| |
|
Conspiracies: What's credible and what's not?
Re Conspiracies: Speaking of spoonfed
I did not propose that I or anyone else knows every piece of
information on any of the subjects discussed.
|
|
I wonder which investigators are considered "acceptable" to you?
A subpoena would give
you some safety that you would be getting the truth?
Why isn't the 911 Commission
acceptable?
|
|
|
|
What I said is there is evidence to back
certain things you refuted as silly and that you have decided it based on your personal
opinion regardless of things that can be proven.| |
But you don't present this evidence, you only tell me what you've told me before, that there's evidence.
| |
I don't think it is important to give
you proof as it is obvious that your mind is already decided and as you have already said,
anyone can tell us anything. Of course we can't know everything that a shadow government
is intending to do exactly. If we did then they couldn't accomplish the goals. It could
not be proven at the end of World War II that our government was actually experimenting
mind control techniques on people in mental hospitals but the government acknowledged it
themselves when they settled in court with the patients they had illegally done such
things to years later. They could not deny their own documents that described in detail
what they
did under project MK ULTRA. That was probably considered a conspiracy while it was going
on.| |
And of course, MK ULTRA was a conspiracy, by the very definition of the word. It probably sounded nutty, until there was evidence and eventually proof that it really happened. This is the logical progression -- something sounds nutty, and most of the things that sound nutty are nutty, but a small sliver of these nutty-sounding things might be true.
I know that MK ULTRA happened, as that case has been proven. I know 9/11 was a conspiracy, and I suspect that high-ranking Americans were knowing participants in that conspiracy. The distinction between what we know and what we suspect is important, and I'm not seeing it in your notes.
| |
I have been very interested in politics since I was 11 when I watched every hearing on
Watergate. A perfect example about your already decided opinion are your comments on
Reagan and Hinkley. This did not come from me reading it somewhere. I personally paid
attention to Ronald Reagan speak about the shadow government and the likes when he was
running for President. I heard it come out of his mouth and how he was against the power
it held over the government. I had never heard of anything like that until then. After
he went in to office an attempt was made on his life. i didn't say it was done to keep
him quiet. I highly doubt it was only meant to scare him -- 1/2 from his life is too good
of a scare even for the best assassin. He was meant to be eliminated and I am sure he
knew as any sane person would. In case you missed another piece of information at that
time, the Bush family had strong business and personal ties with the Hinkley family (Oil).
The Bush family
made a personal statement downplaying those ties and their embarrassment after a
mainstream media station aired it. John Hinkley was a nephew. This is all from the
mainstream media not conspiracy stories. I personally noticed that Reagan never spoke
about the topic again even though he had in both his campaign and early days of office. It
was not a fly by night comment. Pretend you are Reagan for a moment.... do you think he
ever wondered about the connection? If you still think this is such an outrageous
connection to explore or don't find it even a bit suspicious then you most likely think OJ
Simpson is innocent. Sorry for the sarcasm here but I am sure it is acceptable as your
response is laced with it throughout.| |
If you're sincerely sorry for the sarcasm, apology accepted, but the sarcasm eludes me. OJ Simpson was found not guilty in a court of law, which never struck me as a great miscarriage of justice. The difference between evidence and proof is very important, and the case against Simpson was not proven. There was plenty of room for doubt, so the jury's verdict struck me as proper.
As for the shooting of President Reagan, could you provide the evidence, starting with the words you heard from Reagan's lips that, you believe, set the process of his assassination in motion? Could you provide any substantial evidence that Hinkley himself ever heard those words, or that there's any connection between those words and the shooting, months later? I've read that Bushes and Hinkleys were in the oil business at the same time, that they remained chummy, and that after the assassination attempt Neil Bush cancelled his dinner plans with John Hinkley's father. And that last item is weird enough to raise eyebrows and suspicions, certainly.
Since the shooting of Reagan is the conspiracy you seem most interested in discussing, let me recap, and please tell me if I've got this wrong: Reagan said something that caught your attention, something about shadow government, and the Bushes and Hinkleys were chummy, and Reagan was shot, and Reagan never again said the thing that caught your attention. I ask sincerely, is this what's convinced you that the Bush family was involved in Reagan's shooting? Is there more evidence than this? Was the CFR or some other group involved, or does this conspiracy end with the Bush family?
To me, what you've presented looks like a suspicion, but with lines like "He was meant to be eliminated and I am sure he
knew as any sane person would," it sounds like you're presenting your suspicion as proven -- while skipping all the steps that would involve, you know, actually proving your suspicion.
| |
First you say it doesn't matter what is at the core of The Federal Reserve
and nobody
cares about how it was established but just go blank
then you say we need to know every
detail about 911 if we think our government had anything to do with it????? I said it was
enough for me to know the simple things that are absolutely unbelievable about 911 to know
that our government at least allowed it.| |
Yes, that's pretty much what you said and I don't disagree, but my impression was that you were standing with James. And James wrote, "Are you aware of the truth of 911? It was an attack from within." That's something that might, with a proper inquiry, be proven true, but on the evidence now available it's a leap to a conclusion that may or may not be true.
| |
I don't actually know all the other things you
refer to. It is enough for me to see how our government went in to Iraq based on lies
told to the American people. I sensed it was a lie then and found it a joke that the
average American didn't see that.| |
Again we agree, and the Bush administration's clear and obvious pre-war lies about Iraq ought to be enough to convince anyone that the Bush-Cheney administration should not be trusted.
What we're disputing is the assertion that their lies are more than merely their lies, but are actually part of a CFR/Bilderberg/Trilateral/whatever conspiracy. Where's the evidence, and is the evidence credible?
| |
Yes, there are plenty of questions that should be answered about 911 but you are claiming
that no one can be trusted to tell the truth
hence my response that I don't need all the
answers to know that our government is not clean about their awareness or possible
involvement. Heck, with your claim that simple folks like you and I can never be privy to
the truth or even have enough intelligence or inside info to understand even a sliver of
it....seems like you stand on the side that suits your position at the time.| |
I stand for allegations to be proven, before they're accepted as proven. The fact that "our government is not clean about their awareness or possible
involvement" on 9/11 has been clearly proven, by repeated Bush-Cheney stonewalling of the 9/11 investigation.
James's allegation that "It was an attack from within" has not been proven.
The distinction between suspicions and what's proven is important.
| |
I wonder which investigators are considered "acceptable" to you? A subpoena would give
you some safety that you would be getting the truth? Why isn't the 911 Commission
acceptable?| |
These are rhetorical questions, I hope. Surely we needn't go back and recount all the ways the 9/11 Commission was compromised -- by conflicts of interest, by lack of cooperation, by lack of budget, and by its own milquetoast mandate. Of all people, you must already be aware of these things, but if you're not please browse our 9/11 page.
| |
Not a single expert of any kind thus far is acceptable to you that has spoken
out about it?
Forgive me, but this is seriously narrow thinking on your part. Maybe you
could see if those little purple munchkins of yours can help you out. Which air traffic
controllers on duty the day of 911 are trustworthy to you?| |
What are you referring to? I'd consider the sworn testimony of any air traffic controller involved in the fatal flights to be credible, with credibility diminishing if he/she said something absurd. Is your question an allusion to the tapes of air traffic controllers' conversations that were intentionally destroyed?
| |
Really, it seems as though you
are pulling rabbits out of a hat.| |
Asking for evidence and proof is akin to magic?
| |
What part of the Federal Reserve information is
acceptable? What are you basing your decision on? | |
My knowledge of the Federal Reserve and most other matters is based on what I've read, and what I've read is determined by what interests me. I'm especially intrigued by official corruption, which would tend to bring Fed-related scandals to my attention. But I'm especially un-intrigued by news or opinion that seems exaggerated or lacks evidence. I would guess that the latter has trumped the former, leading to my impression -- open to challenge, please, with evidence -- that the Federal Reserve isn't any more corrupt than I'd expect from any other organization of its size.
If the truth is worse than that, I'd cordially ask you to present the evidence. A credible link or two would suffice.
| |
How do you know what the CFR is
responsible for or not? You certainly claim to know.| |
I claim to know what the CFR is responsible for or not? And I claim to know it, with certainty? Again, this is something I've never said.
When James brought up the Council on Foreign Relations, I replied that "I haven't researched it extensively, I simply despise it for what I believe it is -- one of several organizations for an elite membership." I then went on to ask James several questions concerning his knowledge of the CFR, questions which remain un-answered by him or others.
Please note, I never said what the CFR is or isn't responsible for. And I'm rambling on about this not to score points or because my feelings are hurt, but to point out that mis-representing my arguments only damages your own arguments. I don't know how to say this without sounding mean, but it must be said:
We're discussing what's credible and what's not, so when you repeatedly attribute to me things I haven't said, it causes me to see you as less and less credible. If you're willing so quickly to leap to false conclusions about what I've said, I'm left wondering what other false conclusions you've leapt to.
| |
Where are you getting your information?
How do we trust the news on your site? What are your credentials and who determines what
they are worth?
Debby
| |
Credibility is a subjective thing, but our standards are pretty much ordinary, I think. We read mainstream news accounts, where journalists are paid to report the facts and get in trouble if their facts are shown to be non-factual.
We read news from left- and right-tilted sources, weighing what's reported against the obvious built-in bias, and seeking outside confirmation if what's reported seems doubtworthy.
We read news from muckraking freelancers who publish their own material, paying careful attention to any particular source's track record, and disregarding reporters who've written BS reports in the past. When, for example, I can quickly find a two-year-old article with the same byline, claiming that President Bush is about to be arrested for treason, I'll confidently conclude that the author is a nutball, and disregard whatever he's reporting. Of course, that criterion means we lose some of the best "stories," and no doubt we lose a lot of readers who prefer reading more shocking headlines than they'll find at Unknown News.
We're sticklers for the difference between suspicion and proof, between fact and exaggeration. It's hard to avoid leaping to conclusions, but leaping too soon damages credibility. You mentioned the Watergate case, and that's a fine example of this -- Woodward and Bernstein built their case methodically and slowly, bit by bit, and their own credibility increased as they progressed. As I recall from reading All the President's Men, at least once they leapt to a faulty conclusion, got the story wrong, and it damaged their credibility.
When we read emails like yours, our assessment of credibility is based on whether evidence is offered -- books mentioned that can be found and read, websites that can be linked and perused, allowing us to consider the credibility (or lack of credibility) of those sources, which reflects back to the letter-writer. If no evidence is offered except the letter-writer's say-so, it casts the author's credibility more into question.
Focus is also very valuable. Someone who writes about one secret conspiracy theory will almost certainly come across more credibly than someone who writes about seventeen secret conspiracy theories, all fitting together in totality, all part of the same end goal.
In dialogue like this, another huge measure of credibility, I think, is whether questions asked are answered. I've tried to answer your questions honestly, while the most important questions I asked after your previous note seem to still be un-answered. So I'll ask again:
Doesn't it strike you as curious that huge numbers of otherwise ordinary people -- not the rich and powerful, but everyday schmoes -- can discuss the intricacies of super-secret conspiracies? Isn't it remarkable that these nefarious groups have allowed you and so many others to know what they're up to?
| |
|
Our front page is free from nudity and profanity, but interior pages and external links may not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want it published, say so plainly. Of course, we publish all incoming hate mail.
Unknown News is more fun and more informative with your participation, so please don't be shy. Consider yourself invited to speak your mind.
|
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication.
When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever.
We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong.
You can contact Helen & Harry at <newsuneed at yahoo.com>. If that address ever fails, our back-up email address is <unknownnews at inbox.com>.
But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send the publishers of News a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else.
Please don't send attachments or other cr*p we don't want.
If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread.
If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
|
| |
We sell our own progressive bumper stickers:
pro-peace, anti-Bush,
pro-freedom,
anti-Republican
stickers you won't find anywhere else.
bumper stickers
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
