Why do we flat out reject CT's? [Conspiracy Theories]

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Telemark

That is true. However, it is a complete non-sequitor.

What do you think this statement demonstrates? That the presidents of major world powers have a lot of influence on world affairs?

That Barack Obama has more impact on world events than either François Hollande or Angela Merkel.

Originally Posted by Telemark

Unless you have something even slightly concrete to build upon you're just rambling about shadows.

Foundation X.

Originally Posted by Telemark

OK, can you name someone who has more impact than the POTUS today? Be specific, and define impact.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin are good candidates. Some people yesterday learned about Alan Turing and a few days ago probably couldn't have told you anything about him. What's on Google today matters. Not convinced? What about Mendax? You might know him better as Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks who released US diplomatic cables in 2010 and is currently seeking assylum. What happens to Julian Assange matters.

What someone on Wall Street does today matters. And they are very secretive on Wall Street. JP Morgan was famous for not having a name - only the street address - on his office building. Why would a company be so secretive as to only have the address on envelopes and letters? Still not convinced? Who controls Wall Street? Probably someone like Jullian Assange, Sergey Brin, or Larry Page. And who is above them?

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

That no one has more impact on world events than the President of the United States.

So? No other head of government or political leader does. No corporate CEO does. Not even the Pope does.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

That Barack Obama has more impact on world events than either François Hollande or Angela Merkel.

That is to be expected, and demonstrates nothing.

Foundation X.

Links to a Youtube video aren't evidence. Please sum up before I bother to watch anything, which I pretty much already know are just ramblings.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin are good candidates.

No, they are not. This is why no one takes this seriously. Wiki is a cool tool, but if it disappeared tomorrow very little would change in the world.

What happens to Julian Assange matters.

Not really, no it doesn't. He's a footnote to history.

Who controls Wall Street? Probably someone like Jullian Assange, Sergey Brin, or Larry Page. And who is above them?

Those guys don't control anything on Wall Street. That's patently absurd. Wall Street is controlled by the major corporations - we know who their owners and boards of directors are, they are accountable via various US and worldwide financial controls, and there's nothing mysterious.

So you have no proof, nothing that even rises to the level of a suggestive question. You have unsupported and easily refuted supposition. I'm not surprised since you whole premise has been smoke and mirrors.

There are no secret cabals controlling anything. You don't understand how world affairs work. Your world view is wrong.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Telemark

Links to a Youtube video aren't evidence. Please sum up before I bother to watch anything, which I pretty much already know are just ramblings.

Watch the YouTube video. It is under 10 minutes and the time spend watching it will aid in the discussion.

It's also in a Guardian article, which explains that a member of The House of Lords, speaking on a spending review, claims "he was asked by a leading FSA regulated institution to investigate a mysterious organisation that wanted to invest substantial sums into the UK's economic reconstruction" and that "he secured a meeting for representatives of Foundation X with the leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde".

So the chairman of a "very emminent City firm" informed Lord James of Blackheath of the request by Foundation X. Blackheath came to the conclusion that they are completely genuine and sincere. He explains that they seek the economic recovery of the global economy. He further explains that they are expecting only to be contacted by somebody "equal to head of state status or somebody who has an international security rating equal to the top six people in the world". Blackheath concludes: "These things can be done if wished but we have to have - a senior member of the government has to accept the invivation to a phone call to the chairman of the company concerned, Foundation X."

Originally Posted by Telemark

Not really, no it doesn't. He's a footnote to history.

History is written in, among other things, diplomatic cables.

Originally Posted by Telemark

Those guys don't control anything on Wall Street. That's patently absurd. Wall Street is controlled by the major corporations - we know who their owners and boards of directors are, they are accountable via various US and worldwide financial controls, and there's nothing mysterious.

What about The 2010 Flash Crash?

[tomndebb]

Kozmik, you have provided a long series of hand-waving posts that say nothing. When asked why you believe in this nonsense, you can do no better than to say that it is remotely possible.

This is not your blog to throw out nonsense for weeks at a time. Provide a serious, consistent, coherent thesis of what you believe is happening supported by actual evidence that your conclusions are more than simply a love of smoke and mirrors, or I am going to shut this thread down.

[ /Moderating ]

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Provide a serious, consistent, coherent thesis of what you believe is happening supported by actual evidence

Ok. In my next post I will.

In the meantime, could you please tell me what is wrong with citing a speech given by a member of The House of Lords in British Parliament.

[Cheshire Human]

Originally Posted by Andy L

I read an entertaining novel (title left out to limit spoilers, and because it's not relevant to this discussion) which dealt with these issues....

Was by Heinlein? Because if so, I know what one you're talking about, although I don't remember the title, but if not, I want to read that one.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

In the meantime, could you please tell me what is wrong with citing a speech given by a member of The House of Lords in British Parliament.

There is nothing wrong with citing a speech by anyone. Of course, since everyone named by Lord James has denied his claims regarding them and since his claims for gold bullion apparently exceed the actual total amount mined throughout history, (never mind that a great many countries such as the U.S. have their own stocks of bullion reserves that would reduce the possible amount available to his secret foundation), we might be free to dismiss his claims as those of a man possibly entering senility or being bamboozled by frauds. I note that his speech was delivered over 18 months ago and that nothing seems to have come of it.

At any rate, I made no objection to your citation of the speech, only noting that you have jumped from topic to topic without providing any context that would actually link any of your odd claims.

[Kozmik]

Evidence. Ok. However, in presenting my evidence, I want a reply from both Marley23 and tomndebb as to the validity of the evidence presented. I also want to thank Telemark and I look forward to his reply also.

Originally Posted by Telemark

You don't understand how world affairs work.

I understand how world affairs work. Conspiracy theories are the limits of my understanding of world affairs and politics.

Originally Posted by Telemark

Can you point to something that happened that can not be explained by the existing evidence and requires a secretive cabal to explain?

Yes. There was a meeting that was described in this speech given on the floor of British Parliament, 1 Nov 2010 : Column 1538.

I take heart at what was said near the end of the speech:

The noble Lord is into his fifteenth minute. I wonder whether he can draw his remarks to a conclusion.

So I will also draw my remarks to a conclusion.

A "strange organization", in the words of Lord James of Blackheath, wished to make a "great deal of money" available to assist the recovery of the UK economy. This strange organization was introduced to Blackheath by an eminent City of London firm and the chairman of this firm wanted to know whether Foundation X is legitimate. Blackheath goes to the Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, and he said to Blackheath, "Why you? You're not important enough to have the answer to a question like that." However, Blackheath believes that Foundation X is genuine and sincere and that "it directly wishes to make the United Kingdom one of the principal points that it will use to disseminate its extraordinarily great wealth into the world at this present moment, as part of an attempt to seek the recovery of the global economy".

Originally Posted by Lord James of Blackheath (evidence)

Then I brought one of the senior executives from Foundation X to meet my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.

Blackheath explains that they have an "amazing obsession with security" (sounds familiar) and that

Originally Posted by Lord James of Blackheath (evidence)

They expect to be contacted only by someone equal to head of state status or someone with an international security rating equal to the top six people in the world.

Serious question: What does that mean? Assume I know nothing about world affairs and politics.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Of course, since everyone named by Lord James has denied his claims regarding them

No:

Originally Posted by Lord James of Blackheath

My noble friend Lord Strathclyde came up with a very different argument. He said that this cannot be right because these people said at the meeting with him that they were still effectively on the gold standard from back in the 1920s and that their entire currency holdings throughout the world, which were very large, were backed by bullion. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde came back and said to me that he had an analyst working on it and that this had to be stuff and nonsense. He said that they had come up with a figure for the amount of bullion that would be needed to cover their currency reserves, as claimed, which would be more than the entire value of bullion that had ever been mined in the history of the world.

Now it turns on a question.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

and since his claims for gold bullion apparently exceed the actual total amount mined throughout history

This is getting into GQ terrority:

Originally Posted by Lord James of Blackheath

I am sorry but my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is wrong; his analysts are wrong. He had tapped into the sources that are available and there is only one definitive source for the amount of bullion that has ever been taken from the earth's crust. That was a National Geographic magazine article 12 years ago. Whatever figure it was that was quoted was then quoted again on six other sites on the internet-on Google. Everyone is quoting one original source; there is no other confirming authority. But if you tap into the Vatican accounts-of the Vatican bank-you come up with a claim of total bullion - The total value of the Vatican bank reserves would claim to be more than the entire value of gold ever mined in the history of the world.

What in what issue was the National Geographic article? Is Blackheath correct about everyone quoting one original source? And what about Blackheath's claim that the total value of the Vatican bank reserves would claim to be more than the entire value of gold ever mined in the history of the world?

Back to GD:

Originally Posted by Lord James of Blackheath

These things can be done, if wished, but a senior member of the Government has to accept the invitation to a phone call to the chairman of foundation X-and then we can get into business.

Again, serious question: What does this mean?

Is Foundation X legitimate?

What Blackheath said about the recovery of the global economy points to these being serious people. I admit my humble ignorance concerning the 2007 - 2012 global financial crisis.

Originally Posted by Stratocaster

I don't accept a fantastic assertion without evidence.

The 2007 - 2012 global financial crisis is nothing less than fantastic.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

There comes a time when you are digging yourself deeper that you should really stop digging.

Yes. Which is why I'm stopping my digging here. What will I find?

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Conspiracy theories are the limits of my understanding of world affairs and politics.

We figured that out many pages ago.

Originally Posted by Lord James

...you come up with a claim of total bullion

And that's putting it politely.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Jackmannii

We figured that out many pages ago.And that's putting it politely.

And it took me 8 pages to figure out:


Politics begins in wonder and ends in horror.

[GIGObuster]

I'm actually still more horrified for the Monty Python logic used to find those links.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Evidence. Ok. However, in presenting my evidence, I want a reply from both Marley23 and tomndebb as to the validity of the evidence presented.

Validity of what evidence?

You have one member of the House of Lords making a public speech that a secret organization approached him about bailing out the UK in order to solve the current world recession/depression.

He claims that they will only deal with heads of state, yet he is not a head of state or even a serious player in the UK government. If they actually existed and wanted to talk to the top guy, they should have been talking to Cameron, as Prime Minister, or, at least George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Or, if they really wanted to get things moving, they should have been approaching Obama or Secretary Clinton or Secretary Geithner.)

As to the current financial crisis, there is nothing to wonder about, there. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of economics understands how and why it happened. There is nothing magical about it and it did not take any shady maneuvering by unseen forces to bring it about. A lot of people wanted to make money and found ways to play games with investments. Some players were able to increase their wealth on paper, prompting more people/institutions to try to get in on the same game until they overextended and a market failure caused the whole house of cards to collapse. By and large, their actions were stupid but not illegal.
If the Illuminati caused the collapse, (they didn't), why would they try to fix it 18 months ago and then why did they not follow through?
If the Illuminati did not cause the collapse, then they were hardly all-seeing since they failed to see it coming and failed to take steps to prevent it.
(And, frankly, offering to save the world economy by giving money to the UK is rather dumb. It would have made much more sense, (for far less money), to prop up Ireland, Iceland, Greece, Italy, and Spain, thus giving breathing room to the US, UK, Germany, France, and Belgium who probably have the reserves to pull their own chestnuts out of the fire if they are not dragged down trying to help the failing national economies. And even more sense to simply inject some cash into the system to prevent the beginning of the collapse while "manipulating" the various spendthrift nations into more modest austerity measures six years ago when they could more easily afford them.)

So, your "evidence" is a single speech by a single member of a non-governing advisory board to the British government that has been followed by no action and your apparent lack of understanding regarding the current world economy troubles. From that you draw the conclusion that there is a body of unknown people controlling all the world governments without their knowledge who are, themslves, ruled or manipulated by an individual for whom there is not even a suggestion of evidence that he actually exists.

Your whole argument boils down to "something happened that I do not understand and I am going to pretend that a totally secret group about whom no one knows anything made it happen." That is not even a theory; it is more handwaving. It certainly provides no reason for anyone reading your posts to be persuded that you even understand what you are imagining.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

You have one member of the House of Lords making a public speech that a secret organization approached him about bailing out the UK in order to solve the current world recession/depression.

Yes.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

He claims that they will only deal with heads of state, yet he is not a head of state or even a serious player in the UK government.

Yes and

Originally Posted by Lord James of Blackheath

they did not exchange telephone numbers in order to follow up the meeting

and

Originally Posted by Lord James of Blackheath

They expect to be contacted only by someone equal to head of state status or someone with an international security rating equal to the top six people in the world.

and

Originally Posted by Lord James of Blackheath

These things can be done, if wished, but a senior member of the Government has to accept the invitation to a phone call to the chairman of Foundation X - and then we can get into business.

So they knew that Blackheath dealt with the finances of the IRA and a North African terrorist group. Blackheath facilitated a meeting with the Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, and a representative from Foundation X. Since no phone numbers were exchanged, it was Strathclyde's move. Then they would contact Strathcylde and then David Cameron would be invited to a phone call, which he could accept or decline and then, of course, David Cameron would be in discussion with the Queen, The President of the United States, reporters for The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

If the Illuminati caused the collapse, (they didn't), why would they try to fix it 18 months ago and then why did they not follow through?

They never got a phone call.

Originally Posted by tomndebb

If there is a body of unknown people controlling all the world governments without their knowledge who are, themslves, ruled or manipulated by an individual for whom there is not even a suggestion of evidence that he actually exists.

Which is why they had someone contact the chairman of a City of London firm to contact Lord James of Blackheath. Had they contacted David Cameron then they would not be controlling all the world governments without their knowledge of who they are.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Some people yesterday learned about Alan Turing and a few days ago probably couldn't have told you anything about him. What's on Google today matters.

Speaking of which, I didn't get to try all of the Turing machine puzzles, and I can't find a way to get at them again now that Google's dropped that particular doodle. Is there another copy stored somewhere?

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Speaking of which, I didn't get to try all of the Turing machine puzzles, and I can't find a way to get at them again now that Google's dropped that particular doodle. Is there another copy stored somewhere?

No, however there still is Google Pac-Man. Just Google it.

Google should have the ability to set the date and time and then search. So you'd be able to have functional doodles to play like the Turing machine puzzles. And then you'd be able to search what Google "knows" on a particular date and time. So what was on Googlle still matters.

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by Cheshire Human

Was by Heinlein? Because if so, I know what one you're talking about, although I don't remember the title, but if not, I want to read that one.

Not Heinlein. I'll PM you the title of the one I'm thinking of, if you'd like.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Yes. There was a meeting that was described in this speech given on the floor of British Parliament, 1 Nov 2010 : Column 1538.

Based on the evidence at hand, I find it unlikely that this meeting every took place, or if some meeting did take place it with someone trying to hoax or swindle Lord James. There's no evidence of a secret organization actually existing.

Serious question: What does that mean? Assume I know nothing about world affairs and politics.

It means there are a lot of gullible people in the world, and a fancy title doesn't make you immune.

And what about Blackheath's claim that the total value of the Vatican bank reserves would claim to be more than the entire value of gold ever mined in the history of the world?

He's wrong, and wildly so.

Is Foundation X legitimate?

No, clearly not.

The 2007 - 2012 global financial crisis is nothing less than fantastic.

Completely false. The causes are pretty well understood and the main actors motivations and actions have been documented. It's not the first major financial crisis and I doubt it will be the last.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Which is why they had someone contact the chairman of a City of London firm to contact Lord James of Blackheath. Had they contacted David Cameron then they would not be controlling all the world governments without their knowledge of who they are.

I'm sorry, but this is silly. Ultimately, there has to be contact. Ultimately, they have to make themselves, (or some representative), known to the head of state. You (or Lord James) claim that they said that they would take action if a phone call was placed.

Then, you say that these great controllers of all things did not act in the way that they apparently wanted to act because the did phone call did not occur. Are they idiots? Any 16 year old girl could have arranged to get invited to a dance by her secret crush with more ease than they managed to lose their big chance at contact with the UK government. And these guys are supposed to be the "real" rulers of the world?

You are inventing excuses for why your odd CT does not actually work and you have still not presented a single shred of evidence that there is any such group. You have pointed to no action or event in the last 227 years, (since the real Illuminati were really disbanded), that does not have real world antecedents and explanations that are not actually more believable than the odd Conspiracy Theory.

So I am back to my earlier question: what in the world would prompt you to believe this silliness? What is the point of pretending that there are "mysterious forces" that are manipulating the world when those "mysterious forces" are not able to do anything that is not already happening (and are, apparently, pretty incompetent at their own jobs)?

[Cheshire Human]

Originally Posted by Andy L

Not Heinlein. I'll PM you the title of the one I'm thinking of, if you'd like.

Sure. That would be great!

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by Cheshire Human

Sure. That would be great!

Done.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

Ultimately, they have to make themselves, (or some representative), known to the head of state. You (or Lord James) claim that they said that they would take action if a phone call was placed.

Ultimately, the head of state, David Cameron, has to make himself (publicly) known to them. One of their representatives contacted the chairman of a City of London firm and the chairman of the City of London firm, in turn, contacted Lord James of Blackheath. Blackheath faciliated a meeting between them and Lord Strathclyde, the Leader of the House of Lords. No telephone numbers were exchanged. They don't exchange telephone numbers. As they might say, "You can't contact us. We'll contact you." And so Lord James of Blackheath implored his peers saying, "These things can be done, if wished, but a senior member of the Government has to accept the invitation to a phone call to the chairman of Foundation X - and then we can get into business." Did you notice how nervous Blackheath sounded while giving his speech?

Suppose Strathclyde (who was not present for Blackheath's speech) followed with his own speech. The next day he would get a phone call...

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Did you notice how nervous Blackheath sounded while giving his speech?

You realize none of this is evidence, right? It's speculation and very poor speculation at that. Super powerful cabals that want to do something secretly wouldn't do so in such a piss poor, overly complex, unsecured, and ultimately public method. They would just do it.

If you start with the assumption that these extremely powerful, long lived, and secretive organizations exist then it naturally follows that they know how to achieve their goals better than these jokers. A third-grade recess discussion has more security than this mess.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Ultimately, the head of state, David Cameron, has to make himself (publicly) known to them.

So a sooper sekrit society is only going to act if a major politician comes out and publicly acknowledges that they exist, thus blowing their cover and making them no longer secret?

I am beginning to see how you can believe in CTs.
I still have seen no reason from you why you believe this nonsense.

[Sailboat]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Ultimately, the head of state, David Cameron, has to make himself (publicly) known to them.

Uh, the head of state, David Cameron, is known to you, to me, and to everyone else in this thread. Are you saying the secret rulers of the world couldn't just look up the UK government on Wikipedia, like any elementary-school child?

Or are you implying he had to acknowledge them in a speech before they'd deign to talk to him? What sense does that make -- they're too secretive to give out a phone number, even form a disposable prepaid cell phone, but they want their existence announced in a speech by a world leader? Makes no sense, none.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

Is it something psychological in us as Americans that don't want to see ourselves (and as an extension of ourselves, the goverment) as cheaters, no better than say the USSR, who were masters of propaganda and never told their people the truth?

There's propaganda for the people. You understand that. Then there's propaganda for the propagandists. Do you understand that?

Originally Posted by Stink Fish Pot

Well, what IS the truth?

What you know today.

Originally Posted by Telemark

There have always been powerful leaders and nations. There has never been any evidence for secretive, far reaching cabals that control world events for their own agenda.

You mean like François Hollande, Angela Merkel, and Vladimir Putin? Why do you believe that there is no evidence for secretive, far reaching cabals that control powerful leaders and nations?

Originally Posted by Telemark

Super powerful cabals that want to do something secretly wouldn't do so in such a piss poor, overly complex, unsecured, and ultimately public method. They would just do it.

What do you mean, "They would just do it."?

Originally Posted by tomndebb

So a sooper sekrit society is only going to act if a major politician comes out and publicly acknowledges that they exist

Well, a minor politican came out and publicly acknowleged that they exist.

Originally Posted by Sailboat

Or are you implying he had to acknowledge them in a speech before they'd deign to talk to him?

Not in a speech. More like in newspapers where it would be made public that "Foundation X" offered to bail out the UK and that David Cameron is "working" with "Foundation X" on disseminating their great wealth and funds toward the recovery of the economy. Of course, there would be plenty of anonoymous sources and, of course, one anonymous source would have an anonymous name - Foundation X.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

There's propaganda for the people. You understand that. Then there's propaganda for the propagandists. Do you understand that?

Like much in this thread, this makes no sense. Can you give an example of what you are talking about, because the vague descriptions you use are meaningless.

You mean like François Hollande, Angela Merkel, and Vladimir Putin? Why do you believe that there is no evidence for secretive, far reaching cabals that control powerful leaders and nations?

Are you claiming that the presidents of France, Germany, and Russia are somehow secret world leaders? They are democratically elected leaders of major countries, who engage in public diplomacy. How in any way possible does this bolster your case for secretive cabals controlling world leaders? Are you claiming that they are being controlled by others? If so, what evidence do you have of this? Because as far as anyone else can tell this is politics as usual.

What do you mean, "They would just do it."?

If these cabals were powerful as you claim, they would simply save the world economies. They shouldn't need a politician to publicly acknowledge them (in fact, it would seem to be counter productive for the whole "secret" thing). Since they hold all the cards they would just do what's in their best interest. The overly complex and counter productive plan that you presented makes no sense.

Not in a speech. More like in newspapers where it would be made public that "Foundation X" offered to bail out the UK and that David Cameron is "working" with "Foundation X" on disseminating their great wealth and funds toward the recovery of the economy. Of course, there would be plenty of anonoymous sources and, of course, one anonymous source would have an anonymous name - Foundation X.

Ah, yes, what better way to stay anonymous than to have major politicians acknowledge you in the media, with detailed descriptions of how you are going to save the economy. Do you even read what you are writing?

[grude]

Quite a lot of the details surrounding the "war on terror" stink of corruption, but the mundane variety not fantastical. You often get the feeling bias and boogymen in the public mind are being exploited by charlatans for profit.

BTW could I interest you gentlemen in some magic terrorist detectors?

http://www.geek.com/articles/news/ai...eless-2012037/

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Telemark

Like much in this thread, this makes no sense. Can you give an example of what you are talking about, because the vague descriptions you use are meaningless.

So that we don't talk past one another could you give an example of propaganda for the people and then I will give an example of propaganda for the propagandists. The OP made a good point about propaganda as it relates to conspiracy theories.

Originally Posted by Telemark

Are you claiming that they are being controlled by others? If so, what evidence do you have of this? Because as far as anyone else can tell this is politics as usual.

To use current examples, the Saudis and the Iranians are excluded from the Syria talks. In a New York Times editorial today, it was mentioned that: "Nearly four dozen "bundlers," or people who solicit checks from others, were invited to a state dinner for Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain; two were seated at the head table." There's also a photograph of the Queen shaking hands with Martin McGuinness. Oh, but don't be naive. As The New York Times reported, "A first private handshake took place without the cameras present." It could easily be imagined that there could be a private handshake without cameras present - without a second public handshake. Now, who do you suppose would be receiving (or giving) that handshake?

Originally Posted by Telemark

Ah, yes, what better way to stay anonymous than to have major politicians acknowledge you in the media, with detailed descriptions of how you are going to save the economy.

A private handshake without the cameras present - and no second handshake for the cameras.

[Jackmannii]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

Why do you believe that there is no evidence for secretive, far reaching cabals that control powerful leaders and nations?

If there was any such thing as "secretive, far reaching cabals" you wouldn't be posting about them - you'd have been eliminated or relocated to a secret Illuminati camp, without sunscreen.

So there.

[Telemark]

This thread, in a nutshell, is why we flat out reject CTs. They are full of random associations, nonsensical plots, vague but scary sounding accusations, and no evidence. You make no sense and expect us to disprove these strands of smoke.

State something clearly and make a simple, well reasoned accusation and we can talk. OK, the Queen of England (who has pretty much no political power) shook hands with an ex-IRA bad guy. This was done in public and created a lot of controversy. So what? Are you saying this is part of some conspiracy? By who? To what end? There's no point moving forward with anything here unless you can come up with a full, consistent, detailed description of some secret plot or plan, and can give at least a succinct description of why the actors in question are doing so. Unless you do that you will continue to be ridiculed or ignored.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Telemark

State something clearly and make a simple, well reasoned accusation and we can talk. OK, the Queen of England (who has pretty much no political power) shook hands with an ex-IRA bad guy. This was done in public and created a lot of controversy. So what? Are you saying this is part of some conspiracy? By who? To what end? There's no point moving forward with anything here unless you can come up with a full, consistent, detailed description of some secret plot or plan, and can give at least a succinct description of why the actors in question are doing so. Unless you do that you will continue to be ridiculed or ignored.

I would be ridiculed for believing that that is a photograph of the Queen meeting Martin McGuinness. I know what the "first private handshake" that took place without cameras present was about. As The New York Times explained, "What was said at that moment is not known."

Remember what Blackheath said about his dealings with the IRA in his speech? Blackheath did not deal with "Foundation X". As Blackheath stated, "These things can be done, if wished, but a senior member of the Government has to accept the invitation to a phone call to the chairman of Foundation X - and then we can get into business."

[Ace309]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

I know what the "first private handshake" that took place without cameras present was about. As The New York Times explained, "What was said at that moment is not known."

By all means enlighten us as to what is going on and why we should care.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Ace309

By all means enlighten us as to what is going on and why we should care.

That photograph of Obama, Karzai and Zardari? It was later admitted to be a "three-way photograph taking...just a photo opportunity."

How politics happens is quite different from how politics appears to happen.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

I would be ridiculed for believing that that is a photograph of the Queen meeting Martin McGuinness. I know what the "first private handshake" that took place without cameras present was about. As The New York Times explained, "What was said at that moment is not known."

What does this have to do with any plot or plan? What was the first private handshake that took place without cameras present about? How do you know about the meeting? What evidence is there that such a meeting ever took place? Why do you doubt the photograph?

To be blunt, you are throwing shit against a wall and hoping that some of it sticks. But there's no wall, and you're just getting covered with shit.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

That photograph of Obama, Karzai and Zardari? It was later admitted to be a "three-way photograph taking...just a photo opportunity."

How politics happens is quite different from how politics appears to happen.

More shit being thrown at the wall - stick with one topic. The question is what is going on with the Queen and Martin McGuinness and what does it mean?

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by Telemark

More shit being thrown at the wall - stick with one topic. The question is what is going on with the Queen and Martin McGuinness and what does it mean?

How the hell should I know? I wasn't there, and neither was the reporter Alan Cowell, who wrote, "What was said at that moment is not known."

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

That photograph of Obama, Karzai and Zardari? It was later admitted to be a "three-way photograph taking...just a photo opportunity."

So wait - the photo with the Queen showed an evil conspiracy because there was another meeting besides the one in the photo, which wasn't public. But this photo is about an evil conspiracy because there wasn't a separate meeting where they had talks (and Zadari was pissed about that).

I guess any photo of two world leaders together indicates a conspiracy - sometimes because there was another time they met, and sometimes because there wasn't another time they met.

Got it.

[FixMyIgnorance]

Kozmik: Again, you keep dodging the most important point.

Conspiracy theories get rejected because they have no evidence. Now, conspiracy theorists will disagree and say "Oh, but here's my evidence! Look!" only to provide circumstantial tidbits of information that could be interpreted in a countless number of ways. The evidence isn't proof of what you're arguing for -- it's just stuff . Humans are pattern-recognition machines, but sometimes if you look too hard at something, you're going to create meaning where meaning does not exist.

There's a difference between "The retrograde motion of Mars is evidence of a heliocentric model of our solar system" versus "This politician's furtive glance is evidence of an underground secret cabal."

The former is evidence that can be substantiated through countless other frameworks. It's consistent with all other evidence. It explains things that cannot be explained without it. It's predictive, even.

The latter? It may not be provably false, and it may even be consistent -- but it's not substantiated. It adds no new information and isn't required by anything as an explanation. Any number of explanations could be swapped in its place. Is the furtive glance evidence of a cabal? Santa? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? When there's no corresponding framework, anything goes.

Your arguments are pretty much full of the latter. Like it was just said, you're just throwing a bunch of shit against the wall. Completely silly evidence that supports your hypothesis -- no matter how tenuous -- is proof, but actual explanations that have corroborating evidence and consistent frameworks? Well, that's just a conspiracy! Do you not understand that there are problems regarding the truth value of things when you start bastardizing the merits of evidence?

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by CurtC

there was another meeting besides the one in the photo, which wasn't public.

The average person would not understand that and I admit that when I was in high school I would not have either.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

How the hell should I know? I wasn't there, and neither was the reporter Alan Cowell, who wrote, "What was said at that moment is not known."

First, there's no evidence of any other meeting. And second, you brought the photo up as evidence of something. We have no idea what you think it's evidence of so there's nothing to comment on. I could post a photo of a dog wearing a sailor outfit and say it's evidence of a conspiracy and it would have the same validity as what you are doing here.

What do you think the photo of the Queen and McGuinness is evidence of? What dots are you trying to connect? Again, if you have already concluded that conspiracies exist then everything is evidence of something. Unfortunately, for those of us in the real world, you actually need to state a premise and then support it with actual data.

[Telemark]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

The average person would not understand that and I admit that when I was in high school I would not have either.

I question your assessment of "average". Your understanding of "evidence" is clearly lacking.

[CurtC]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

The average person would not understand that and I admit that when I was in high school I would not have either.

What do you mean you wouldn't have understood it? The New York Times explicitly said so. You quoted them saying "A first private handshake took place without the cameras present."

So when you were in high school you didn't understand plain English?

[Dissonance]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

I know what the "first private handshake" that took place without cameras present was about. As The New York Times explained, "What was said at that moment is not known."

Originally Posted by Ace309

By all means enlighten us as to what is going on and why we should care.

Originally Posted by Kozmik

How the hell should I know? I wasn't there, and neither was the reporter Alan Cowell, who wrote, "What was said at that moment is not known."

Cocaine is a hell of a drug.

[Lute Skywatcher]

Am I mistaken or is Kozmik channeling ivan astikov?

[Ace309]

Originally Posted by Kozmik

That photograph of Obama, Karzai and Zardari? It was later admitted to be a "three-way photograph taking...just a photo opportunity."

How politics happens is quite different from how politics appears to happen.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand how this relates to the question I asked. Could you please try to explain a bit more clearly? Assume I don't know anything about politics and please tell me what the "first private handshake" was about, and why it was important.

[tomndebb]

Six pages of this fluff is enough.

Kozmik, you have certainly demonstrated why we routinely flat out reject Conspiacy Theories, for which we thank you. You have provided handwaving, smoke and mirrors, broad accusations of plots to accomplish nothing, and allusions to random events that you portray as having sinister motives without identifying what could possibly be the intent of the actors. What you have not provided is an actual, coherent argument to explain why anyone should care about your fantasies and have even resolutely refused to explain why you care about such fantasies. This is not a debate.

Since you are the only one holding out support for CTs and you refuse to engage in actual debate, I am closing this thread.