclusively identify the elements involved in the attack and then map out a rational plan to take measures against them?

"2- Assuming the viewpoint of the American government, is it rational to launch a classic war through widespread deployment of troops that led to the death of hundreds of thousands of people to counter a terrorist group?

"3- Was it not possible to act the way Iran countered the Riggi terrorist group who killed and wounded 400 innocent people in Iran. In the Iranian operation no innocent person was hurt.

"It is proposed that the United Nations set up an independent fact-finding group for the event of September 11th so that in the future, expressing views about it is not forbidden..."

Excerpts from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Speech at the United Nations, Sept. 23, 2010

Sounds reasonable enough to me...

(ducks for cover...)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Trout 10 July, 2011, 10:18:24 PM
Hmmm... Having had a proper, proper look now (my favourite point was when another conspiracy theorist, a total stranger, turned up out of the blue to call Peter a liar and a coward), I get the point of this thread.

It's Argue With Scojo Except It's For Peter!

So why is it on this site? Why not delete this sort of content and set up a group where he can sit by himself, spouting his poison in a way that doesn't affect 2000AD, and the rest of us can simply not go there?

I mean: support for the murderer Gaddafi? Why is this site used for that?

- Trout

Come on- don't be a cock.  He has opinions that you don't agree with- that you probably find a bit mental.  That's fine.  It's not the same as him spamming up the board, replying to his own witless rants and/or repeating the same message, over and over, in multiple threads- all at the same time.

What's especially annoying is that we've just talked about this on Twitter and you've still wandered back here to effectively join in the pile on.  If I was to do that to some of the people I don't like on this board, you'd be accusing me of bullying.

For the most part, there are two threads that effectively contain this stuff and they're easy enough to avoid.  I'm pretty sure you've championed off-topic threads in the past- so why are these any different?  Apart from the fact that you think they're pish, of course?

I think avoiding it would be the best policy for me, yes. I managed it until now.

I'd rather it didn't exist but what the hell. Life's too short.

- Trout
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 10 July, 2011, 10:21:44 PM
My liege, your contribution to this forum is immense and has frequently set the tone that makes this such an affable corner of the web, so I'd always approach your opinions with respect.  However, here I think you have the wrong end of the stick. 

This is a thread set up by Shark specifically to allow crazy ideas and conspiracy theories to be discussed without anyone having to read them and get pissed off by them.  It's nothing like Argue With Scojo, except in the specific issue of Libya (and I suppose a couple of earlier instances), where the argument was so wrong-headed that even cooler heads felt they had to pile in.  Yes, supporting Gadaffi is offensively stupid (sorry Peter, it is), but that's why it's being beaten into pulp here.  Peter is a man of strange thoughts and approaches, but Scojo-or-equivalent he ain't.

I think there's a place for it here, when you view here as a community of fans rather than a single-issue discussion forum.  It's no more irrelevant than are the various (and highly popular) "Life..." and  "Last noun verbed..." threads.

EDIT: Oops, our posts crossed.  Yes, ignoring it is best.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 10 July, 2011, 10:23:13 PM
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

 Aristotle
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Trout 10 July, 2011, 10:29:10 PM
As Jim Campbell said, I increasingly feel I'm out of step with this board. I don't come round too often anyway. This isn't a flounce off, or a big announcement - I'll still pop back and say hello - but I think it's moved beyond me.

By the way, I do intend to go to the comics event Peter mentioned before, and I am happy to encounter him at it. If he carries out his threat of violence, I'll be sure to post the results here.

- Trout
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 10 July, 2011, 10:40:22 PM
By the way, I do intend to go to the comics event Peter mentioned before, and I am happy to encounter him at it. If he carries out his threat of violence, I'll be sure to post the results here.

See, some good may come of all this yet! 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 10 July, 2011, 10:41:35 PM
As Jim Campbell said, I increasingly feel I'm out of step with this board. ... I think it's moved beyond me.
- Trout

How so?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 10 July, 2011, 10:47:03 PM
so are we in the post-campbellcene era?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 10 July, 2011, 11:07:21 PM
so are we in the post-campbellcene era?

Ah, alas for the Campbrian, when bony fishes ruled the depths...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 10 July, 2011, 11:38:38 PM
Ye know, the Trout speaks truth. Off Topic has had it's share of rows, but it was always the fun sort I reckon. Perhaps overt politicizing doesn't really have a place in a leisure zone.

Unfortunately, i've contributed to it. Like a moth to a flame perhaps.

M
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 10 July, 2011, 11:40:56 PM
You lahve it you slaaag!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 10 July, 2011, 11:41:54 PM
Maybe Pete's posts are just too long-winded, too long for a comics forum? Wood & trees comes to mind...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 July, 2011, 12:00:03 AM
My posts are often long winded as well, to be fair, as are others.

IMHO the problem most people have with the topics discussed here seems to be the idea that posters such as Peter and myself offer views and ideas which are anathema to most other people's world view and experience. We're basically implying that the world you know so well is actually very different than is generally accepted. It's like saying that if you believe what the politicians, corporations and media tell you then you're an idiot. This is bound to make people angry. It made me angry when first I was exposed to these ideas.

I obviously can't speak to Peter's motives for posting here but mine are simply to ask "are you sure you're seeing the world correctly? Am I seeing the world correctly?" I don't want to convert anyone or belittle anyone for not seeing things as I do. I'm also not looking for anyone to convert or belittle me for not seeing the world as they do.

The topics discussed on this thread are often upsetting and bound to cause friction, bemusement and anger. These are, after all, big topics with many, many dimensions to them. Accept nothing out of hand and deny nothing out of hand, for what is true today may not have been true yesterday and may not be true tomorrow.

We may as well just chill out, because in a hundred years who's going to care?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 11 July, 2011, 12:03:31 AM
130 year olds.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 11 July, 2011, 12:11:48 AM
130 year olds.

 :lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 11 July, 2011, 12:24:50 AM
My posts are often long winded as well, to be fair, as are others.

IMHO the problem most people have with the topics discussed here seems to be the idea that posters such as Peter and myself offer views and ideas which are anathema to most other people's world view and experience. We're basically implying that the world you know so well is actually very different than is generally accepted. It's like saying that if you believe what the politicians, corporations and media tell you then you're an idiot. This is bound to make people angry. It made me angry when first I was exposed to these ideas.



I think that's a rather inflated view of the thread, we aren't messengers of the light or Neo in the Matrix or even proper contrarians.


Speaking for myself I've been aware of this stuff you and Pete have posted about for years -read with genuine interest and amusement- as I'm sure others have on this forum, and no sensible person can claim that what they have gleaned from such readings could be sure it's such real 'truth' or particularly enlightening to live one's everyday life though we all have moments of clarity. A lot of it is divorced from any real-world sensibilty -veracious or not- and the bits that may be truthful get lost in the conspiracy gestalt. It's all a bit of fun and if some genuine personal views get aired it can be a little bit cathartic.

What grates is when certain members throw around words like sheep and adopt a condescending tone in relation to either the so called masses or members of this forum. It's arrogant and rather naive, none of us are privy to such info, our opinions are always broad brush strokes feverishly typed in private domesticity.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 11 July, 2011, 01:17:52 AM
Now I'm starting to worry that too much sense is being talked here - we should get this thread back on topic.

Or talk some more about the moody fish of the Cambpeniferous.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Peter Wolf 11 July, 2011, 02:49:36 AM
As Jim Campbell said, I increasingly feel I'm out of step with this board. I don't come round too often anyway. This isn't a flounce off, or a big announcement - I'll still pop back and say hello - but I think it's moved beyond me.

By the way, I do intend to go to the comics event Peter mentioned before, and I am happy to encounter him at it. If he carries out his threat of violence, I'll be sure to post the results here.

- Trout

There was never a threat of violence apart from one that you chose to read into it but it was ambiguous so thats fair enough but the fact is i am not interested in violence as telling you what i think of you will be enough.having said that its a long time away and i may drop out before then but if i dont i would prefer it if the whole thing was dropped which it seems like it has been anyway by the looks of things.I am saying that there may be an opportunity for you to say what you think in person.I am not desperate to talk to you and i would rather move on from the whole thing.

Thats my position on that but i have to draw the line at being called certain things as its unnacceptable.Being told that i am wrong or paranoid or ill informed and being wrong headed or whatever is one thing but slander/libel is another.I dont want to hear it or read it again.

If you had your way this thread would not exist which seems like a very intolerant and authoritarian attitude plus the fact that you dont respect others views.

As for this thread the problem is really my views on this thread rather than the thread itself and while i can still say what i want like everyone else i have a kind of pragmatic attitude to it all now where i dont really think its worth continuing anymore as it gets to the point that its no longer enjoyable or productive.Too much "overt politicising" rahter than just conversation on my part.

I had already dropped out of this thread because i could feel something was building up.

I do think that certain individuals here who throw around terms like "paranoid" are in some kind of denial of reality or reality prison.Like i said earlier this thread isnt called what its called for nothing.


: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 July, 2011, 03:18:01 AM
I think that's a rather inflated view of the thread, we aren't messengers of the light or Neo in the Matrix or even proper contrarians.

Speaking for myself I've been aware of this stuff you and Pete have posted about for years -read with genuine interest and amusement- as I'm sure others have on this forum, and no sensible person can claim that what they have gleaned from such readings could be sure it's such real 'truth' or particularly enlightening to live one's everyday life though we all have moments of clarity. A lot of it is divorced from any real-world sensibilty -veracious or not- and the bits that may be truthful get lost in the conspiracy gestalt. It's all a bit of fun and if some genuine personal views get aired it can be a little bit cathartic.

What grates is when certain members throw around words like sheep and adopt a condescending tone in relation to either the so called masses or members of this forum. It's arrogant and rather naive, none of us are privy to such info, our opinions are always broad brush strokes feverishly typed in private domesticity.

In my own personal view, I don't think most of the subjects discussed here can be inflated. To take my own personal bugbear as an example, the banks are hoovering up the wealth of the world, wealth that belongs to you and me, and society in general seems content to let this happen. Content to allow Africa to starve because of it. Content to allow wars because of it. Content to ignore it. I firmly contend that everyone needs to understand that the way the banks operate is killing humanity in vast swathes and that putting this right would be relatively easy. In my universe, there is, politically and socially, nothing more important than this. That said, I know that every single one of us lives in our own unique universe and so this subject is nowhere near as important to others as it is to me. I get that, but sometimes I have a hard time accepting or even understanding it - but that's my problem and nobody else's.

For instance, how can the fact that your parents' wealth, your wealth and your children's wealth is being stolen by an elite few possibly be seen as not "particularly enlightening to ... one's everyday life"? How much will people have to loose before they start thinking that maybe something's not right with the way things are being run? Again, this is just my own personal viewpoint and I believe in what I say so firmly that it actually scares me.

Without wishing to sound derogatory, I reckon that around 80% of people are sheep. This is not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to, say, traffic regulations and such. The fact is that most people like to follow leaders/fads/fashions - and it's a trait that has served humanity well through the ages otherwise there'd be none of us here to debate the matter.

Where the sheep mentality comes a cropper is when unscrupulous people take advantage of it. Tony Blair took us into horrid wars; a few people objected but most just kept their mouths shut and went along with it. If someone in an official costume or uniform tells a person to do something then most people do it. (Remember that experiment where ordinary people were ordered by men in white coats to apply ultimately "fatal electric shocks" to an unseen victim and 80% happily went along with it?) Sometimes this trait is beneficial, like following instructions to evacuate a burning building - but sometimes it's positively disgraceful like convincing a population that a minority must be expunged for the common good.

The trick is knowing when to bleat and when to roar - which is never easy.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 11 July, 2011, 10:23:43 AM
Where was there threats of violence? Was it on this board?

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Tiplodocus 11 July, 2011, 12:51:59 PM
For what it's worth...

I don't understand why anybody feels the needs to raise these topics and questions here. 

It's primarily a light hearted leisure forum.

Why not take these opinions and questions someplace else where they might make a difference? Surely a proper political or newspaper site would be a better fit for your thoughts?

Though I dip my toes into the thread occassionally, (I live without it and) I don't feel they add value to the forum as a whole (though obviously a couple of you get some form of validation from posting here).

I'm not against OFF TOPIC, and even, on occassion, SILLY stuff but the nature of these things just doesn't belong here.
e.g. I think a thread where "fans" of teh Old Firm spout rubbish at each other would be equally out of place.
 
Maybe I'm out of step as well, or maybe, not enough people have actually bothered to voice an opinion for fear of offending.

So plainly - I'd rather this thread, and the political thread didn't exist.  Where the real world* does cross into the forum (e.g. RIPs), I'd rather people didn't politicise their posts.

* I, in no way, mean to imply that this thread represents the "real world".
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 11 July, 2011, 04:59:08 PM
Where was there threats of violence? Was it on this board?

I see it was. That's not a good thing.

M.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: I, Cosh 12 July, 2011, 12:06:48 AM
My posts are often long winded as well, to be fair, as are others.

IMHO the problem most people have with the topics discussed here seems to be the idea that posters such as Peter and myself offer views and ideas which are anathema to most other people's world view and experience.
No, it really isn't. I'm sure you realise this, but what Joe was politely trying to say is that a lot of what you like to portray as revelatory, transgressive ideas really aren't that new and I imagine most people's hackles are raised at least a little by the condescension that attitude implies. NB I know you have said in the past that isn't your intent, but I'm afraid that doesn't change the way it reads.

Personally, I don't follow the two threads that closely, but I have absolutely no problem with them being there or people discussing those ideas on the forum and I assume part of the point in doing so is to stimulate argument. In my experience, you generally go to a reasonable length to respond to people who argue against you. While I'm sure some people do get exasperated at not being able to win you over, that's just part of the debate.

On the other hand people take issue with Peter's posts not because they represent some radical new way of looking at the world which must be resisted lest they break down all our preconceptions, free us from the tyranny of the quotidian and turn all that's solid into air. No. People take issue because they're the incoherent, self-contradictory and often offensive (in tone, rather than content) ramblings of someone who confuses having an opinion on everything with actually thinking about it. I don't think the problem is ever about discussing any topic, but when that spills out and clogs up every thread. The reason you started your own threads to contain it in the first place.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 12 July, 2011, 01:00:21 AM

No, it really isn't. I'm sure you realise this, but what Joe was politely trying to say is that a lot of what you like to portray as revelatory, transgressive ideas really aren't that new and I imagine most people's hackles are raised at least a little by the condescension that attitude implies. NB I know you have said in the past that isn't your intent, but I'm afraid that doesn't change the way it reads.

I accept that without reservation. (The issue of social v private money has been rumbling on since at least Roman times so you're right, that isn't new at all.) I think my problem is that I talk to a lot of people in "real life" about this and most either just don't understand (which is my fault for not adequately explaining what I mean) or aren't interested (again, my fault for not being clear enough). I hate the fact that I'm coming across as condescending, especially on this board (which is my most favouritest place on the whole interweb (with the possible exception of youporn.com)).

In my defence, I will say only that the attitudes and beliefs I encounter in real life colour the way I write here, which is probably why I am rather too robust in what I say, tipping me over into condescension. I thank you, sincerely, for pointing this out and promise to try and do better in the future.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 12 July, 2011, 01:30:21 AM
Don't sweat it too much, you're a gent, 2000AD was always a magnet for that less reverential comic reader and many an ageing squaxx has put their feet in many a stream since having first read a prog and before finding their way to here, so the conversation won't ever just be about Twoth, but that is still why we're all here.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 12 July, 2011, 01:39:57 AM
Joe Soap...the voice of sanity....who'd have thought it :D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 12 July, 2011, 01:45:35 AM
You're comin' round to my way of thinking.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 12 July, 2011, 01:51:59 AM
I really do love this place and the people in it :)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 12 July, 2011, 01:58:27 AM
I tend not to argue with Joe....as Clint says "mans gotta know his limitations"
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 12 July, 2011, 02:01:15 AM
Naw, I'm jus' grumpy 'n know what to keep my trap shut about.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 12 July, 2011, 02:03:34 AM
besides...what are we al doin' up this fuckin' late?...a workin' man needs his slumber.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emp 12 July, 2011, 02:07:37 AM
no concern of mine til august  :D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 12 July, 2011, 07:08:10 PM
There was never a threat of violence apart from one that you chose to read into it

''if you or anyone else wants to continue this in person instead of being on the end of an internet connection then you will have to wait until next March then we will see what you are made of and how far you want to push your luck''


So what else can one do 'in person' that one can't do at the end of an internet connection?

Anyway it appears they have both flounced off, thereby spoiling the betting in the 'Hi-Ex Handbag at dawn sweep stakes'  ::)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 12 July, 2011, 07:47:13 PM
So what else can one do 'in person' that one can't do at the end of an internet connection?


I'm guessin' t'would've been Top-Trumps.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 12 July, 2011, 08:25:27 PM
Will you lot stop trying to shag each other and get on with some bogus conspiracies.
This thread has gone from entertainment to congratulatory slaps on the back and arse tonguing..

If that doesn't start anything nothing will.




V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 12 July, 2011, 09:58:58 PM
There was never a threat of violence apart from one that you chose to read into it

''if you or anyone else wants to continue this in person instead of being on the end of an internet connection then you will have to wait until next March then we will see what you are made of and how far you want to push your luck''


So what else can one do 'in person' that one can't do at the end of an internet connection?

Anyway it appears they have both flounced off, thereby spoiling the betting in the 'Hi-Ex Handbag at dawn sweep stakes'  ::)

That's possibly the least threatening and entirely vague 'threat' I think I've ever read.  Pretty sure I once promised to beat the shit out of that Cairns fool if he was stupid enough to show his face at Bristol a few years ago.

People really shouldn't make threats on the internet (or indeed anywhere else).  Equally, people really shouldn't write cheques with their mouths that their fists can't cash.  Or something. 

The problem with the internet is that people have forgotten what it's like to have to think about the way that they speak to other people- in case those people  punch all their teeth in for it.  Again, I'm not saying that it's right to resort to violence over reasoned debate, but I know full well that most of the 'cleverer' people that frequent this and other boards are a lot less clever- or at the very least, brave, in person. 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 12 July, 2011, 10:05:10 PM
On a number of occasions on Facefuck I have had to remind people that there may be a chance we will meet in person. It soon shuts them up when they think about it or correspond with mutual friends.




V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 12 July, 2011, 11:19:40 PM
Well, I'm not frightened of any of you pussies...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Stan 13 July, 2011, 12:56:46 AM
I see I have missed an 'epic' thread. For shame, T-Mobile and your requirement of cash for services rendered.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 13 July, 2011, 01:15:24 AM
Well, I'm not frightened of any of you pussies...

And I am scared shitless of the shark, he only lives a short local train ride away (once he escapes the village of the damned). I randomly open my curtains to see if I ca catch him lurking in the garden.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 July, 2011, 01:53:04 AM
And well you should be. I'm close to you even now - so close, in fact, that I just stole an "n" from your last post...

Bwa ha ha haaa
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Trout 13 July, 2011, 06:15:00 PM
Anyway it appears they have both flounced off, thereby spoiling the betting in the 'Hi-Ex Handbag at dawn sweep stakes'  ::)

Oi! I haven't flounced off at all!  :)

It wasn't so much the threat that bothered me. It was the potential it had to spoil Hi Ex, which is a great, family-friendly event. I would have just backed down from any conflict, anyway. Why end up in a cell in Inverness when you could be drawing obscene comics in a hotel bar?

- Trout
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 13 July, 2011, 06:37:19 PM
Peter won't be coming to Hi-Ex, as he politely asked me to remove him from the list for the Hell-Trek!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 13 July, 2011, 06:40:09 PM
Ah now this is getting (GETTING?) silly. 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 July, 2011, 07:24:34 PM
Yes, this is getting silly and I feel partially responsible because it all seemed to kick off because of this thread that I made.

So, I've had an idea. Why don't you both come to the Yap Shop tonight and hash it out properly in real time chat? It seems a shame to be cancelling Hi-Ex tickets and settling into patterns of enmity for what is really a storm in a teacup. You don't have to do it in the main room if you don't want, a private room can be opened and I am more than willing to act as a mediator if that will help.

The "Truth" is that sometimes people fall out. It's not the end of the world and it's not irrevocable. The longer you leave it, though, the harder it becomes to get past it. I hope you will give the idea some consideration.

www.paltalk.com (download and install the software for free, follow the sign-up instructions and find the room under: Miscellaneous/Other/Rowdy Yates Block Citizens' Yap Shop.)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 13 July, 2011, 08:46:58 PM
To be fair, I think that Rich has told Peter that he's not welcome.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 13 July, 2011, 08:48:18 PM
To be fair, I think that Rich has told Peter that he's not welcome.

Hardly something that gentlemen couldn't sort out between themselves. 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 July, 2011, 08:54:44 PM
I obviously wouldn't want to speak for Rich, but I think it's more the attitude that's not welcome, not the person.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 July, 2011, 09:26:58 PM
I obviously wouldn't want to speak for Rich, but I think it's more the attitude that's not welcome, not the person.

Bit of both, to be honest.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 July, 2011, 09:35:45 PM
Hardly anyone's been in the Yap Shop tonight. I hope my suggestion hasn't put people off dropping in.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Jared Katooie 13 July, 2011, 09:58:34 PM
(http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt248/jaredkatooie/BarelyDrawn.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 13 July, 2011, 10:04:14 PM
Brilliant!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dunk! 13 July, 2011, 10:12:28 PM
Truely brilliant.

Cheered me up no end.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 13 July, 2011, 10:48:51 PM
That's one of the funniest things I've ever seen*.  Top marks Jared!







*Sheltered life taken as a given.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 13 July, 2011, 10:52:17 PM
That's one of the funniest things I've ever seen

Yup.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 14 July, 2011, 12:00:43 PM
spbloody bloonerisms
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 17 July, 2011, 02:04:18 AM
Fer Christs sakes, I take a wee holiday and everyone loses sight of what this thread is about.

The government have secret surveillance devices implanted in yer belt loops and all you people care about are yer opinions. Y'all need to get real
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 17 July, 2011, 02:08:00 AM
Are these secret surveilllance devices machine washable?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 17 July, 2011, 02:38:29 AM
I don't normally wash my belts. But I bet the washing machine industry is in on this.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 18 July, 2011, 12:59:50 PM
Social Media Targeted by Pentagon for “Strategic Communication”

"Earlier this week Old-Thinker News reported on statements made by Pentagon contractor and “perception manager” John Rendon regarding the manipulation of internet content algorithms with the intent to “shape belief sets.” In further revelations, the Pentagon has unveiled on Thursday a project developed by DARPA that will utilize social media as an information warfare tool."

Continued at: http://www.blacklistednews.com/Social_Media_Targeted_by_Pentagon_for_%E2%80%9CStrategic_Communication%E2%80%9D/14749/0/0/0/Y/M.html (http://www.blacklistednews.com/Social_Media_Targeted_by_Pentagon_for_%E2%80%9CStrategic_Communication%E2%80%9D/14749/0/0/0/Y/M.html)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 18 July, 2011, 05:13:43 PM

"Earlier this week Old-Thinker News reported on statements made by Pentagon contractor and “perception manager” John Rendon regarding the manipulation of internet content algorithms with the intent to “shape belt loops.”

Fixed that for ya!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 18 July, 2011, 08:54:08 PM
And so the belt loop theory starts.
(http://www.supplierlist.com/photo_images/226270/Belt_Buckle_Spy_Camera_DVR.jpg)
Far too many loops to be a coincidence. You may be onto something Proudhuff.
(http://www.denimhunt.com/.a/6a00d83420b8e253ef011570929c75970b-800wi)




V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 19 July, 2011, 01:03:50 AM
(http://pad3.whstatic.com/images/thumb/e/e6/Aglet.jpg/250px-Aglet.jpg)

Apparently these wee things on the ends of our laces are called Aglets.

A more accurate name would be tiny microphones
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 July, 2011, 01:16:21 PM
Aglet mikes are old hat, it's all about those insidious little RFID chips now. They want to put them into everything; food packaging, clothing, money... you. They want all your details and finances to be contained on this little chip, which will be implanted in your body. They'll be able to track you with it 24/7 and shut off your access to public transport, services and even your own funds. Chilling ideas, all packaged and presented to us as being for our own safety.

I don't often quote the Bible for obvious reasons, but here the most appropriate words can be found: "16   He causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, 17  and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." (Revelation 13:16-17)

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 19 July, 2011, 01:44:50 PM
I don't often quote the Bible for obvious reasons...

The most obvious being that a 2nd C nutjob holed up on a rock in the Dodecanese is unlikely to have much useful to say about 21st C data collection, other than to unintentionally infect it with the same obfusticating mystical twaddle as the rest of his hateful scratchings.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 July, 2011, 02:03:34 PM
Then again, some modern nutjob holed up in a corporately-funded secret laboratory somewhere might have read this obfuscating mystical twaddle and thought it was a good idea for furthering the evil goals of his hateful masters.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 19 July, 2011, 02:05:01 PM
I don't often quote the Bible for obvious reasons...

The most obvious being that a 2nd C nutjob holed up on a rock in the Dodecanese is unlikely to have much useful to say about 21st C data collection, other than to unintentionally infect it with the same obfusticating mystical twaddle as the rest of his hateful scratchings.
(http://sharetv.org/images/it_aint_half_hot_mum_uk/cast/large/rangi_ram.jpg)
But did he wear a belt?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 July, 2011, 02:09:07 PM
Shaaaa-daaaaapppp!

(http://retrosmiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/21072-by-pewter-184x184.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 19 July, 2011, 02:22:07 PM

(http://retrosmiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/21072-by-pewter-184x184.jpg)

(http://2000adonline.com/forum/avatars_static/avatar_43739.png)

separated at birth?  ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 July, 2011, 02:33:02 PM
I don't like posting just to say "lol" because it seems like a complete waste of everyone's time. That said, however:

lol  :lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 19 July, 2011, 02:46:56 PM
... I wouldn't take that from Mr la-di-dah Gunnar Graham!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: I, Cosh 19 July, 2011, 03:43:13 PM
I remember when bar codes were the number of the latter day beast.

On the other hand, when I go out to my mum's I ride past big open spaces which were all factories when I were a lad.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 19 July, 2011, 04:08:26 PM
Good one!

Funnily enough I was noting vacant commercial properties on my way into work this morning - I counted six in a row in a formerly bustling suburban area, with the run only halted by a letting agents office.  All bar one (a one-too-many Starbucks) had been occupied at the end of last year.  S'all getting a bit depressing.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 July, 2011, 04:32:37 PM
...big open spaces which were all factories when I were a lad.

That's the visible sign of what using private money is doing to society. When the banks create money for a loan, they do not also create the interest.  The money to pay the interest must therefore come from converting real assets into money. This leads to inflation, fewer holidays, poorer food, cheaper materials and a smaller, richer elite. With social money you'd have more industry, more retail, better services and a much bigger and wider elite.

Return the power to create and control the money supply to government (and entrust government to the will of the people) and you could reverse this decline for ever.

This has been a political post on behalf of the Blind Optimism Party.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 July, 2011, 04:44:03 PM
Speaking of optimism, articles like this really give me heart for the future:

Muslim Victim Of Post-9/11 Hate Crime Calls On Texas To Spare Life Of His Assailant

“I strongly believe what Mark Stroman did was a hate crime because of his ignorance. He was not capable of distinguishing between right and wrong. Otherwise, he would not have done what he did,” Bhuiyan said. “The way my parents raised me and the way my faith teaches me, no one has a right to take another human life. Islam does not allow for hate and killing.”

Full article here: http://tinyurl.com/3nx4pjf (http://tinyurl.com/3nx4pjf)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 19 July, 2011, 05:08:38 PM
I don't often quote the Bible for obvious reasons...

The most obvious being that a 2nd C nutjob holed up on a rock in the Dodecanese is unlikely to have much useful to say about 21st C data collection, other than to unintentionally infect it with the same obfusticating mystical twaddle as the rest of his hateful scratchings.
(http://sharetv.org/images/it_aint_half_hot_mum_uk/cast/large/rangi_ram.jpg)
But did he wear a belt?

Snake belts - could you ask for a more visible sign that this is all part of a scheme devised by a Set sect dating back before history itself (enshrined, for example, in the Old Testament one of the key ophiophobic tracts). The belt itself represents the snake, the belt loops therefore symbolise the forces working to oppress the serpent worshippers. When one undoes the trousers (ritually reversing the Ouroboros of the closed belt) in order to engage in fornication* one is almost literally setting the trouser snake free.

Only a high level adept of Set would be able to wear the snake belt on their hat and the whole of It Ain't Half Hot Mum, therefore becomes a form of mystery play in which the foolish Imperialist British army run around making fools of themselves, while Bearer Rangi Ram manipulates proceedings from the sidelines whilst maintaining an aura of innocence. The wink is tipped because he is in fact played by a white British actor (albeit one born in India who could speak Hindi).

I hope this has helped make the scales** fall from your eyes.

* Unless you are going for a quick knee-trembler round the back of the offie.

** See
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 19 July, 2011, 06:19:42 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Ouroboros-simple.svg/600px-Ouroboros-simple.svg.png)

I've said enough already...  :o
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 19 July, 2011, 06:55:29 PM
Or too much. :-X
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 19 July, 2011, 07:01:51 PM
(http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/cnishared/tools/shared/mediahub/02/16/00/slideshow_1001623030_schwarzenegger.jpg)

Not only is he holding a snake, he is also wearing a belt :o  :-X
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 19 July, 2011, 07:33:11 PM
A cold-blooded ruthless reptile largely untouched by evolutionary progress since the beginning of time - and a snake.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 19 July, 2011, 08:53:31 PM
(http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/cnishared/tools/shared/mediahub/02/16/00/slideshow_1001623030_schwarzenegger.jpg)

Not only is he holding a snake, he is also wearing a belt :o  :-X
What should have happened...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRoyuJuWXHM&NR=1
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: James Stacey 20 July, 2011, 10:58:13 AM
Snake belts - could you ask for a more visible sign that this is all part of a scheme devised by a Set sect dating back before history itself (enshrined, for example, in the Old Testament one of the key ophiophobic tracts). The belt itself represents the snake, the belt loops therefore symbolise the forces working to oppress the serpent worshippers. When one undoes the trousers (ritually reversing the Ouroboros of the closed belt) in order to engage in fornication* one is almost literally setting the trouser snake free.

Only a high level adept of Set would be able to wear the snake belt on their hat and the whole of It Ain't Half Hot Mum, therefore becomes a form of mystery play in which the foolish Imperialist British army run around making fools of themselves, while Bearer Rangi Ram manipulates proceedings from the sidelines whilst maintaining an aura of innocence. The wink is tipped because he is in fact played by a white British actor (albeit one born in India who could speak Hindi).

I hope this has helped make the scales** fall from your eyes.

* Unless you are going for a quick knee-trembler round the back of the offie.

** See

If it wasn't a European belt design I'd have been onboard with this :D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 20 July, 2011, 04:44:54 PM
Italian shoes have their own belts! Proof or WHAT!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 21 July, 2011, 02:12:06 PM
I think that anthropogenic global warming is a scam by the global elite to hoover up more of the Earth's wealth using global carbon taxes as the weapon of choice. I have thought for a long time that the sun is far more likely to affect our climate than a gas that only makes up about one half of one percent of our atmosphere. Some scientists are willing to entertain and investigate this theory and some are not...

CERN Scientists Gagged On ‘Politically Incorrect’ Global Warming Data

"In a shocking illustration of how the man-made climate change establishment has seized control of the scientific process, physicists at the CERN lab in Geneva were gagged from drawing conclusions about data that seeks to replicate studies which prove the sun is the main driver of climate change, after their boss told them that such heresy was politically incorrect.

"Despite the fact that global warming alarmists have claimed there is no link between the huge raging fireball in space that is over 100 times bigger than the earth, drives the seasons and causes ice ages, and climate change, the data produced by Henrik Svensmark’s studies shows a clear historical correlation between cosmic ray penetration and temperature, as can be seen from the graph below."

(http://regmedia.co.uk/2009/11/16/sven_northernhemi.jpg)


Full article here: http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/20/cern-scientists-gagged-on-%E2%80%98politically-incorrect%E2%80%99-global-warming-data/ (http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/20/cern-scientists-gagged-on-%E2%80%98politically-incorrect%E2%80%99-global-warming-data/)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 21 July, 2011, 02:35:47 PM
Speaking of CO2, hands up how many people think that putting this gas into the atmosphere is bad? (I'm looking at you, Al Gore...)

In actual fact, more CO2 equals bigger and better plants (and crops) and is contributing to a re-greening of the Earth. For example:

The Increasing Prowess of a Stand of Danish Beech Trees: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N29/B1.php (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N29/B1.php)

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 21 July, 2011, 02:38:44 PM
I don't get it.  The CERN chief advocates that the results of some very important climate research be presented clearly and in full, but with a minimum of interpretation. 

His reasons?  Because the phenomenon being examined represents only one of many parameters in the (literally) chaotic system of climate change, and he fears that any conjecture presented is going to be picked up and used as a blunt instrument in the climate debate to the exclusion of all other factors by people who are apparently either incapable of understanding the complexity of the system in question or so eager for supportive soundbites that support their conspiracy theory that they will willfully ignore it.   

But I will return to the first point:  the results of the research will be presented clearly and in full, so that anyone who is actually interested in understanding climate change can take the facts on board without an ideological spin.  Nothing is being buried here.  Thus is how science should proceed, rather than be seen as fuel for a media circus.

EDIT:  Incidentally, I'm not knocking Nigel Calder here, he's been a great voice for science, but he's missing the point here, possibly because he's in his 80's.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 21 July, 2011, 02:43:56 PM
So, science is actually aided by the restriction of debate? In what way?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 21 July, 2011, 02:46:18 PM
EDIT:  Incidentally, I'm not knocking Nigel Calder here, he's been a great voice for science, but he's missing the point here, possibly because he's in his 80's.


...so's Christopher Lee.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 21 July, 2011, 02:49:11 PM
Speaking of CO2, hands up how many people think that putting this gas into the atmosphere is bad?


Try breathing a higher % in.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 21 July, 2011, 02:56:02 PM
Try breathing a higher % in.

That's the point. Plants will breathe more in, grow bigger, forests will breathe in, expanding the natural carbon sinks of the Earth to keep step with the CO2 available for it to use. That's more plants for us to use, exhaling more oxygen for us to enjoy. Gaia adapts.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 21 July, 2011, 03:08:33 PM
Try breathing a higher % in.

That's the point. Plants will breathe more in, grow bigger, forests will breathe in, expanding the natural carbon sinks of the Earth to keep step with the CO2 available for it to use. That's more plants for us to use, exhaling more oxygen for us to enjoy. Gaia adapts.

Only if we maintain enough forestry and flora which we don't.


Gaia me arse, nature is anarchic otherwise there'd neve be anything new, 'balance' is stasis and that is not nature.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 21 July, 2011, 03:34:21 PM
Gaia me arse, nature is anarchic otherwise there'd never be anything new, 'balance' is stasis and that is not nature.

I don't agree that "'balance' is stasis". Take the sun, for example; it orbits the galaxy in what we perceive with our limited senses to be a balanced way. But we know that the sun doesn't orbit the galactic core in a simple straight line - it rises and falls over millions of years like a roller-coaster, but this happens on such vast time scales that it really makes no difference to us at all. Likewise, the Earth wobbles as it spins, but that wobble lasts for so long that it takes thousands and thousands of years to make a difference to the constellations we can see in the night sky.  That is balance, but not stasis.

It's the same with climate/life. Over long periods of time Gaia (used here in the climate/life homoeostatic sense) changes, the one influencing the other, the other adapting to the one in a complex dance spanning thousands of years. I think this is where most climate-change extremists are going wrong. They're looking at too short a timespan and interpreting their observations without sufficient context.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 21 July, 2011, 03:36:33 PM
And here's something else to get your hackles up (if you have any hackles left by now...)

9/11 Explosive Eyewitness Testimony: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/911-explosive-eyewitness-testimony
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 21 July, 2011, 04:15:59 PM
So, science is actually aided by the restriction of debate? In what way?

'Debate' is a word which can be applied to a number of different types of discourse, not all of them resembling its intended meaning.  Research produces results, and those results (and the methodologies that produced them) can be debated, new models/theories constructed on the basis of those debates to account for data if it no longer fits old models, and those models tested with subsequent data, until all data is accounted for in the most logically simple fashion. 

In this instance solar or cosmic ray forcing in climate change is one factor in a non-linear mess of factors, whose interactions are poorly understood, and at the reporting stage those papers should only be interpreting what the results mean for the understanding of that factor - conjecturing at the research paper level about how the results feed into an overall model of climate change is pre-judging something that should be the focus of a much larger meta-project. 

The obvious fear at CERN is that a single factor will be popularly mistaken for the whole picture, because it's simple and easy to grasp  - and a wider, more inclusive debate will suffer.  Every offhand remark that can possibly be interpreted as challenging the now-dominant hypothesis is extracted from its context and used as a rallying call to dismiss the entirety of climatological consensus, and to paint every other hard-working climate scientist as a shill or a stooge - something that is deeply damaging to an intelligent discussion.

Like it or not, climate change is a political issue, and thus knocked about by the tides of popular pressure rather than proceeding through the detailed analysis of data by experts, and the intent here seems not to be to restrict debate but to separate it from factual research papers, from the basic level of data collection and analysis. 

It's part of the essential house-style of science, because somebody needs to be establishing basic uncontested elements with which an actual  debate, a sensible discussion, can be conducted.   
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 21 July, 2011, 04:41:48 PM
And here's something else to get your hackles up (if you have any hackles left by now...)

9/11 Explosive Eyewitness Testimony: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/911-explosive-eyewitness-testimony


Flip-flopper.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 21 July, 2011, 04:44:20 PM
Like it or not, climate change is a political issue, and thus knocked about by the tides of popular pressure


A bit like the 'Greens', an issue, not a party.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 21 July, 2011, 05:11:10 PM
So, science is actually aided by the restriction of debate? In what way?

'Debate' is a word which can be applied to a number of different types of discourse, not all of them resembling its intended meaning.  Research produces results, and those results (and the methodologies that produced them) can be debated, new models/theories constructed on the basis of those debates to account for data if it no longer fits old models, and those models tested with subsequent data, until all data is accounted for in the most logically simple fashion. 

In this instance solar or cosmic ray forcing in climate change is one factor in a non-linear mess of factors, whose interactions are poorly understood, and at the reporting stage those papers should only be interpreting what the results mean for the understanding of that factor - conjecturing at the research paper level about how the results feed into an overall model of climate change is pre-judging something that should be the focus of a much larger meta-project. 

The obvious fear at CERN is that a single factor will be popularly mistaken for the whole picture, because it's simple and easy to grasp  - and a wider, more inclusive debate will suffer.  Every offhand remark that can possibly be interpreted as challenging the now-dominant hypothesis is extracted from its context and used as a rallying call to dismiss the entirety of climatological consensus, and to paint every other hard-working climate scientist as a shill or a stooge - something that is deeply damaging to an intelligent discussion.

Like it or not, climate change is a political issue, and thus knocked about by the tides of popular pressure rather than proceeding through the detailed analysis of data by experts, and the intent here seems not to be to restrict debate but to separate it from factual research papers, from the basic level of data collection and analysis. 

It's part of the essential house-style of science, because somebody needs to be establishing basic uncontested elements with which an actual  debate, a sensible discussion, can be conducted.   


So, science is not aided by restriction of debate, so long as only sober experts get to do the debating? I see... Should these sober and well-informed debates happen only behind closed doors and the rest of us just be informed of the results afterwards or do ordinary people get to ask impertinent questions?

Climate change is a political issue, yes - and that's a big problem. Politics has no place in science because then you just bring the whole thing into the same arena as religion where dogma becomes more important than discovery. At the moment, corporations have a lot invested in the man-made global warming scam (or perhaps we should be kinder and call it the man-made global warming error) and so they would lose billions if it was discovered that this climate change we appear to be going through is an entirely natural cycle or combination of cycles after all. In such a circumstance, it is difficult to get the funding to investigate alternative hypotheses or to even give voice to conflicting ideas. Now, I'm not a scientist but it seems to me that refusing to investigate, comment upon results or allow debate over unpopular theories is not what science should be about.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 21 July, 2011, 06:51:04 PM
And here's something else to get your hackles up (if you have any hackles left by now...)

9/11 Explosive Eyewitness Testimony: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/911-explosive-eyewitness-testimony

Goodness! people on the scene minutes after a building collapsed? It's lucky none of these eye witnesses where, I dunno, suffering from shock or anything are where able to describe exactly what happened.
Never mind the massive amount of forensic evidence since that contradicts any conspiracy, eh?

Dammit, I'm doing it again...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 21 July, 2011, 07:12:25 PM
So, science is not aided by restriction of debate, so long as only sober experts get to do the debating?

When it comes to the business of actual difficult science, I'm sorry, but yes, that's exactly it.  I'm not qualified, and I haven't got the years it would require to cover the literature, and I'm not smart enough to make sense of the maths anyway, to engage in properly informed analysis of this type of material.  I'm just not that person.  All I can do is trust that those people that have made it their life's work, and more importantly the system that regulates their work, is up to the task - because I'm certainly not.  If you are, well fair play, get stuck in.  In my case, however, all I can do is form an opinion based on what I'm told at second or third hand, further based on a judgement of the reliability of those sources.  That opinion has feck all bearing on what researchers should or shouldn't present in a low-level research paper

Obviously it's proper for everyone to question how science is done, to question the biases, the personalities, the sources of funding, and how findings influence real-world policies and budgets - not to do so would be gross complacency.  But to question the specifics of the actual core science?  I think you have to be a specialist to do that, and that's the level of paper that your post referred to.  Dragging specific research papers into the realm of uniformed non-expert discussions is risky, because as 'climategate' showed most people are pig-fucking ignorant as to how science operates and prone to completely misinterpret on the basis of what the media spins in their direction. 

Papers need to present evidence that can inform debate at all levels, but including conjectures that one-note media sources can misinterpret into a rejection of anthropogenic climate change is counterproductive.  These aren't opinion columns in New Scientist, these are papers documenting primary research.  A policy that restricts them to that role allows them to be used to support or contradict any position as the evidence dictates.  It actually opens up their use, rather than restricts it to one partisan or another.

A quote from a character by a non-expert novelist: "Let the philosophers of science delude themselves to the contrary, physics was free of human taint, it described a world that would still exist if  men and women and all their sorrows did not." (Solar, Ian McEwan).  That's where we're at.


: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 21 July, 2011, 07:43:22 PM
If I could explain it to the average person, I wouldn't have been worth the Nobel Prize.

Richard Feynman
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: vzzbux 21 July, 2011, 07:59:42 PM
And here's something else to get your hackles up (if you have any hackles left by now...)

9/11 Explosive Eyewitness Testimony: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-27/911-explosive-eyewitness-testimony
In disasters like that there will be gas build up just taking a little spark to set it off, or even whole floors slamming against one another as the buildings collapse the impact will sound like an explosion.
How many times have you jumped out of your skin when a car back fires. Even in my job I have to have a gas tester clipped to my belt at all times to test for build up in the street networks.
As a kid I can even remember the amplification of my dads farts around the house when he was in the bath.




V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 21 July, 2011, 08:17:40 PM
When 9/11 happened, my telly blew-up.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 21 July, 2011, 08:22:32 PM
I heard that Porsche was behind it all, thus making everyone think of buying one of their 911 models, subliminal messaging, it works!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 21 July, 2011, 08:30:22 PM
I heard that Porsche was behind it all, thus making everyone think of buying one of their 911 models, subliminal messaging, it works!
Pish, it was their competitors at Fiat, trying to link 911s with death, thus adversely affecting the sales of the executive penal compensators.

Mind you those 911s were associated with death long before 2001.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 21 July, 2011, 10:39:03 PM
Goodness! people on the scene minutes after a building collapsed? It's lucky none of these eye witnesses where, I dunno, suffering from shock or anything are where able to describe exactly what happened.
Never mind the massive amount of forensic evidence since that contradicts any conspiracy, eh?

Dammit, I'm doing it again...

Indeed. It's just pure coincidence that many imagined similar secondary explosions and controlled-demolition-type "bang, bang, bang, bangs".

And, which massive amounts of forensic evidence do you mean? The selective evidence considered by the 9/11 Commission or NIST which failed to explain exactly why any of the three towers collapsed?

Oh Lordie, I'm off on one again as well  ::) It's all moot anyway. At the moment I've seen no evidence that makes me confident that the official narrative of 9/11 is convincing and I guess you haven't seen anything that makes you think the official narrative isn't convincing. I do want to be wrong, though. I really want to think it was all the fault of human pettiness and human ineptitude and just plain coincidence rather than an elitist black-flag operation designed to make a profit and further a global Fascist agenda.

So, science is not aided by restriction of debate, so long as only sober experts get to do the debating?

When it comes to the business of actual difficult science, I'm sorry, but yes, that's exactly it...



I think I know where you're coming from here, and it's a position I have a great deal of respect for. We want our best scientists working on the most pressing problems, of course we do. We want them arguing with each other and reviewing each other and generally coming up with accurate data and answers. However, to exclude the rest of society from that process seems to me a very elitist and even dangerous thing to do. I reckon we should all have access to important climate change data and interpretations of that data. Why should we not be able to look at the arguments, perspectives and data of our scientists and debate it between ourselves as we are doing here? You don't need to understand every detail to have an opinion - whether that opinion be right or wrong.

Take the case of Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered that the incidence of puerperal fever could be drastically cut by the use of hand disinfection in obstetrical clinics. The argument between Semmelweis and his peers raged on largely in private (that is, between doctors). Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were actually offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings.

Now, if the rest of society had been privy to this argument then simple statistics (hands washed v dead patients on a chart) may have brought doctors to the truth far earlier and saved many lives.

The more information that's available to as many people as possible, the better the chance that connections will be made or novel proposals generated. Yes, you'll get a lot of rubbish as well, but that's just par for the course and no reason to restrict access to scientific data or its interpretation.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 21 July, 2011, 11:07:26 PM
The more information that's available to as many people as possible, the better the chance that connections will be made or novel proposals generated. Yes, you'll get a lot of rubbish as well, but that's just par for the course and no reason to restrict access to scientific data or its interpretation.

I'd never advocate restricting access to scientific data or its interpretation.  What I would do is assert that, as a layman, my view of data or interpretation is just not as valid as a professional specialist in that or a related field.  It's not elitism to ask that the man flying my plane is a qualified pilot and not just a passenger selected because he's expressed an interest, and some of the other passengers think he's got a better handle on this whole aileron business. What's the problem, why are they keeping all the cockpit action to themselves, what are they hiding?  Where public opinion affects the progress of essential science, that's exactly what happens.

Your 19th C anecdote is a good one, and highlights inertia of praxis in any aspect of life.  However this is not the same situation as the one  we were discussing - no-one is suppressing or ignoring or sidelining anyone's research.  The CERN papers are part of an effort to understand climate, and an influential part. 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 21 July, 2011, 11:28:30 PM

I'd never advocate restricting access to scientific data or its interpretation.

I apologise, I had no right to insinuate that. Sloppy of me.

I do think that a layman can be of help in data interpretation. In some cases, the conventional wisdom of scientists can be a straightjacket that the layman just doesn't have. Of course, conventional wisdom has its place - but then, so does unfettered imagination.

When I was at school I was told that it would be impossible to draw a scale picture of the solar system on an A4 sheet of paper. This "fact", no doubt established and tested by people far more intelligent and better educated than I will ever be, has vexed me for most of my life. A couple of years ago, however, the solution to this problem hit me. I think that I've found a way to put a scale model of the solar system on an A4 sheet of paper - although I can explain the idea and even illustrate it, I don't know exactly how to do it because my maths aren't nearly good enough. Also, there's really no point to having scale maps of solar systems on an A4 sheet of paper that I can think of. And it might not actually work as well as I imagine. All I'm saying is that if a poorly educated buffoon like me can have a brainwave, then anyone can.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 21 July, 2011, 11:35:44 PM
The more information that's available to as many people as possible, the better the chance that connections will be made or novel proposals generated. Yes, you'll get a lot of rubbish as well

E.G. Every science story the Daily Mail has ever run.

A common problem with the way most lay people interpret scientific data is this; Correlation=Causation. The MMR jabs links to Autism is a good example of this.

Just out of curiosity, Sharky, when you say a scale image of the solar system, do you mean out as far as Neptune, or right out to the edge of the Oort cloud?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 21 July, 2011, 11:39:44 PM

When I was at school I was told that it would be impossible to draw a scale picture of the solar system on an A4 sheet of paper. This "fact", no doubt established and tested by people far more intelligent and better educated than I will ever be, has vexed me for most of my life. A couple of years ago, however, the solution to this problem hit me. I think that I've found a way to put a scale model of the solar system on an A4 sheet of paper - although I can explain the idea and even illustrate it, I don't know exactly how to do it because my maths aren't nearly good enough. Also, there's really no point to having scale maps of solar systems on an A4 sheet of paper that I can think of. And it might not actually work as well as I imagine. All I'm saying is that if a poorly educated buffoon like me can have a brainwave, then anyone can.


How 'bout just using a bigger sheet of paper?*





*Ed de Bono would be proud.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 21 July, 2011, 11:41:38 PM
Without the maths skills I don't really know - but I'm fairly confident you could get it to Neptune and optimistic that you could reach the farthest edge of the heliopause. Any maths geniuses want to look at the idea and share the glory/disappointment??  :lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: I, Cosh 21 July, 2011, 11:47:34 PM
How 'bout just using a bigger sheet of paper?*
He did say it had to be A4. A smaller scale would seem to be an obvious solution.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 21 July, 2011, 11:50:32 PM
He did say it had to be A4.


He didn't ya know.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 21 July, 2011, 11:54:15 PM
Well if it helps, if you intend to trace the orbits you could just draw them as perfect circles. The elliptical nature of planetary orbits is usually exaggerated for diagrams to make it clearer. For your drawing, the the difference between Aphelion and Perihelion would be no greater than the thickness of the line (assuming the line is thick enough to be visible).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 22 July, 2011, 12:01:04 AM
I demand examples.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 22 July, 2011, 12:12:29 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bov9M2gEgcE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bov9M2gEgcE)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 22 July, 2011, 12:13:43 AM
BY YOUR HAND!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 22 July, 2011, 12:29:42 AM
Well if it helps, if you intend to trace the orbits you could just draw them as perfect circles. The elliptical nature of planetary orbits is usually exaggerated for diagrams to make it clearer. For your drawing, the the difference between Aphelion and Perihelion would be no greater than the thickness of the line (assuming the line is thick enough to be visible).

No, that wouldn't work. Here's a pdf I made to try and explain it (230KB):  http://www.mediafire.com/?wc5ta4akzagudnj
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 22 July, 2011, 12:33:24 AM
Impressive.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 22 July, 2011, 12:39:15 AM
That's a clever wee scematic

(http://www.deepfly.org/TheNeighborhood/SolarTable.gif)

Neptune's  orbital radius is 30.1 AU/4,515,000,000km, this will be the largest dimension in your picture.

The diameter of Mercury is 3005km, this is your smallest dimension.

S0 a ratio of roughly 1/1,500,000. If you made Mercury 1mm in diameter, Neptune's orbit would be about 1.5 km from the center of the page and would have to be drawn with a really, really, really, really tight spiral.Or not drawn to the same scale as the orbits.

Bear in mind, I've a few beer in me.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 22 July, 2011, 12:46:19 AM
If you wanted to do a scale image on an A4 page, the planets would have to be drawn with a really, really, really, really sharp pencil. Or not drawn to the same scale as the orbits.

You're right about the sharpness - I reckon it would be possible with a very thin line and a very dense spiral. No?

(I actually got the idea after watching a documentary about the London Underground Map.)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 22 July, 2011, 12:46:55 AM
Yeah I edited that after the fact there. Unfortunately, I don't know much about the mathematics of spirals. Unless they're the Fibonacci kind.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 22 July, 2011, 01:16:23 AM
I just emailed ESA with it. Should I have used a green font? lol
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Nap Normal 22 July, 2011, 01:42:47 AM
This is a nice piece of software that let's you explore the solar system. At my age this is the closest I will get to exploring the the planets. On the bright side you can do it without leaving the comfort of your own home. 
http://www.solarsystemscope.com/  (http://www.solarsystemscope.com/)

Bw
Nap
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 22 July, 2011, 07:34:48 AM
Very cleverly done, TLS.  I spent a good while looking through that, nice one.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 22 July, 2011, 10:52:36 AM
Wasn't Albert Einstein a lowly clerk in a patent office?










Thank you, Red Dwarf.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 22 July, 2011, 10:58:34 AM
Wasn't Albert Einstein a lowly clerk in a patent office?

yes, but with a great imagination
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 22 July, 2011, 11:28:07 AM
Wasn't Albert Einstein a lowly clerk in a patent office?

After graduating in physics and maths, and to support his family while working towards his doctorate in physics at the University of Zurich, having fled military service in Germany, yes indeed he was, but did his contribution to science at the time consist of posting on internet forums* and writing to the Daily Mail?  Or did it consist of (initially) the completion of his doctoral thesis, and the publication, in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, of his theory of Special Relativity, the photoelectric effect, brownian motion etc. (all in the one year, BTW)?

Rather than complaining that the scientific establishment was conspiring to maintain the fiction of the luminiferous ether through debate, Einstein mathematically proved the damn thing was a needless nonsense, and he did it through traditional establishment channels and norms.  And did 'they' hush him up and suppress his work?  No.  Within three years he was a senior lecturer at the University of Zurich, and 3 years after that a full professor in Prague.

This is not the same thing as pulling bits of papers out of context and asserting the sky is (isn't?) falling, and no-one is listening to you because they're all in cahoots with big business and/or the goddamn hippies.





*I am absolutely NOT referring to TLS here, to be clear.  TLS is an intelligent and articulate gentleman, and a unbowed challenger of received orthodoxies, for all that I seldom agree with him.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 22 July, 2011, 11:37:42 AM
NM
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 22 July, 2011, 12:02:57 PM
Wasn't Albert Einstein a lowly clerk in a patent office?

After graduating in physics and maths, and to support his family while working towards his doctorate in physics at the University of Zurich, having fled military service in Germany, yes indeed he was, but did his contribution to science at the time consist of posting on internet forums* and writing to the Daily Mail?  Or did it consist of (initially) the completion of his doctoral thesis, and the publication, in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, of his theory of Special Relativity, the photoelectric effect, brownian motion etc. (all in the one year, BTW)?

Rather than complaining that the scientific establishment was conspiring to maintain the fiction of the luminiferous ether through debate, Einstein mathematically proved the damn thing was a needless nonsense, and he did it through traditional establishment channels and norms.  And did 'they' hush him up and suppress his work?  No.  Within three years he was a senior lecturer at the University of Zurich, and 3 years after that a full professor in Prague.

This is not the same thing as pulling bits of papers out of context and asserting the sky is (isn't?) falling, and no-one is listening to you because they're all in cahoots with big business and/or the goddamn hippies.





*I am absolutely NOT referring to TLS here, to be clear.  TLS is an intelligent and articulate gentleman, and a unbowed challenger of received orthodoxies, for all that I seldom agree with him.


Nobody understands the value of a comedy rhetorical question these days...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 22 July, 2011, 12:08:46 PM
Nobody understands the value of a comedy rhetorical question these days...

It's the way you tell 'em!

Nah, sorry, I misread it as an 'regular outsider folk should get equal recognition in science' comment - sense of humour reboot needed on my part.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 22 July, 2011, 12:15:26 PM
Does nobody understands the value of a comedy rhetorical question these days?

Fixed that for you?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 22 July, 2011, 01:39:05 PM
Very cleverly done, TLS.  I spent a good while looking through that, nice one.

That's very kind of you to say, thanks :)

As to the covering up of science thing, I think that it does indeed go on. As soon as David Bellamy (remember him, gwubbing awound in the undergwowth?) started questioning the prevailing view of climate change he couldn't get back on telly for love nor money. Which may be a coincidence or he may have run into politics.

Science is being done into climate change that is outside the accepted focus, as with the cosmic ray theory - it's just that the results have a hard time getting through the political and media barriers and into the public eye. Those results and interpretations that do get out tend to be belittled and derided, the scientists undertaking the work characterised as fringe or kooks. For many years, the climate argument was presented as essentially settled and I'm sure even TB would concede that this was never likely to be the case given the sheer complexity of the systems involved.

I have sensed a slight back-pedalling in the global warming assault of late. For one, the very phrase "global warming" has fallen from Apocalyptic grace. It was once on everyone's lips, the same way that "nuclear war" was on everyone's lips when I was a kid, but now I think more and more people accept that the more accurate term for what's happening is the much more friendly "climate change". Changing climate is certainly a challenge the human race has to deal with - but it's a challenge the human race has always been dealing with and probably always will be. Cave men would either kill a particularly furry beast when it's cold or learn how to spin cotton when it gets warmer. Modern man has to figure out how to get around the inconveniences of having built cities in difficult places or managing the water cycle better. In the future, we may be figuring out how to deal with all those unexpected hurricanes and tornadoes plaguing a terraformed Mars.

So you see, I really don't think that all scientists investigating the accepted fields within the climate change issue are in cahoots with big business or politicians. At least, no more than the rest of us. A handful certainly will be political animals. A few will be mavericks. Most will just turn up and do their work to the best of their ability. Politicians and the media have been picking the bits they like from the data, the dramatic bits that make people scared, and also fostered a climate where those bits receive the most focus to the exclusion (in political and media terms) of all other theories. It's not the scientists who are at fault and it's not necessarily the science - it's the politicians, money men and media.

I posted a link to a scientific study of Dutch Birch trees earlier in this thread that seemed to show that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere may not be as big a problem as we thought. In itself, of course, it was just one study and didn't prove anything. That site, though, is replete with examples of studies showing that the CO2 problem really may not be a problem at all. Of course, that's only one website with a limited number of studies on it - but stuff like this is largely ignored by politicians and the media because it does not support the argument for us needing them to fix things. It is, in my humble opinion, up to us to flag these anomalies wherever we perceive them.

This does not mean that by pointing out such things as CO2 being beneficial to crop yields I am entitled to the same recognition or standing as a proper scientist or researcher. All I am is a single voice in a supposedly free country shouting about the hard work done by other people.

One only has to watch the egregious "An Inconvenient Truth", which is basically an advert for carbon tax, to see how the most extreme and alarmist climate research results can be presented as pure propaganda. I read that this horrid little movie is being shown in schools all over the place - talk about getting to 'em young!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 22 July, 2011, 01:43:00 PM
but did his contribution to science at the time consist of posting on internet forums* and writing to the Daily Mail?  Or did it consist of (initially) the completion of his doctoral thesis, and the publication, in respected peer-reviewed scientific journals, of his theory of Special Relativity, the photoelectric effect, brownian motion etc. (all in the one year, BTW)?

Dunno... I'm going to take a guess at the first one.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mikey 22 July, 2011, 02:17:04 PM
I think that anthropogenic global warming is a scam by the global elite to hoover up more of the Earth's wealth using global carbon taxes as the weapon of choice. I have thought for a long time that the sun is far more likely to affect our climate than a gas that only makes up about one half of one percent of our atmosphere. Some scientists are willing to entertain and investigate this theory and some are not...

I was taking a break from the board there and now I'm back...

Well ISTR last time it was mentioned you weren't sure it was a scam, plus you didn't think the causes of the Pleistocene glacial episodes were understood. What's convinced you it's a scam then?

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it more strenuously this time. Who in the name of good fuck doesn't think that our Sun is a significant climate forcing factor? Perhaps people who don't understand a fuckin thing about Earth sciences, but no Earth scientist, chemist, oceanographer, geologist, planetary, atmospheric or environmental scientist etc, etc thinks that. Read a fuckin textbook!

And carbon dioxide helps plants grow? Fuck me! A revelation!

I'm off again. See ye anon.

M.
Quaternary Science researcher

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 22 July, 2011, 02:22:16 PM
As soon as David Bellamy (remember him, gwubbing awound in the undergwowth?) started questioning the prevailing view of climate change he couldn't get back on telly for love nor money. Which may be a coincidence or he may have run into politics.

Actually, as Mr Bellamy later admitted, he'd read some dodgy "facts" about glaciers expanding rather than shrinking, took it at face value, drew erroneous conclusions which he then dissemintaed widely. To be fair to him, when the data was proved to be false, he publicly admitted he was wrong, but I don't think his credibility as a scientist has ever really recovered.

There's a lesson there for all armchair experts!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 22 July, 2011, 02:24:34 PM
Didn't he also advertise aerosol sprays?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 22 July, 2011, 02:27:04 PM
There's a lesson there for all armchair experts!

...as in don't become a scientist, it's too serious and they're not allowed to post frivolously then backtrack andchange their minds as soon as a new thread comes up they like better.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 22 July, 2011, 02:35:20 PM
Nobody understands the value of a comedy rhetorical question these days...

It's the way you tell 'em!

Nah, sorry, I misread it as an 'regular outsider folk should get equal recognition in science' comment - sense of humour reboot needed on my part.

To be fair, I am only half joking.  There are plenty of people able to do things that might not have a piece of paper that says they can do them- but I don't want to get drawn into a pongos vs scientists argument, because I largely agree with what you're saying.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 22 July, 2011, 03:02:55 PM
There are plenty of people able to do things that might not have a piece of paper that says they can do them-...

No arguments there.  There are also plenty that have a piece of paper that says they can do things that they blatantly can't, as I've discovered to my cost over the years in hiring MAs and PhDs who could neither spell nor count nor turn on a computer.

I suppose ultimately I'm not remotely concerned about people without formal qualifications doing the work as well or better than those that have (some of the very best guys in my line of work have had no formal training or relevant education whatsoever) - it's more the widespread self-deception of people who think that they are doing the work, when all 99.9% are doing is flapping on the surface of things, misinterpreting and misunderstanding and re-inventing the wheel, and claiming that they're being 'excluded' by a jealous elite.  All it does is muddy the waters and make for dangerous headlines, as per the old chestnut of MMR. 

There's a lot of unpleasant and unscientific shenanigans involved in the allocation of funds for research and its dissemination, of that I have no doubt since actual humans are involved, but it still seems a far better model for pursuing expensive time-consuming science than a blog and sense of purpose.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 22 July, 2011, 03:32:41 PM
As soon as David Bellamy (remember him, gwubbing awound in the undergwowth?) started questioning the prevailing view of climate change he couldn't get back on telly for love nor money. Which may be a coincidence or he may have run into politics.

Actually, as Mr Bellamy later admitted, he'd read some dodgy "facts" about glaciers expanding rather than shrinking, took it at face value, drew erroneous conclusions which he then dissemintaed widely. To be fair to him, when the data was proved to be false, he publicly admitted he was wrong, but I don't think his credibility as a scientist has ever really recovered.

There's a lesson there for all armchair experts!

Not sure when Mr Bellamy recanted - do you have a date for that? Here's a link to an interview with Bellamy from Wednesday November 5, 2008: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/69623  in which he says things like "...there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe" and "...since I said I didn’t believe human beings caused global warming I’ve not been allowed to make a TV programme." I also found an interview with him from 19 Nov 2009 at  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6598056/Eco-hero-David-Bellamy-botanist-and-campaigner.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6598056/Eco-hero-David-Bellamy-botanist-and-campaigner.html) in which he adds "I’m sceptical about man-made climate change. There’s absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide will kill us all. It’s not a poison, it’s the most important gas in the world. Carbon dioxide is an airborne fertiliser. How can farmers grow increasing amounts of food without a rise in CO2?" Those are the two most up to date interviews with the man I can find and it seems to me that even if he has come to accept that certain facts were incorrect (something I think we've all done) he still isn't convinced about carbon driving climate change - and neither am I.

I was taking a break from the board there and now I'm back...

Well ISTR last time it was mentioned you weren't sure it was a scam, plus you didn't think the causes of the Pleistocene glacial episodes were understood. What's convinced you it's a scam then?

I've said this before, but I'll repeat it more strenuously this time. Who in the name of good fuck doesn't think that our Sun is a significant climate forcing factor? Perhaps people who don't understand a fuckin thing about Earth sciences, but no Earth scientist, chemist, oceanographer, geologist, planetary, atmospheric or environmental scientist etc, etc thinks that. Read a fuckin textbook!

And carbon dioxide helps plants grow? Fuck me! A revelation!

I'm off again. See ye anon.

M.
Quaternary Science researcher



You seem to think that I believe science is a scam, which I do not. Certain climate evidence is being held up as Gospel by politicians, media and the corporate world. They are using science to cement their power and make a profit. What's the point of a carbon tax if carbon dioxide isn't the problem? And if carbon dioxide isn't the problem, don't you think we should be investigating that theory as vigorously as the opposite so that we can get some proper data on what is going on?

Much is assumed. I remember being told that we could tell what CO2 does to an atmosphere by looking at Venus. Earth's atmosphere has only about 0.05% CO2 and has a mean temperature 14.6 °C whilst Venus' atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 and has a mean temperature of 467°C - therefore more CO2 = higher temperatures, which seems to me to be unsound reasoning. Venus is also closer to the sun and an atmosphere composed almost entirely of carbon dioxide probably behaves much differently to an atmosphere composed chiefly of nitrogen and oxygen. Yes, at a certain point the levels of CO2 in an atmosphere will start keeping in solar radiation, but by the time that's happened we'd all have suffocated anyway. So far as we know, Venus also has no natural carbon sinks (life) to expand and contract with CO2 levels.

I'm not saying that climate change isn't a problem, but I don't believe that carbon dioxide is.

Who doesn't think that our sun is a contributing factor to climate? The people who stand to make money out of the CO2 based argument, that's who. How do you make money out of it being the sun's fault? Solar tax? You gonna' buy that? No, but you might be just taken in enough to pay a man-made-carbon tax.

TLS

A nobody with a questioning mind.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 22 July, 2011, 03:39:49 PM
While I disagree with Shark I defend his right to say it , even on a comic furum  ;)

All I ask is he does some reseach into who sponsors the 'secptics' and who pays the timewasters who ask for endless FOI requests.

a recent tabacco industry example of this: http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/university-says-tobacco-giant-is-harassing-staff-1.1112518 (http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/university-says-tobacco-giant-is-harassing-staff-1.1112518)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 22 July, 2011, 04:02:15 PM
All I ask is he does some reseach into who sponsors the 'secptics' and who pays the timewasters who ask for endless FOI requests.

a recent tabacco industry example of this: http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/university-says-tobacco-giant-is-harassing-staff-1.1112518 (http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/university-says-tobacco-giant-is-harassing-staff-1.1112518)

I'm sorry, I don't get what you mean. Lots of different institutions sponsor science, skeptics and supporters. Some sponsors are public and some private. It depends on their goals.

And why are people who submit FoI requests "timewasters"?  (FOI request reveals lack of care home record checks: http://www.ftadviser.com/FinancialAdviser/Insurance/HealthcareAndProtection/News/article/20110714/cfc83d96-ac8c-11e0-8fe1-00144f2af8e8/FOI-request-reveals-lack-of-care-home-record-checks.jsp (http://www.ftadviser.com/FinancialAdviser/Insurance/HealthcareAndProtection/News/article/20110714/cfc83d96-ac8c-11e0-8fe1-00144f2af8e8/FOI-request-reveals-lack-of-care-home-record-checks.jsp)  Mayor under fire after FOI request reveals £37K cost of reception:  http://insidethem60.journallocal.co.uk/2011/06/09/mayor-under-fire-after-foi-request-reveals-37k-cost-of-reception/ (http://insidethem60.journallocal.co.uk/2011/06/09/mayor-under-fire-after-foi-request-reveals-37k-cost-of-reception/)  FOI Request Reveals Hidden Research Findings :  http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/2751-foi-request-reveals-hidden-research-findings.html (http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/2751-foi-request-reveals-hidden-research-findings.html)  These are all timewasters?)

I also don't get what you're trying to say with the university/tobacco company. Sorry.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 22 July, 2011, 04:35:35 PM
okay I'll bite shark  ;)

Their goal is to muddy the waters so they can carry on profiteering for as long as possible.

 
large companies with a lot to lose put large amounts of money into 'reseach' that isn't peer reviewed but can then be promoted by 'friendly' organisations and web users who through front organisations which are paid for by the companies, the aim is to muddy the waters.

This worked well for the tabacco industry for years and the example I gave you shows they continue to do this practice by asking small research teams (whose research could affect sales and profits) for FOI requests on every aspect of their organisation. With limited numbers of staff, monies and time small research organisations have to then put their scant and scarce time and money into answering erronous FoI as these are time critical. (I have personal evperience of this and the effects it has)

Don't get me wrong I think FoIs are a great step forward in shining a powerful light in some very dark corners, FOI can be wonderful powerful things, but we all know what peter parkers uncle says about power. Unfortunately in the hands of some they can become an other legal sledgehammer to beat a small nut.


Many industries have learnt for the Tobacco industries' fight over the last fifty years how to deal with overwhelming emperical(sp) and peer reviewed research that goes against their interests.

I can recommend this very highly:
(http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTI2MDk5MjE4NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTYwMjkwNTU3._V1._SY317_CR1,0,214,317_.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 22 July, 2011, 04:51:03 PM
Pop stars and their conspiracy theories:

www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/jul/21/popandrock-hip-hop
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 23 July, 2011, 12:04:54 AM
Thanks for that, Proudhuff, I hadn't considered that FoI requests could be used as a weapon by corporations although it does make complete sense.

I would suggest that as many small research teams as possible come together and turn the tables. Whenever one is dealt a FoI request by a big boy, the alliance of small teams also make FoI requests of the big boy. What FoI requests have they issued in the past six months? To whom? For what purpose? Etc. A website could have form FoI requests to just print out and send or email. What they do to you, do back to them one hundred fold.

You'd only need a website or even just a Facebook or Google+ group. I reckon such a thing would even get many members of the public to help.

Wiki-FoIs? Maybe not, and I'm sure this isn't a unique idea.

There was no link visible on my screen after you wrote: "I can recommend this very highly:"
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Dandontdare 23 July, 2011, 12:25:30 AM
As soon as David Bellamy (remember him, gwubbing awound in the undergwowth?) started questioning the prevailing view of climate change he couldn't get back on telly for love nor money. Which may be a coincidence or he may have run into politics.

Actually, as Mr Bellamy later admitted, he'd read some dodgy "facts" about glaciers expanding rather than shrinking, took it at face value, drew erroneous conclusions which he then dissemintaed widely. To be fair to him, when the data was proved to be false, he publicly admitted he was wrong, but I don't think his credibility as a scientist has ever really recovered.

There's a lesson there for all armchair experts!

Not sure when Mr Bellamy recanted - do you have a date for that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eOFYAg_DPw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eOFYAg_DPw)

http://www.desmogblog.com/david-bellamy-wrong-climate-change-science (http://www.desmogblog.com/david-bellamy-wrong-climate-change-science)

This doesn't mean I always agree with George Monbiot, or that David Bellamy fully recanted his denial views, it just shows that he does talk bullshit at times.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 23 July, 2011, 12:45:25 AM
Before this thread, it had never occured to me that David Bellamy might be important in a debate about climate change. Does he have any connections with Belt manufacturers?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 23 July, 2011, 12:48:18 AM
I now find Monbiot an insufferable blowhard, ignorant of many things why mass scale nuclear installations is a no-goer and undesirable in a contracting world with less ability to build and maintain such complex structures. Especially since it was hard enough when we had plentiful resouces to build them right in the first place yet the nuclear industry chose to cut-corners and fudge the requirements for safety standards anyway.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 23 July, 2011, 02:15:52 AM
Just watched that vid, DDD. Poor David! I note that Monbiot was careful not to address any of Bellamy's points directly but instead chose to undermine his sources instead. The alleged website was never named and neither was the alleged fraudster behind it (unless he was and I missed it). When Bellamy took up the issue of the actual role of CO2 in climate change, Monbiot produced a piece of paper from his jacket containing a statement by several societies who support the conventional view and offered no counter evidence. Indeed, this statement merely said something about denyal climate change being unjustified. But Bellamy isn't denying climate change, is he?  It's an age-old trick - if you can't dispute the argument, dispute the arguer. Yes, Maybe Bellamy did get some of his facts wrong but Monbiot's counter-facts were few and vague and his main tactic was to call Bellamy names.

I can't find a complete version of David Bellamy's New Scientist article (I'm not paying for a New Scientist subscription just to get access to it) so I can't really comment on it.

David Bellamy, of course, isn't the only sceptic (that's a good word to apply to a scientist, isn't it?) of man-made global warming. 31,487 American scientists have signed a petition questioning man-made global warming and calling on the US government to reject the Kyoto agreement. (I'm still reading through it, but it seems genuine enough to my untutored eye - perhaps some of the more scientifically minded amongst you would have a different opinion.)  http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php (http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 23 July, 2011, 02:52:42 AM
(http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Slide03.png)

(http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Slide05.png)

Taken from http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php (http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_article/Review_Article_HTML.php), where there are many more interesting nuggets.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 23 July, 2011, 04:14:38 AM
Surprised you haven't mentioned this bombing/shooting Sharky -now with added Freemason- have fun there must be some conspiratorial value in it:





The Oil & Gas Ministry was apparently the target of the bombs.



The blond Norwegian 'Anti-Islamist Freemason' arrested over 'holiday island massacre' and linked to Oslo car bomb blasts:


(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/23/article-2017709-0D1F33FB00000578-704_306x512.jpg)



He describes himself as having Christian, conservative views. He says he enjoys hunting, the games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and lives in Oslo.





http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/22/anders-behring-breivik-id_n_907513.html
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 23 July, 2011, 08:46:07 AM
Jesus. I'd predicted this being a Neo-Nazi yesterday afternoon.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 23 July, 2011, 08:57:46 AM
I'm astonished that no-one has mention the Labour paper that has been caught phone hacking. Amazingly I found it on the BBC website. I bet loads of national papers are not feeling so smug now :lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 23 July, 2011, 09:05:38 AM
I'm astonished that no-one has mention the Labour paper that has been caught phone hacking. Amazingly I found it on the BBC website. I bet loads of national papers are not feeling so smug now :lol:

A Labour paper like the Sun or News of the World, you mean? Both of which backed the Tony Blair government.
It's ridiculous to try to paint this as Tory or Labour- it is not.

And I think that, at the moment, the murder of 80+ children has taken precedence on the news.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 23 July, 2011, 09:56:12 AM
I'm impressed Richmond, you are the first left of centre person to admit that the Sun and NoW were actually in the grasp of Labour (New) at the time of the Hacking. As for the Tory Labour slant, I'm just sick of seeing on the web Tory Rag, etc.. about the NoW and Sun, so I thought I'd just point out that, as I have always known, every NATIONAL paper will be dragged into this!

As for Norway and what has happened, I've just spent a night listening to the news channels, Twitter, etc... hearing this rapidly unfold into an horrific story. Already there are many eye witness accounts of what happened all over the airwaves and it sent a shiver down my spine when the island count hit 80 at 03:00.
I've spent a quite a bit of time in Norway on numerous Winter deployments and found the people very polite, the houses (in the countryside) very quaint and the prices very steep.
Sadly I feel politics will be used by certain people when the bloke explains himself today, as he has said that is what he will do!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 23 July, 2011, 09:59:28 AM
I also think it's worth pointing out that Blair was to the right of Thatcher when it came to policy!

And yeah- I went to sleep with 10 people dead and woke up to 80+. Grim stuff. Like you, Vicky has spent some time there, and I think anyone who has visited this lovely peaceful country cannot help but feel it more.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Eric Plumrose 23 July, 2011, 10:26:43 AM
David Bellamy, of course, isn't the only sceptic (that's a good word to apply to a scientist, isn't it?) of man-made global warming.

Unlike, say, the aggregation of conspiracy theories, science actively seek to disprove itself. So, yes. Scientists can be considered professional sceptics.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: IAMTHESYSTEM 23 July, 2011, 10:32:24 AM

He describes himself as having Christian, conservative views. He says he enjoys hunting, the games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and lives in Oslo.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/22/anders-behring-breivik-id_n_907513.html

He enjoyed hunting alright. :(
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 23 July, 2011, 02:26:08 PM
Freemasonry? A bombing exercise 48 hours before a terrorist blast? A pro-Palestinian rally held in the exact same camp the day before? Empty buildings attacked? The emergence of the phrase "White Al Qaeda"? Road/sewer work in the exact area for several days prior to the explosion? Raised ground so that the armouring which had been below the ground now lay above the ground, indicating an underground explosion and not a car bomb? The anniversary of the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes? "Ratcatchers' Day" in Germany? Reports of a strong smell of sulphur? And so on.

Lots of rubbish, distraction and speculation flying about. No idea what's going on here but whatever it is, it sucks.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 23 July, 2011, 02:33:33 PM
All that and you still leave out the UFO at the bomb site, you're slacking...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUZC7M26a_s&feature=related
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 23 July, 2011, 03:43:43 PM
All that and you still leave out the UFO at the bomb site, you're slacking...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUZC7M26a_s&feature=related

Don't you think I look insane enough as it is without calling a thing on a wire a UFO?

(http://www.wheelerfolk.org/norweb/reports/Keith_in_Oslo_Sun_morn2s.JPG)
Karl Johan gate, Oslo

(http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Oslo.png)


You don't get me that easy!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 23 July, 2011, 04:00:23 PM
Fake Photoshop.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 24 July, 2011, 08:10:13 PM
Audit Of The Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion In Secret Bailouts.

Including:

Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)

So, bailouts out of our pockets and secret bailouts too.

(http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3 (http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3))
(http://www.countercurrents.org/bailout240711.htm (http://www.countercurrents.org/bailout240711.htm))

Pigs in the trough, above governments, above the law, above you. Is it time to sort these greedy pillocks out yet, or should we just continue bending over and taking it?

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 24 July, 2011, 08:37:49 PM
Some interesting stuff there even on the usual anti-gubbmint websites and blogs, but what's most interesting is that several of the MarketWatch-type sites are taking a similar line on the results, even where they're critical of the idea and process of the audit itself.  Mainly on the conflict of interests angle, rather than the "emergency borrowing" itself, but still, odd bedfellows.. 
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 24 July, 2011, 08:45:57 PM
It's all coming apart, I tells ya. And so it should.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 24 July, 2011, 09:50:14 PM
Wait till the audit of Fort Knox and they realise there's no gold in it, Robert Booth will be toast when he's 'frozen'.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 24 July, 2011, 10:04:59 PM
I'm glad Shark likes science now.

;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 24 July, 2011, 10:13:15 PM
Wait till the audit of Fort Knox and they realise there's no gold in it, Robert Booth will be toast when he's 'frozen'.


Then there's this from about three years ago, first reported by The Times (but the link to that original article, strangely, now gives a 404 error...)

"Doubts have been cast on the quality of Britain's gold stock after reports that it is beginning to crumble.

"The Bank of England has admitted to cracks and fissures in some of its 320-ton reserves.

"The problem, it (the Bank of England) said, was the age of the bars, many from the United States dating back to the 1930s and 1940s."

Crumbling and cracking gold? Now, I'm no metallurgist but I wonder what on Earth could cause gold to act in such a manner when locked in a nice, cosy, gold-friendly vault for 80 years? Unless, of course, it isn't (or wasn't) really gold...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564611/Fears-over-cracks-in-Britains-gold-stock.html
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 24 July, 2011, 10:16:58 PM
Crumbling and cracking gold? Now, I'm no metallurgist but I wonder what on Earth could cause gold to act in such a manner when locked in a nice, cosy, gold-friendly vault for 80 years? Unless, of course, it isn't (or wasn't) really gold...

Isn't really gold? ISN'T REALLY GOLD? Are you suggesting that Bankers are inherently dishonest? Surely not!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 24 July, 2011, 10:17:49 PM
I'm glad Shark likes science now.

;)

You won't do when I start posting data that seems to indicate some form of intelligent design may not be so foolish as first thought... It's all about energy fields and spontaneous evolution, you see...  ::)  :-X
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 24 July, 2011, 10:19:25 PM
Crumbling and cracking gold? Now, I'm no metallurgist but I wonder what on Earth could cause gold to act in such a manner when locked in a nice, cosy, gold-friendly vault for 80 years? Unless, of course, it isn't (or wasn't) really gold...

Isn't really gold? ISN'T REALLY GOLD? Are you suggesting that Bankers are inherently dishonest? Surely not!

Finally - someone has started reading between the lines of my posts!  :lol:
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 24 July, 2011, 10:24:29 PM
 ::)

You were s'posed to say:

'That's exactly what I'm suggesting, and don't call me Shirley!'
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 26 July, 2011, 04:28:37 PM
Apropos of nothing in particular:

Quisling is a term used in reference to fascist and collaborationist political parties and military and paramilitary forces in occupied Allied countries which collaborated with Axis occupiers in World War II, as well as for their members and other collaborators.

The term was coined by the British newspaper The Times in an editorial published on 19 April 1940, entitled "Quislings everywhere" after the Norwegian Vidkun Quisling, who assisted Nazi Germany as it conquered his own country so that he could rule the collaborationist Norwegian government himself.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 26 July, 2011, 05:03:12 PM
"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 per cent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who directly contribute... in some useful way.

"… if the Government issues currency, it provides itself with enough money to increase the national wealth... without disturbing the business of the rest of the country. And in doing this it increases its income without adding a penny to its debt."
Thomas Edison (1847-1931)

From: If government created money instead of debt: Thomas Edison speaks  http://dailycensored.com/2011/07/24/if-government-created-money-instead-of-debt-thomas-edison-speaks/ (http://dailycensored.com/2011/07/24/if-government-created-money-instead-of-debt-thomas-edison-speaks/)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 26 July, 2011, 06:31:04 PM
What would 15 trillion dollars look like?
(http://www.thereformedbroker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/15-trillion.png)

We're lucky, we only owe about one trillion. Well, in theory anyway.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 26 July, 2011, 08:31:30 PM
What would 15 trillion dollars look like?


Smaller than Dredd's helmet.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 26 July, 2011, 11:02:30 PM
'Cause somewhere in the Quisling Clinic / There's a shorthand typist taking seconds over minutes
She's listening in to the Venus line / She's picking out names
I hope none of them are mine.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 26 July, 2011, 11:16:18 PM
Elvis has left the building...


(http://onmilwaukee.com/images/articles/ma/madmusic/madmusic_fullsize_story1.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 26 July, 2011, 11:19:54 PM
Elvis? Now yer talkin'. On of his clones runs the Mexican Restaurant at the top of my street. The original is holed up in Camp David with Bigfoot as his butler.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 27 July, 2011, 12:16:16 AM
Wait, you mean the Quisling Clinic is (was) a real place?  And a real clinic to boot?  Now there is a truth I can't handle.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 27 July, 2011, 12:21:03 AM
Aye, art deco apartments now.


From 2001:

Sverre Quisling, a member of a prominent Madison medical family and founder of the Quisling Clinic, died Saturday in Woodbury, Minn. He was 102.

Quisling was born in Lake Mills, Iowa, on May 30, 1898, and moved to Madison with his family at a young age.

Following in the footsteps of his father, Dr. Andreas Quisling, he received his undergraduate degree from UW-Madison and attended Rush Medical School in Chicago and the University of PennsylvaniaMedical School for graduate work.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 27 July, 2011, 12:36:02 AM
Do you know if there any connection with Mr. McManus (i.e. did he know about/ have dealings with the place) or is it just a coincidence of names?  As a nerdy teenage fan I was guilty on more than one occasion of reading far more into Elvis Costello lyrics than was ever there, but I had thought had the measure of most of Armed Forces, and 'Green Shirt' just doesn't fit with a hospital in Wisconsin...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 27 July, 2011, 01:12:25 AM
"So, Doctor Quisling, we meet at last," said Bond, lighting his seventy first cigarette of the day. "This clinic of yours - patches or gum?"
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: HatefulCactus 27 July, 2011, 01:23:19 AM
What would 15 trillion dollars look like?

About 15 of these.
(http://www.northernwinorml.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/nixon-trillon-dollar-drug-policy-alliance.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Richmond Clements 27 July, 2011, 07:19:32 AM
What would 15 trillion dollars look like?

About 15 of these.
(http://www.northernwinorml.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/nixon-trillon-dollar-drug-policy-alliance.jpg)

Genius.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 27 July, 2011, 08:47:53 AM
Do you know if there any connection with Mr. McManus (i.e. did he know about/ have dealings with the place) or is it just a coincidence of names?  As a nerdy teenage fan I was guilty on more than one occasion of reading far more into Elvis Costello lyrics than was ever there, but I had thought had the measure of most of Armed Forces, and 'Green Shirt' just doesn't fit with a hospital in Wisconsin...


I believe he passed through it at one point.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 28 July, 2011, 03:20:53 PM
More on science, politics and global warming climate change.

"A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-arctic-scientist.html#comments (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-arctic-scientist.html#comments)

In a Sydney hotel on Monday night, Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an economist who fought against communism, was warning of the new threats to our freedom he recognises in the doctrine of global warming. ""I feel threatened now, not by global warming -- I don't see any -- (but) by the global warming doctrine, which I consider a new dangerous attempt to control and mastermind my life and our lives, in the name of controlling the climate or temperature," he said. "They (environmentalists) don't care about resources or poverty or pollution. They hate us, the humans. They consider us dangerous and sinful creatures who must be controlled by them. I used to live in a similar world called communism. And I know it led to the worst environmental damage the world has ever experienced."

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/green-agenda-has-parallels-with-excesses-of-communism/story-e6frfhqf-1226103023674 (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/green-agenda-has-parallels-with-excesses-of-communism/story-e6frfhqf-1226103023674)

Last year, during the Cancun Global Climate Change Summit, the Norway government, headed by Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, leader of the Labour Party, agreed to participate in a carbon tax pilot program, endorsed by the UN and George Soros. The Norwegian Progress Party party was against this project from the beginning. Overall, the carbon tax pilot program was a failure and a major embarrassment for the Norwegian government, the international banks, and the government contractors involved in it. Now Anders Behring Breivik has been described as a Progress activist and the Norwegian Progress Party all but labelled as a party of terrorists, Nazis and nutcases.

http://deadlinelive.info/2011/07/26/deadline-live-exclusive-who-are-the-bankers-that-benefit-from-the-norway-terror-attacks/ (http://deadlinelive.info/2011/07/26/deadline-live-exclusive-who-are-the-bankers-that-benefit-from-the-norway-terror-attacks/)

It really doesn't pay to question carbon tax, does it?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 28 July, 2011, 04:09:16 PM
What they do to you, do back to them one hundred fold.



There was no link visible on my screen after you wrote: "I can recommend this very highly:"

Damn my webfu is weak, try this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/ (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 28 July, 2011, 04:25:12 PM
Czech President Vaclav Klaus, an economist who fought against communism, was warning of the new threats to our freedom he recognises in the doctrine of global warming. ""I feel threatened now, not by global warming -- I don't see any --

Well I flippin' do - in the form of giant spiders. They never used to venture this far north 'til a few years ago, and now the place is crawling with the facehuggin' little sods and they're bitey. My cousin woke up to find one biting his face a couple of years ago and it left a scar! Stuff threats to freedom - what about the arachnid threat? Eh? Eh?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 28 July, 2011, 04:48:14 PM
The arachnid threat will be countered with specially trained attack-sparrows.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 28 July, 2011, 04:49:31 PM
I see hawks.  I see big hawks.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 28 July, 2011, 04:51:18 PM
The arachnid threat will be countered with specially trained attack-sparrows.

Sparrow numbers are down, no doubt due to em all being shipped of for training
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 28 July, 2011, 04:52:59 PM
I see hawks.  I see big hawks.

(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTGv0HhVVBs54otTI8j3_TPczRKayFVbIx91Ir-WSDpMjns6NalAw)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 29 July, 2011, 02:21:32 PM
Democracy dying to rapturous applause: Obama Says Becoming A Dictator Is Very Tempting As La Raza Crowd Cheers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgWCAhytQuA)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 29 July, 2011, 05:10:39 PM
The arachnid threat will be countered with specially trained attack-sparrows.

Sparrow-hawks, Ma,am.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Something Fishy 30 July, 2011, 01:49:21 PM
anyone know anything about this?

http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/?p=12

are statins really bad for you?  wondering whether to take mine now.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 01 August, 2011, 06:50:03 PM
anyone know anything about this?

http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/?p=12

are statins really bad for you?  wondering whether to take mine now.

I've been looking into this a bit and it does seem that statins may not be all they're cracked up to be and that high cholesterol may not be as dangerous as we're all led to believe. If it were me I'd say no to these things and just eat better instead. But that's just me, I don't trust the drugs companies to put efficacy and safety before profits.

That said, I need to do more reading on the subject. I also know a couple of nurses, so I'll ask them an' all.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Something Fishy 01 August, 2011, 08:44:53 PM
anyone know anything about this?

http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/?p=12

are statins really bad for you?  wondering whether to take mine now.

I've been looking into this a bit and it does seem that statins may not be all they're cracked up to be and that high cholesterol may not be as dangerous as we're all led to believe. If it were me I'd say no to these things and just eat better instead. But that's just me, I don't trust the drugs companies to put efficacy and safety before profits.

That said, I need to do more reading on the subject. I also know a couple of nurses, so I'll ask them an' all.

Thank you.  In my case a big part of it seems to just be that i have a natural tendency to it. I'm not far off double the "safe level" yet i don't smoke, I drink moderately (12 units or so per week), exercise 5 or 6 times per week and am within my ideal BMI.  We also have a decent diet with just a few biscuits being my main weakness.  I switched to a low chol diet after the last high reading and yet 4 years later it's gone up 2 higher regardless. 

I think it's basically avoid them and risk a very high chance of stroke or heart disease or tale them and risk side effects.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Something Fishy 01 August, 2011, 08:46:24 PM
The opinion of those nurses would be very interest to hear.

could this be a case of big pharma creating something we really shouldn't be using?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 01 August, 2011, 08:59:29 PM
You might find this an interesting read: A Doctor's Treasury of Hushed Up Natural Heart Cures and Deadly Deceptions of Popular Heart Treatments (pdf) (http://landing.easyhealthoptions.com/landing/fulfillment/cardio/heartcures.pdf) where I've read statements like: "The science department at the University of California at San Diego describes it: “Cholesterol is a fatty substance produced by every cell in the body that is vital for health. It is a necessary component of all cell membranes. It is the precursor to all steroid hormone (including estrogen, testosterone, cortisol, and vitamin D). It is the leading organic molecule in the brain and is needed for brain function. Blood cholesterol carries antioxidant vitamins to the tissue. The majority of cholesterol in the blood is produced by the liver.”  and "Dozens of clinical studies have shown that optimizing nutrition and reducing stress slows and even reverses atherosclerosis. In other words, reversing or slowing endothelial dysfunction must be the cornerstone of therapy."
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Something Fishy 01 August, 2011, 09:05:32 PM
Interesting.  Cheers.

My only question would be how i do that without them when there's little i can change?

must admit the risk of depression from them worries me as i get it anyway, though that doesn't mean it has the same cause and will be provoked by them.

I just read another thing that argued both sides and reasoned that if high cholesterol alone is your only risk factor and your life expectancy is more than 10-20 years then you maybe shouldn't take them.

My problem there is it isn't my only factor, My Dad died of heart disease at 65 and Mum has it too, so i also have familial risk. My risk of a cardiac event right now is 1 in 20 already dropping to 1 in 5 in 10 years (and worse if the chol keeps rising) which seems high to me.

I don't really wan to take them but i suspect i'm one of those who might gain more than he risks.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 01 August, 2011, 09:16:37 PM
Of course, in the end the decision is yours - but here's an idea: You don't seem to be in imminent danger of keeling over just yet, so why not give the dietary options suggested in that pdf a six month trial before going straight into potentially debilitating drugs?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 01 August, 2011, 10:03:14 PM
"From Each According to His Ability, To Each According to His Need"
The Tramp's Speech from "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand

 (http://www.informationliberation.com/files/Atlas0.jpg)  (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=36055) (Linked)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Zarjazzer 01 August, 2011, 10:14:41 PM
Ayn Rand. Fave author of the Tea Party, Ronnie Reagan and right wingers of all kinds. Including economist Alan Greenspan the guy asleep at the wheel during the Lehman Bros banking crisis.

From the people who brought you Enron, tax cuts only for the wealthy and "dead peasants" clauses in American medical insurance.

I mean I don't want to put you off or anything...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 01 August, 2011, 10:33:05 PM
Also deeply into selfishness and a very scary looking example of the female type human:

(http://web-images.chacha.com/ayn-rand/ayn-rand-apr-15-2011-1-600.jpg)

I am quite tempted by this, though:

 (https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41kzVx4l-YL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)  (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ayn-Rand-Set-Fountainhead-Shrugged/dp/0451947673/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1312234139&sr=8-6) (Linked)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 01 August, 2011, 10:41:33 PM
Shark...you're a pervert.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 01 August, 2011, 10:51:31 PM
Shark...you're a pervert.

You're just realising this now?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Something Fishy 02 August, 2011, 06:13:44 PM
Of course, in the end the decision is yours - but here's an idea: You don't seem to be in imminent danger of keeling over just yet, so why not give the dietary options suggested in that pdf a six month trial before going straight into potentially debilitating drugs?

That's true.  I had a good read.  Must say most of those changes were changes i made years ago and iw as very strict leading up to the test and did a fasting test.

I could wait a few more weeks but i suspect i'm going to need them.  of course the cholesterol might just be masking something worse but i'm not going to know what and it's then potentially causing harm itself.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 02 August, 2011, 06:57:41 PM
Good luck there anyway, Fishy. At least it's something you know about and can take steps to stay on top of.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Something Fishy 02 August, 2011, 07:18:57 PM
Good luck there anyway, Fishy. At least it's something you know about and can take steps to stay on top of.

Yes indeed. Thanks Sharkie.

On this one i think i just have to take a risk.  The amount i can mitigate it myself is very small and the risk from it is higher than the risk of side effects.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 04 August, 2011, 06:17:57 PM
(http://geek-news.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/big_lie_cover_72_dpi1.jpg)
"With the tenth anniversary of 9/11 fast approaching, there will be a lot of looks back, some fond, some heartbreaking… And then there will be “The Big Lie,” a comic book by Rick Veitch and Gary Erskine that finds a scientist traveling back in time to the day itself in order to stop the disaster. And while there, she finds out that maybe the truth isn’t as clear cut as she thought."

Interview: Rick Veitch On His 911 Truther Comic Book 'The Big Lie' (http://geek-news.mtv.com/2011/08/02/interview-rick-veitch-on-his-911-truther-graphic-novel-the-big-lie/)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 04 August, 2011, 08:30:03 PM
I hate everything.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 07 August, 2011, 11:28:11 PM
AMAZING SPEECH BY WAR VETERAN  (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 08 August, 2011, 12:06:54 AM
Is fluoride safe and effective? Professional Perspectives. (http://vimeo.com/26777907)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 08 August, 2011, 02:58:06 AM
It seems that SEAL Team Six, who were involved in the alleged killing of Osama bin Laden (no body, remember), have themselves been killed in a helicopter crash(1). The official story claims that none of the SEAL Team 6 members who got bin Laden was amongst the dead here. It was some different SEAL Team 6 members and a few other guys.

Hmm. Wasn't there a destroyed stealth helicopter(2) at the site of the bin Laden affair? Weren't there reports on Pakistani TV(3) that the destroyed helicopter at the bin Laden site exploded with a dozen troops aboard? "Oh no, no members of SEAL Team Six died in Pakistan and none of those who didn't die in Pakistan died in Afghanistan either, it was some other members of SEAL Team 6." Oh well, that's all right then. Absolutely no suggestion of a cover-up at all. It's all just coincidence.

Um, and why would Navy SEALS be ferried to and from combat missions in the Afghan mountains on a slow and noisy CH-47 Chinook when they have stealth helicopters at their disposal?

(1)SEAL Team 6 members among 38 killed in Afghanistan (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghanistan-chopper-20110807,0,1729289.story)
(2)About two thirds of the way down this page. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1383074/Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-US-trained-Pakistani-troops-hunt-Al-Qaeda-near-compound.html)
(3)Osama bin Laden killing Eye witness account - 1m21s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Wws--nQwo&feature=related&fmt=18)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: mygrimmbrother 08 August, 2011, 09:57:19 AM
This also struck me as deeply suspicious - in fact i may be way off here but it made me think of Murdoch firing everyone at TNOTW - sacrificing the lower ranks to protect the higher-ups, but at least now they can say (or imply) that Al Qaida have had an eye for an eye.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: mogzilla 08 August, 2011, 04:44:09 PM
rupert murdoch is osama bin laden!!! ;) (go on squint a bit)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 August, 2011, 02:20:51 PM
So, now it wasn't 22 SEALs who were killed, it was 17 and some dog handlers. This is probably just a case of the US Military not knowing where all its elite troops are due to, er, the fog of war, maybe? But don't worry, the bad guys who did this (also known as Taliban or "witnesses") have all been killed. Hurrah for the Good Guys!

Pentagon Changes It's Story on death of SEAL Team 6, Number of SEALs Killed Changes From 22 To 17 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzgxLZGB2k8&feature=player_embedded) (YouTube, 2:32)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 11 August, 2011, 05:14:43 PM
Hate to spoil it for you Shark but most of my counter terrorism insertions happened from inside a Chinook. Slow and cumbersome, especially when a long range fuel tank is taking up over a third of the hold.
It's a good job other sneaky things happen before we used to get anywhere near the target but that's the type of story I leave for the convention evenings  ;)

Lets just say, there would be no-one alive on deck when we got near the target (I was marine counter terrorism).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 August, 2011, 05:26:53 PM
I know you know what you're talking about, CF - but if your CO could choose between a cutting-edge stealth chopper and and an old Chinook, which one would be chosen for an attack mission?

Also, tagging the names of clandestinely KIA troops to subsequent air accidents or training accidents is an old trick. It was used extensively by the Russians in Afghanistan and the Americans in Vietnam before war had been officially declared. I don't know if that's what happened here but given all the mystery and confusion surrounding SEAL Team 6's supposed location and murder of Osama bin Laden, let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 11 August, 2011, 06:06:25 PM
I don't know how large these stealth choppers are and what the payload is but the more choppers inserting into the type of extremely small combat zone, like a ship/oilrig the more accidents that can happen.
Are you sure that these are not just attack choppers?

Best we ask LoD to steal one and get back to us!
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 11 August, 2011, 06:18:06 PM
Probably a modified UH-60 Blackhawk like the one that crashed in Abbottabad:
(http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2011/may/H-60_Blackhawk_highly_modified_version_secretly_developed_stealth_helicopter_used_during_raid_against_Osama_bin_Laden_002.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 11 August, 2011, 06:38:02 PM
\Okay the cops backed off good and proper while the kids got a false sense of courage. The shadowy adults work with the cops to push the kids in the right direction. Boost their moral so to speak. The MPs and PM conveniently go on holiday. Let the problem take shape go in nice and late and clamp down hard . Another section of society under the iron fist and directing public anger away from the real pernicious manipulators.

The cops even vie for their cuts to be lessened while they get a little marshal law going on. Pushing and pulling.

How's that for truth?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: House of Usher 11 August, 2011, 08:32:16 PM
Believable. That's pretty much Stuart Hall's 1978 Marxist thesis 'Policing the Crisis.'
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Hoagy 11 August, 2011, 08:42:05 PM
Bloody yes. And something from oor Mr Watts;

‎"Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill. So we are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality. I have also asked the police if they need any other new powers."

You know when you get that feeling?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: M.I.K. 11 August, 2011, 08:57:12 PM
Believable. That's pretty much Stuart Hall's 1978 Marxist thesis 'Policing the Crisis.'

I knew there was more to It's A Knockout than first met the eye...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 11 August, 2011, 09:42:41 PM
A trial run for bigger things and more social unrest to come.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 15 August, 2011, 02:29:57 PM
Star Trek does 9/11... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lIs9eEB6IG8)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 15 August, 2011, 02:58:42 PM
Absolutely brilliant!  'Course much later on Enterprise's third season had an official stab at 9/11 too...  That one was engineered by blokes from the future.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 15 August, 2011, 03:22:40 PM
Speaking of engineered events, Project Bluebeam (a faked alien threat to the Earth designed to legitimize a security-focussed global government/economy/security force) seems to be causing ripples again: Michio Kaku and Paul Krugman agree, we need the aliens to save the world. (http://www.blacklistednews.com/Michio_Kaku_and_Paul_Krugman_agree%2C_we_need_the_aliens_to_save_the_world/15222/0/38/38/Y/M.html) (The first little vid on that page is quite amusing.)

First I find that Star Trek video and now this... Strange how themed my surfing gets, sometimes.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 15 August, 2011, 04:24:44 PM
Of course, in the end the decision is yours - but here's an idea: You don't seem to be in imminent danger of keeling over just yet, so why not give the dietary options suggested in that pdf a six month trial before going straight into potentially debilitating drugs?

That's true.  I had a good read.  Must say most of those changes were changes i made years ago and iw as very strict leading up to the test and did a fasting test.

I could wait a few more weeks but i suspect i'm going to need them.  of course the cholesterol might just be masking something worse but i'm not going to know what and it's then potentially causing harm itself.

Coming to this a little late but I'd recommend not to alter your taking of important medication without speaking to your doctor, especially not on the basis of a site that is trying to flog a book to you. Of course, you should also report any side effects to them asap.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 15 August, 2011, 04:25:13 PM
I just cross referenced that against a chinook and I think I'll stick with the chinook.

UH-60 - Speed 183 mph max (never exceed 222 mph) - troop load 14
Chinook - Speed 196 mph max - troop load 33-55

In fact looking at all the stats, the chinook comes out on top including range and rate of climb. I'm presuming the max speed for the UH-60 is when it's descending in to an attack, don't want to fall apart now do we!

With reference to the armaments of both, you have to remember that other items are deployed during the mission to negate any hostile fire, hopefully.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 15 August, 2011, 04:44:16 PM
Speaking of engineered events, Project Bluebeam (a faked alien threat to the Earth designed to legitimize a security-focussed global government/economy/security force) seems to be causing ripples again: Michio Kaku and Paul Krugman agree, we need the aliens to save the world. (http://www.blacklistednews.com/Michio_Kaku_and_Paul_Krugman_agree%2C_we_need_the_aliens_to_save_the_world/15222/0/38/38/Y/M.html) (The first little vid on that page is quite amusing.)

First I find that Star Trek video and now this... Strange how themed my surfing gets, sometimes.

Well Project Blue Beam is lifted from Star Trek, so it isn't such a huge leap:

http://secretsun.blogspot.com/2010/11/project-blue-beam-exposed.html

What always gets me about PBB is that it is so incredibly over-complicated - you just don't need that level of complexity. The intelligence agencies have been manipulating the UFO phenomena for their own ends (and faking them? See the Pentacle Memorandum) since 1947 with no need to rely on vast schemes that would involve thousands of people and all aspects working perfectly.

Good link there - I was very amused by the description of Michio Kaku as "renowned physicist, author and the apparent mouth piece for the scientific dictatorship that is the NWO," but I'm a big fan of his.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 15 August, 2011, 04:50:06 PM
I guess that without knowing what the mission actually was, all this is moot. If it was just a supply mission or something then yeah, a Chinook - why not? But what's so vital a delivery that it needs an escort of elite troops? If an attack, again - why not a Chinook. But, do attacks come with only one chopper or would there generally be more than one for stuff like pincer movements, diversions, reserve forces etc? And would you have all your high-value elite troops all on one of those choppers? I dunno', to be honest.

It smells a bit off to me, is all I can say.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 15 August, 2011, 05:18:27 PM
Yes you would have them all on one chopper, remember the one that went down in Scotland years ago, wiped out loads of high ranking anti terrorist bods in one go!

Anyway, I've done training missions when we used to go out to the rigs in the North Sea and we all crammed into one Chinook and it had the long range fuel tank fitted inside, let me say it was 'very' cramped. Once I spotted oil dropping on one of the lads legs on the rear door and managed to point this out to the rear loader.
The next thing that happened was that we had to stow all our weapons, ditch the body armour and prepare for a sea ditch in case we crashed out in the middle of nowhere. Having done helicopter dunking drills, there would have probably been no survivors if we had gone down but we didn't. The engines still had sand in from the Gulf War and that Chinook was then VOR, the next one was the same but the third one was okay so we went and attacked Maureen Alpha and it was GREAT FUN!

It all depends on the mission. Other resources would be deployed to get you on target as safely as possible. You have to rely on the teamwork of the joint forces involved. Missions fail for numerous reasons including weather, mechanical (see above), tactical, human error, etc...
Also not everyone has the aptitude for certain parts of the miltary, look at snipers! You can't let people pass an elite course just because your numbers are down, this means that these resources are finite!

As you say, it all depends on the mission and what other vital missions troops are deployed on around the world at the same time.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 15 August, 2011, 05:30:04 PM
Good stuff, CF - it's good to read the opinions of someone who actually knows a thing or two!

Going back to the "alien threat" idea, I just found that the NSA (http://www.nsa.gov/) (a cryptologic intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign signals intelligence, as well as protecting U.S. government communications and information systems, which involves cryptanalysis and cryptography) has released a document claiming to have received 29 extraterrestrial messages. The pdf can be read on the NSA's website here. (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/key_to_et_messages.pdf) Haven't properly read through it myself, yet, but it seems intriguing that a) this information has been released in the first place and that b) the media isn't all over this.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 15 August, 2011, 06:09:39 PM
Going back to the "alien threat" idea, I just found that the NSA (http://www.nsa.gov/) (a cryptologic intelligence agency of the United States Department of Defense responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign signals intelligence, as well as protecting U.S. government communications and information systems, which involves cryptanalysis and cryptography) has released a document claiming to have received 29 extraterrestrial messages. The pdf can be read on the NSA's website here. (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/key_to_et_messages.pdf) Haven't properly read through it myself, yet, but it seems intriguing that a) this information has been released in the first place and that b) the media isn't all over this.

Panic over. I've just found that the last NSA article key_to_et_messages.pdf (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/key_to_et_messages.pdf) follows on from the NSA article Extraterrestrial_Intelligence.pdf (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/extraterrestrial_intelligence.pdf) which in itself is a response to the NSA article Communication_With_Extraterrestrial_Intelligence.pdf (http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/communications_extraterrestrial_intelligence.pdf) which is just a hypothetical investigation of what a detected alien message might look like.

Dammit, I thought I was on to something there...  :lol:

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 15 August, 2011, 06:22:45 PM
Yes you would have them all on one chopper, remember the one that went down in Scotland years ago, wiped out loads of high ranking anti terrorist bods in one go!

Which itself was the target of conspiracy theories for a long time (if I remember correctly the idea was they all had to be shuffled out of the way to make the Northern Ireland peace accord go more smoothly or some such), not helped by everyone trying to blame the pilots.

Another candidate for the conspiracy industry is the Chinook helicopter crash into the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994. The Ministry of Defence inquiry into the crash, which killed 25 top security personnel and four RAF crew, blamed the pilots for "breaching safe flying rules".

...

But dark rumours abound. The loss of ten senior RUC intelligence officers, nine army intelligence officers and six MI5 officers on the eve of the 1994 IRA cessation was, for some, propitious.

"The loss of such senior intelligence personalities probably ensured the political case for a peace process to go ahead despite the recent successes against PIRA [Provisional IRA] and loyalist paramilitaries," wrote academic Sydney Elliott in the most recent edition of the Northern Ireland Political Directory.

The diaries on one of the RUC officers killed in the crash, Ian Phoenix, were published in 1996, and showed the mindset of a dedicated anti-terrorist operator who believed that the IRA could be militarily defeated, if the authorities let them "do their job".

Some of those killed were certainly involved in contentious episodes, such as the "Shoot to Kill" operations on the early 80s, in which six alleged republicans were shot dead in circumstances which themselves have been the subject of call for a new inquiry.

Some loyalists believe that the intelligence officers were deliberately "taken out" for "knowing too much" about the people the government would have to deal with in a post-conflict Ulster.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/jun/14/northernireland.comment

Or:

a third explanation for the crash has now come to light: that a top secret hypersonic US plane, codenamed Aurora and which is reportedly capable of flying at up to 20 times the speed of sound, created a massive jet wake into which the helicopter flew, causing the crew to lose control.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/07/10/top_secret_us_plane_caused/
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 15 August, 2011, 09:17:19 PM
As the US dollar seems on the verge of being abandoned as the global oil trading currency, (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html) Americans will have to start paying the same for petrol as the rest of us. If the US also loses out on having their dollar as the global reserve currency any countries, banks, institutions, people etc. still holding dollars after this will get burned as their "value" plummets. (It's all paper anyway - not worth a fart.)

Gold and silver haven't finished appreciating yet. If you have any spare paper money (I haven't  :(  ), then I suggest you look into swapping it for some real money:

(http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/ag00-pres.gif) (http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/ag2010.gif) (http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/ag2011.gif) (http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/agaug11.gif)


(http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au00-pres.gif) (http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au2010.gif)
(http://www.kitco.com/LFgif/au2011.gif) (http://www.kitco.com/LFgif//auaug11.gif)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Mister Pops 15 August, 2011, 09:52:43 PM
Well there's that old nugget about how money made from paper is worth more than money made from metal. Sometimes the copper in a penny is worth more than a penny. But it's illegal to take money out of circulation. Banking and Economics are dark arts to me.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 15 August, 2011, 10:31:10 PM
Dark arts is precisely what they are.

Money is simply a way to turn cabbages into shoes or an hour's labour into petrol. It's just one step up from barter and that's all it needs to be. Money, like water, is a public resource - something we all need fair access to in order to function in society. It's the grease of trade, that's all.

Once it was discovered that one could make money out of money (by lending at interest, for example), all bets were off. Now you can make money through buying futures and stocks and bonds and gilts and a thousand and one other bits of paper that aren't really worth anything but can make you more worthless paper out of thin air. It all sounds great but this financial alchemy affects prices of real things in the real world. Things like wheat and rubber and oil and water. The stock, bond and money markets have become one huge great ball of meaningless figures kept in the air by nothing more than perception. Everyone believes that it's working and so it works. They pump billions upon billions more worthless numbers into it not only to keep it working but to demonstrate that it is still working. It's like one huge magic trick or illusion - The Amazing Working Economy by Paul Daniels. We like it - but not a lot.

The ancients saw that allowing people to make money out of money was supremely dangerous. Christians called it usury and made it a sin, as did the Muslims. The Muslim faith still imposes a ban on usury. The Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury have let things slide in that regard. Making money out of money is like making water out of water (if such a thing were possible) - eventually, the whole world will drown in cheap, worthless water. Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple for this reason.

Fast forward to the present day and we are indeed beginning to drown as the tide of worthless paper rises like a once in a lifetime rip-tide. I think it's time to take a leaf out of Jesus' book (as it were) and throw the moneychangers out of our governments. Until we do this, the paralysis of society can only get worse.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 18 August, 2011, 03:09:10 PM
So... American politicians are calling for a new 'super congress' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/11/super-congress-special-interests) of 12 lawmakers tasked with saving America from financial ruin. These 12 will be essentially in charge of the US government's purse strings and, by extension, in charge of the government itself.

So... France and Germany are calling for a new 'economic government' (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/French-German-leaders-urge-apf-1857027171.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=) tasked with saving Europe from financial ruin. This economic government will be essentially in charge of all the European governments' purse strings and, by extension, in charge of the governments themselves.

So... Vladimir Putin is calling for a new Eurasion economic union (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a7db2310-b769-11e0-b95d-00144feabdc0.html) tasked with saving the former Soviet states from financial ruin. This economic union will be essentially in charge of all the former Soviet states' purse strings and, by extension, in charge of the former Soviet states themselves.

So... Jean Ping is happy that new unions and banks (http://www.afriquejet.com/common-market-eastern-and-southern-africa-2011081820806.html) are to come into being to exploit more Africans lend money to Africans, enslaving benefiting them with debt just like the rest of us.

Is it just me, or does this look like some kind of strategy? The power of the world is being distilled and concentrated into smaller and smaller groups of people. It's like somebody's turning our whole planet into a prison - or a workhouse.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 18 August, 2011, 03:41:42 PM
Is it just me, or does this look like some kind of strategy? The power of the world is being distilled and concentrated into smaller and smaller groups of people. It's like somebody's turning our whole planet into a prison - or a workhouse.

You know I don't like agreeing with you in this thread, TLS, but yes, I agree, this really does look like a strategy.  It's one that requires little beyond a common reading of what's good for elites, no giant sinister conspiracy that would require secrecy and a high level of competence, just gross opportunism on the behalf of the haves.  So I'm in agreement on this one.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 18 August, 2011, 05:25:48 PM
I must admit I had a quiet chuckle to myself when I saw the European financial developments mentioned as I knew: a) sharky's head would revolve and his eyes flash b) he might be right to be concerned.

That said the European plan will be partly funded by a Tobin tax, which isn't the kind of thing the NWO would tend to encourage. Or is this misdirection? The shiny gewgaw to distract us from the sinister developments in order to get everyone to agree to go along with this, only for it to quietly disappear from the plans later on? Hmmm the lights have just dimmed, somewhere up the Southport Line a shark's head has slowly started revolving...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 18 August, 2011, 06:15:00 PM
Some leaders seem to understand what's going down: Chavez to nationalize Venezuelan gold industry. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/17/us-venezuela-gold-idUSTRE77G53L20110817) (There may be war over this, see if the UN starts twitching, egged on by the USA and the IMF...)

And where's the smart money going? The same place it always does: Gold hits new record near $1,830 an ounce. (http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/18/markets/gold_prices/) I wish I could've afforded to take my own advice months ago  :'(

As for the Tobin tax, all taxes are theft and this tax on spot currency conversions is most likely a unifying mechanism. It will be touted as a Good Thing but will transpire to have Unforeseen Consequences which would be easily solved by the adoption of a global currency. A global currency issued and controlled by private banks.

“Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money.”  – Sir Josiah Stamp, Director of the Bank of England (appointed 1928). Reputed to be the 2nd wealthiest man in England at that time.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 18 August, 2011, 06:59:14 PM
all taxes are theft

Then how does the government pay for stuff?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 18 August, 2011, 07:16:04 PM
Then how does the government pay for stuff?

(http://iamkinowei.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/frustration.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 18 August, 2011, 07:40:00 PM
if only the headless chickenshits were that organised  ::)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 18 August, 2011, 07:45:46 PM
Then how does the government pay for stuff?

(http://iamkinowei.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/frustration.jpg)

Child slavery? It is a radical solution, but you get my vote.

The Shark Party, putting your kids to work whether they like it or not.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 18 August, 2011, 08:19:42 PM
if only the headless chickenshits were that organised  ::)

But they are that organized. Banking is a very organized business, is it not? Bankers know how to organize problems such as the present global financial crisis in order to deploy solutions that favour them disproportionately. NWO, Illuminati, Bilderberg - that's all smoke and mirrors to make us believe in some core cabal of hooded wizards pulling the strings from a shadowy bunker somewhere. Those things are artificial targets, set up to deflect attention from the truth. Just like Osama bin Laden or the Red Under the Bed.

By their very natures, banks are institutions of control. How many people are tied to banks by overdrafts, mortgages and loans? How many honest and decent people work hard to make sure the bank gets their money before the food is bought, terrified of missing a payment? If you owe the bank money, they can take your house, claim on the insurance for lost revenue and then sell your ex-home through a preferred or partner estate agent. They're laughing and you're not only out on the street but feeling like the whole thing was your fault for not working hard enough. I don't think that the power of the banks over people's lives can be overestimated.

And businesses also need to borrow money, so they too are beholden to the banks. Once the business ceases to be profitable - it's broken up and sold on through a preferred partner or subsidiary.

And governments borrow money, too. Why should the banksters the government has to deal with be any less ruthless than the ones we have to deal with?

It's just a matter of degrees of magnitude and to say that this kind of thing could never happen because nobody's that organized is, I think, a little optimistic. It's more of a secret global cooperation than a secret global conspiracy. It's not a dragon, it's a hydra. The power though, the heart of the hydra, is the private banking system. Pierce that and the hole thing shrivels and dies.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 18 August, 2011, 08:24:06 PM
if only the headless chickenshits were that organised  ::)

But they are that organized. Banking is a very organized business, is it not?

The financial crisis would suggest that they are a bunch of feckless chancers who knew no more about how things worked than your average man in the street (or they didn't care because they were reaping bonuses for dishing out increasingly risky mortgages).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 18 August, 2011, 08:38:06 PM
Nevertheless, it is to these feckless chancers that the whole world is now in debt.

It is a situation that only exists because we accept it.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 20 August, 2011, 01:24:18 PM
"Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations)" the Guardian chatters. I'm finding this recent linking of aliens to carbon emissions quite fascinating. In the "Truther" community, they say that little stories like this are inserted here and there to get us used to the idea. I don't think that aliens are coming to invade us because of carbon dioxide - I think the following (whimsical, before anybody starts) scenario is marginally more likely, though.

It's August 12, 2012 (12/8/12 or 8/12/12?) and you're sat in front of the telly full of beer and pizza watching the closing ceremony of the London Olympics. Wales won 12 golds, Scotland 28 and England got a bronze in curling after three arguments, two recounts and a scuffle.

In his secret subterranean castle beneath the Vatican, Lord Byron Rockerchild III gives the order for the final phase of his bid to control the world. Small groups of very well paid agents inside NASA, the NSA, FEMA, the Pentagon, Whitehall, Westminster and all points bureaucracide swing into action. Satellites around the world are overwhelmed by a strange alien signal, the best grainy alien signal money can buy.

"Evil earthlings," the alien says - translation comes through pretty quickly, almost as if somebody  knows this language or what is being said - "you are destroying your planet with CO2! Prepare for a good thrashing! (We'll be there soon, when you least expect it, in our invisible war-stars.)"

"But, oh how we've tried to reduce our carbon emissions!" The politicians will cry, told what to say by the agents of Lord Rockerchild who, strangely, always seem able to predict events and know exactly what's needed to save the day. "We made laws and raised taxes to fight it! But it's the people, oh alien conquerors! The people refuse to cut down! Refuse to live in austerity and squalour for the good of the planet!"

So, there'll probably then be a planetary defence tax which can be collected by the recently created World Economic Task Force, which will essentially rule the whole world and be chaired by a dozen experts - all hand-picked by Lord Rockerchild himself. Then all the money in the world we be controlled from one central office. The Global Defence Tax and Global Carbon Tax will be ruthlessly applied to arming the Global Defence Force with all the best and most expensive weapons, stopping people from emitting carbon dioxide (by killing lots of them who have fallen under a mysterious and difficult to detect "alien mind ray") and keeping Lord Rockerchild's lackeys in their lives of luxury.

And the alien threat? Well, once the planet is in chains it'll probably go away. "You have done well, earthloids. I, Gargo of Phlange, grant you a reprieve from destruction. Have a care, though, for we are watching you closely and may (interference) at any moment!"

Wouldn't it be cool if that actually happened and everyone just laughed and went "oh, come on - now you're just taking the piss" and ignored it. The politicians, looking increasingly foolish, pointing to the sky and saying "look, aliens, death - taxes, austerity..." and everyone else all, like, "come on, man, we've known for years that carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming. Aliens my arse. Why don't you just go and fiddle some expenses or something and leave us alone?"

I now return you to your regular insanity.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: I, Cosh 20 August, 2011, 02:08:04 PM
As the US dollar seems on the verge of being abandoned as the global oil trading currency, (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html) Americans will have to start paying the same for petrol as the rest of us. If the US also loses out on having their dollar as the global reserve currency any countries, banks, institutions, people etc. still holding dollars after this will get burned as their "value" plummets. (It's all paper anyway - not worth a fart.)
While it doesn't undermine the validity of the central premise, it's worth noting that this story is now two years old and we're no closer to a world where the prices of oil are not routinely quoted in USD. I vaguely remember reading about this at the time and it seemed to be driven by localised sabre rattling on the part of a few Middle Eastern states (which has presumably died down slightly now that they all want the Yanks to back them up on their new, even harsher repression of internal dissent and the Euro maybe doesn't look such a good replacement at the moment) and Chavez (which presumably hasn't.)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 20 August, 2011, 02:29:54 PM
"Aliens may destroy humanity to protect other civilisations, say scientists (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations)" the Guardian chatters. I'm finding this recent linking of aliens to carbon emissions quite fascinating. In the "Truther" community, they say that little stories like this are inserted here and there to get us used to the idea.

I was surprised to read that because a) they must know it gets conspiracy theorists excited and b) their thought experiment is a load of old cobblers - hardly worth doing in the first place.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 20 August, 2011, 03:13:16 PM
'Scotland 28 golds'  you've went too far this time Sharkie no-ones gonna believe that!!  :D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 22 August, 2011, 02:13:57 PM
I was just watching 'Architects & Engineers: Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 (http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/)', a 15 minute documentary on the mysterious destruction of World Trade Center Building #7 on 9/11/01 by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org/) when a rather disturbing thought struck me.

If we allow, for one moment, the possibility that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition, then the question becomes "how and when was the building prepared?" Given that the WTC7 tenants (http://wtc7.net/background.html) included the IRS Regional Council, the U.S. Secret Service, the Securities & Exchange Commission, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management and the C.I.A., I wonder if it's possible that the building had been constructed with or overhauled to include a "self-destruct" mechanism?

If that's true, how many more governmental buildings in the U.S. might be similarly rigged? Pursuing that thought takes us to some very dark places indeed.

On the up-side, Libya has 144 tons of gold (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/battle-libya-almost-over-battle-its-144-tons-gold) it won't be needing any more. That's lucky, because Hugo Chavez wants his gold back from the Bank of England. Except that the Bank of England hasn't got it - that job has been delegated to the mega-bank, J.P. Morgan. And J.P. Morgan hasn't got the invested gold either because it's been short-selling gold for years. (Hence the recent surge in gold prices - what you're actually seeing is not gold being worth more, but the currencies "backed" by it devaluing.) We could reimburse Chavez out of the Bank of England's own gold reserves, like honourable people, except that Gordon Brown sold most of it when gold was worth about 50p a ton. However, once NATO gets to Tripoli and finds the gold, all will be well. Piracy! It's a great life!

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 22 August, 2011, 02:20:52 PM
Its like the movie 'Three Kings' all over again...

Anyone got a link to a official/non consp'  version of why theis building can down?
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Emperor 22 August, 2011, 02:42:52 PM
Anyone got a link to a official/non consp'  version of why theis building can down?

Start here and follow the sources - seems to be the collapse of the twin towers caused structural damage on one side of the building and it escalated from there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse

See also:
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.html
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 22 August, 2011, 02:45:12 PM
cheers interesting stuff
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: GordonR 22 August, 2011, 02:55:41 PM
I was just watching 'Architects & Engineers: Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 (http://rememberbuilding7.org/10/)', a 15 minute documentary on the mysterious destruction of World Trade Center Building #7 on 9/11/01 by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org/) when a rather disturbed thought struck me.

Fixed that for you.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 22 August, 2011, 03:22:29 PM
Thank you.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 23 August, 2011, 01:56:45 PM
Live Streaming Video Tripoli Libya. (http://newsblogged.com/live-streaming-video-tripoli-libya)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 23 August, 2011, 02:08:38 PM

The great satan....

(http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Blair-Gaddafi-Masonic-Handshake-01.jpg)


and a bloke wearing the curtains  :D
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 23 August, 2011, 03:47:47 PM
Now that its nearly over does this mean that us, the Yanks and the Frogs will control the new rulers. After all we did help them out  ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 23 August, 2011, 03:53:49 PM
Now that its nearly over does this mean that us, the Yanks and the Frogs will control the new rulers. After all we did help them out  ;)


You mean NATO.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 23 August, 2011, 03:58:43 PM
Now that its nearly over does this mean that us, the Yanks and the Frogs will control the new rulers. After all we did help them out  ;)


You mean The Giant lizards

Fixed that for you ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 23 August, 2011, 05:07:14 PM
Now that its nearly over does this mean that us, the Yanks and the Frogs will control the new rulers. After all we did help them out  ;)

Er, I very much doubt it. Our masters are probably very pleased with us, though, for providing them with another country to rape civilize. Indeed, the good old World Bank is poised to spring into action and kindly enslave Libya in debt help Libya rebuild: World Bank ready to help Libya. (http://www.activistpost.com/2011/08/world-bank-ready-to-help-libya.html) Makes you proud to be a capitalist, doesn't it?

Richard Haass (http://www.cfr.org/experts/afghanistan-iraq-us-strategy-and-politics/richard-n-haass/b3350) of the not-sinister-at-all Concil on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org/) reckons that what Libya really needs now is a mob of foreign troops to secure Libya's wealth help the Libyans out. He explains his idea in the Financial Times article "Libya now needs boots on the ground (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/559804f8-cc7f-11e0-b923-00144feabdc0.html)" - in this article he also casually mentions that: "The 7,000 sorties flown by Nato aircraft played a central role in the rebel victory. The “humanitarian” intervention introduced to save lives believed to be threatened was, in fact, a political intervention introduced to bring about regime change." Like we didn't know.

Also, the International Business Times is continuing the "alien invasion" warning scaremongering: Hoping to Contact Extraterrestrials? Think Again. (http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/201455/20110822/space-extraterrestrial-life-nasa-greenhouse-gas-planet-alien-destroy-humanity-nasa-global-warming.htm) What a load of old cobblers - still, better to be safe than sorry. Get ready for the Global Security Tax and Global Security Council.

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 23 August, 2011, 05:51:44 PM
I feel safer now. Lets hope the lizard rulers are kinder than those from V
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 23 August, 2011, 10:10:14 PM
I feel safer now. Lets hope the lizard rulers are kinder than those from V

I just hope they're as hawt as the ones from V (apart from Willie, or John, or well any of them really apart from Diana).
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 23 August, 2011, 10:22:11 PM
Diana can swallow my rodent anytime.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 24 August, 2011, 03:58:13 PM
14 Conspiracy Theories That The Media Now Admits Are Conspiracy Facts: (http://www.infowars.com/14-conspiracy-theories-that-the-media-now-admits-are-conspiracy-facts/)

#1 Fukushima Uninhabitable
#2 U.S. Military Attack On Libya
#3 Widespread Use Of RFID Chips In Humans
#4 $2000 Gold
#5 Obama Wants To Impose Backdoor Amnesty
#6 U.S. Government Provides Weapons For Mexican Drug Cartels
#7 Fluoride Is Harmful
#8 The Federal Reserve Favors The Big Banks
#9 Cell Phones Linked To Cancer
#10 The Credit Rating Agencies Are Corrupt
#11 Prescription Drugs Kill A Lot Of Americans
#12 Bisphenol-A Is Linked To Infertility
#13 The “Super Congress” Is In The Pocket Of Wall Street Interests
#14 The Targeting Of Christian Groups

(http://i.imgur.com/9UBfS.jpg)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 24 August, 2011, 04:05:28 PM
If I follow one more link to that bloody Alex Jones site...  He hasn't done anything good since The Snowman.

A more misleading mealy-mouthed dancing around a set of non-conspiracy-theories I have never seen.  For example, how is 'Gold will reach $2000' a conspiracy theory?  Everybody knows what happens to gold prices when the stomm hits the fan.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 24 August, 2011, 04:11:29 PM
But I'm having a great time Mr Shark! What should I do to make my life miserable, I'm confused  ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 24 August, 2011, 04:22:17 PM
Alex Jones, there's more wrong than right about him. I reckon my initial gut-feeling still stands, he's an egotistical oppurtunist with possible big money behind him. He's been caught lying multiple times and has shafted quite a few while he proclaims himself leader of the 'truth' movement. When you court people such as David Icke onto your show just so you can have access to their audience and shift some more DVDs, it's a bit of a sham.


My favourite bit is when he called Alan Moore an 'admitted Mason' and that Watchmen is Illuminati/NWO propaganda. What a fuckin' twit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTOzEFbXLU


Never trust anyone who calls it 'the' Watchmen...
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 24 August, 2011, 04:31:19 PM
My favourite bit is when he called Alan Moore an 'admitted Mason' and that Watchmen is Illuminati/NWO propaganda. What a fuckin' twit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTOzEFbXLU

Best laugh I've had in ages.  Wait 'til he reads Lost Girls!   :o
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 24 August, 2011, 04:46:49 PM
Wait 'til he reads Lost Girls!   :o


He won't talk about that, it's his secret shame.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 24 August, 2011, 04:55:09 PM
A quick glance at the first one:

'Well, it turns out that those of us that feared the worst were right after all.  Just consider the following quote from the New York Times….

Broad areas around the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant could soon be declared uninhabitable, perhaps for decades, after a government survey found radioactive contamination that far exceeded safe levels, several major media outlets said Monday.'

Hardly a major conspiracy fact unmasked: a nuke plants gets hit by a giant wave and the area could be dodgy for perhaps ten years,  what is the wiki term for them? weasle words? and that conspiracy is number one! don't know if I can be ersed debagging the rest  :D but am looking forward to the Moore youtube

: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 24 August, 2011, 04:57:10 PM
If I follow one more link to that bloody Alex Jones site...  He hasn't done anything good since The Snowman.

A more misleading mealy-mouthed dancing around a set of non-conspiracy-theories I have never seen.  For example, how is 'Gold will reach $2000' a conspiracy theory?  Everybody knows what happens to gold prices when the stomm hits the fan.

I believe the point about gold hitting $2,000 an ounce is that it demonstrates not an appreciation of gold prices but a depreciation of currency. Depreciating currency drives people to buy gold and as mega-banks like JP Morgan have been shorting gold for decades (ie, selling more gold shares than the actual physical gold they own will cover) mass gold/silver/platinum buying by the general public is a very real threat to the stability and reputation of these essentially corrupt banks. So they say that the gold price is a freak or a bubble. It's not the gold price itself that is the conspiracy, but what it means.

Also, the dangers of fluoride, cell 'phones, prescription drugs and Bisphenol-A aren't worrisome to you? Governments lie, we all know that. Corporations lie, we all know that, too. Haven't we grown up with the joke "How can you tell if a politician's lying?" gag and the nudge-nudge, wink-wink idea that institutions can't be trusted? Why, then, is it so difficult to believe when governments and corporations do lie? It seems to me a strange form of mass-denial, as if people think "well, sure, of course we were lied to in the past, but they don't do that any more because they know we'd see through it."



But I'm having a great time Mr Shark! What should I do to make my life miserable, I'm confused  ;)

Just continue on as-is. Use credit cards instead of cash. Save cash instead of gold or silver. Continue accepting the throwaway nature of consumerism and encourage the linear production model. Support the just-in-time method of supply, which leaves no reserves in the system to cover unforeseen circumstances. Vote for red, blue, yellow or green when you're told to. Continue to believe that freedom is freedom of choice. That kind of thing.  ;)


Alex Jones, there's more wrong than right about him. I reckon my initial gut-feeling still stands, he's an egotistical oppurtunist with possible big money behind him. He's been caught lying multiple times and has shafted quite a few while he proclaims himself leader of the 'truth' movement. When you court people such as David Icke onto your show just so you can have access to their audience and shift some more DVDs, it's a bit of a sham.


My favourite bit is when he called Alan Moore an 'admitted Mason' and that Watchmen is Illuminati/NWO propaganda. What a fuckin' twit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctTOzEFbXLU


Never trust anyone who calls it 'the' Watchmen...

And yes, Alex Jones is a bit... full-on. He does get on my nerves sometimes and, I think, often goes too far in his analyses - but, by God, I'm glad there are people like him out there. When the likes of Alex Jones fall silent, that's the time to really worry. Love him or hate him, though, he is often correct and is the embodiment of that old Gorge Orwell quote, "freedom is the right to tell other people what they don't want to hear."

The plot of Watchmen is NWO propaganda - but that doesn't make Alan Moore a propagandist any more than it makes J.K. Rowling a wizard. In fact, the "alien threat" idea has been bubbling under recently - as in Watchmen - a staged alien attack forming the excuse to consolidate world power. Even Ronald Reagan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag44dRO8LEA) used to go on about it.

Furthermore, I think that 14 Conspiracy Theories That The Media Now Admits Are Conspiracy Facts article is more about the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" than anything else. That phrase is too often used as a thought-stopper. When you think about it, what does the phrase actually mean? It's a theory about a conspiracy, like the official theories of what happened on 9/11 or 7/7 or the theories that police investigate to get at the truth. The phrase "conspiracy theory" has come to mean "crackpot idea" in modern Newspeak and has the effect of immediately warning-off any independent investigation you might want to do on your own. It switches off your curiosity - at least, it does in most people who never look beyond the mainstream for their news.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: COMMANDO FORCES 24 August, 2011, 05:03:52 PM
You got me Shark, I'm now off to live in Zimbabwe to speak my mind. Bollocks to that, I think North Korea is the place for me, hang on a second what about Cuba, that's a lovely place if you are on holiday, so it must be brilliant for the locals  ;)
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: TordelBack 24 August, 2011, 05:15:53 PM
I have no doubt that Governments and Corporations lie, all the time, for their own benefit, eternally.  But some of the things cited here... over-flouridation of water, for example?  Appreciating the trade-off between the benefits of some flouride to reducing tooth decay and the essentially cosmetic hazards of too much flouride... isn't this how the accumulation of all knowledge proceeds? 

And mobile phone cancer... quoting from the cited article: 
I'm not telling people to stop using the phone. I'm saying that I can't tell you if cell phones are dangerous, but I can tell you that I'm not sure that they are safe," said Dr. Devra Davis, professor of preventive medicine at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

We're into Daily Mail territory here.

Leaping on every divergent factoid as evidence of hidden conspiracy in government/big pharma/the saucer people is just as wrongheaded a strategy as believing everything you're told.  Question, evaluate, reappraise, of course, but surely this is how an adult navigates the world anyway?  Personally I expect to have to look at as many angles as possible before I make up my own mind.

As to Alex Jones:  it's very hard for me to take a grown man seriously who straight-facedly asserts that the global masonic illuminati pre-adapt the world to their schemes through the medium of Tom Clancy, Alan Moore and The Lone Gunmen.  I think this gleeful fantasy-building undermines the very questioning approach that Sharky advocates, and I wouldn't be remotely surprised to find that he's the false-flag element here.

Here, this'll cheer you up:

http://www.viruscomix.com/page552.html
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 24 August, 2011, 05:20:43 PM

The plot of Watchmen is NWO propaganda - but that doesn't make Alan Moore a propagandist any more than it makes J.K. Rowling a wizard. In fact, the "alien threat" idea has been bubbling under recently - as in Watchmen - a staged alien attack forming the excuse to consolidate world power.

I know where it originates from, an epsiode of the Outer Limits 'the Architects of Fear' which was then adopted by the Rand corp. for one of their think-tank papers, but how do you go from that to Alan Moore  being a Mason and really what purpose does it serve except as deliberate disinfo?


Nothing that Jones really does can in all seriousness be called analyses -cherry picked internet foraging- and what disturbs is how quickly he changes tack when he's faced with an 'uncomfortable truth' or anyone with a legitimate opposing view, rather than defend -which usually involves him shouting louder than everyone else- he uses the same tactics he accuses his enemy of using, verbal abuse and denigration.

Anyone who refers to an Alex Jones site for news/facts/debate is immeditaely discredited and that's Jones' fault. He conflates legitimate concerns with nonsense.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 24 August, 2011, 05:23:26 PM
A quick glance at the first one:

'Well, it turns out that those of us that feared the worst were right after all.  Just consider the following quote from the New York Times….

Broad areas around the stricken Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant could soon be declared uninhabitable, perhaps for decades, after a government survey found radioactive contamination that far exceeded safe levels, several major media outlets said Monday.'

Hardly a major conspiracy fact unmasked: a nuke plants gets hit by a giant wave and the area could be dodgy for perhaps ten years,  what is the wiki term for them? weasle words? and that conspiracy is number one! don't know if I can be ersed debagging the rest  :D but am looking forward to the Moore youtube



Searching for fukushima + radiation on the BBC website produces few results (http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=fukushima%20%2B%20radiation), but the same search on Al Jazeera led me here (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/08/201181665921711896.html) and here. (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/08/20118255436253789.html) Now, admittedly these two Al Jazeera pieces aren't as "Aieee!" as Alex Jones paints, but they do point to a massive problem that the BBC doesn't seem too concerned with.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Proudhuff 24 August, 2011, 05:23:34 PM
I think that alan has sat next to me on the bus  :(
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 24 August, 2011, 05:26:29 PM

Searching for fukushima + radiation on the BBC website produces few results (http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=fukushima%20%2B%20radiation), but the same search on Al Jazeera led me here (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/08/201181665921711896.html) and here. (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/08/20118255436253789.html) Now, admittedly these two Al Jazeera pieces aren't as "Aieee!" as Alex Jones paints, but they do point to a massive problem that the BBC doesn't seem too concerned with.


If you want good analyses on Fukushima this is the best non-alarmist source:

http://fairewinds.com/
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 24 August, 2011, 07:04:30 PM


Anyone who refers to an Alex Jones site for news/facts/debate is immeditaely discredited and that's Jones' fault. He conflates legitimate concerns with nonsense.

Tsk. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Personally, I think it's short sighted to rubbish the message just because the messenger tends to be a bit of a twat.

If I did that, I'd have to foe half the forum. And I'd miss a lot.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: The Legendary Shark 24 August, 2011, 07:07:37 PM
I know where it originates from, an epsiode of the Outer Limits 'the Architects of Fear' which was then adopted by the Rand corp. for one of their think-tank papers, but how do you go from that to Alan Moore  being a Mason and really what purpose does it serve except as deliberate disinfo?

Nothing that Jones really does can in all seriousness be called analyses -cherry picked internet foraging- and what disturbs is how quickly he changes tack when he's faced with an 'uncomfortable truth' or anyone with a legitimate opposing view, rather than defend -which usually involves him shouting louder than everyone else- he uses the same tactics he accuses his enemy of using, verbal abuse and denigration.

Anyone who refers to an Alex Jones site for news/facts/debate is immediately discredited and that's Jones' fault. He conflates legitimate concerns with nonsense.

While I'm not going to defend Alex Jones, I view his interpretations of events with as much scepticism as I do the interpretations of the BBC, CNN, RT or anyone else, I do find them helpful in piecing together my own interpretations of events. I don't doubt that Jones is very close to his subject matter and that condition causes a somewhat blinkered view - but he is in no way alone in this. There is so much information out there, both real and imagined, that it is often hard to connect the dots and therefore I can allow him a certain level of ignorance with something like Watchmen. Nobody can know everything, after all.

I don't know if my following assumptions about Jones' behaviour are true or not, and I'm in no way making excuses for him but rather trying to understand, but I'll put it out there anyway. Jones' radio show has a lot of competition from the chattering uber-media and maybe sensationalism is an advertising tool. If he believes in the creeping tyranny as fervently as he claims then he'll feel compelled to get the message out there (God knows, I understand that feeling) and one sure-fire way of grabbing attention is sensationalism. Whether this tactic is right or wrong I couldn't say, but it is used by mainstream media as well - some of the trailers for mainstream media "News Specials" or documentaries, with their arresting graphics, sensationalist voice-overs and dramatic music could easily be trailers for dramas. Sensationalism (and getting things wrong from time to time) is not the exclusive purview of Alex Jones - and I know that you never said it was and that you've probably already considered this point and come to different conclusions.

"Anyone who refers to an Alex Jones site for news/facts/debate is immediately discredited and that's Jones' fault." I think that's a rather sweeping and unfair statement akin to rubbishing the sayings of Gandhi because he was married to 14-year-old Kasturbai Makhanji when he himself was only 13 (he obviously had a thing for older women). Ok, maybe it's not exactly like that, but you get my drift. I don't like rejecting any message out of hand just because I don't like the messenger - I do find Alex Jones intensely annoying.

In the final analysis, though, he's just one voice amongst thousands upon countless thousands - to be treated with the same scepticism and respect as anyone else.

Gah - Matt beat me to it! I really must consider availing myself of that old favourite species of forum-posting style that is colloquially known as brevity.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: JOE SOAP 24 August, 2011, 07:22:55 PM
Tsk. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Personally, I think it's short sighted to rubbish the message just because the messenger tends to be a bit of a twat.


Depends on what that message is? If it's to make you fear that 'the man/illuminati' are controlling your life through ritual sacrifice and mass murder whilst the messenger, needing to fill four hours of air-time everyday like an apocalyptic evangelist, makes money from practicing that same fear-mongering, I'm not too sure that's exactly a message worth hearing. That seems to be the sum total of Jones message, whatever the specifics of his half-truths. I've yet to see Jones message having much positive effect other than lining pockets.


Propaganda works best when it's only telling you half the story, twice-a-day.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 24 August, 2011, 07:31:36 PM

Searching for fukushima + radiation on the BBC website produces few results (http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/news/?q=fukushima%20%2B%20radiation), but the same search on Al Jazeera led me here (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/08/201181665921711896.html) and here. (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2011/08/20118255436253789.html) Now, admittedly these two Al Jazeera pieces aren't as "Aieee!" as Alex Jones paints, but they do point to a massive problem that the BBC doesn't seem too concerned with.


If you want good analyses on Fukushima this is the best non-alarmist source:

http://fairewinds.com/

I can't get that to load (but I am in the arse end of nowhere at the moment).

My own thinking on the situation, as terrible as it is, is that it can't be any worse than the hundreds of open air atomic bomb tests of the '50s, surely? Or am I missing something?

Genuine question, btw. If anybody has any info, I'm all ears.
: Re: “Truth? You can't handle the truth!”
: Matt Timson 24 August, 2011, 07:38:18 PM
Tsk. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Personally, I think it's short sighted to rubbish the message just because the messenger tends to be a bit of a twat.


Depends on what that message is? If it's to make you fear that 'the man/illuminati' are controlling your life through ritual sacrifice and mass murder whilst the messenger, needing to fill four