No it is not.
It is like you sitting with a group in the morning and saying, “Bloomberg endorsed Obama. Thats why Hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey.” And they say, “What the fuck are you talking about?” And you got nothing else.
Argo was a really enjoyable movie. It is based on a true story, but I read some accounts of how the State Department employees were smuggled out of Iran that were at odds with some aspects of the movie. Like at the end, the Iranian secret police are chasing a Swiss Air 747 down the runway because they just discovered that Americans were on board, but that never really happened. Nonetheless, it was a great story and I was really impressed by the acting. I also like that it presented a spy mission in a more realistic way than what you see in James Bond and Jason Bourne movies. Those are exciting and enjoyable, but there’s something more gripping about a spy story that isn’t about running gun battles on a hydrofoil going 80mph on the Bosphorus.
So to summarize my position on what you said: more Argo, less Goldeneye.
If someone is going to respond to straightforward questions about why anyone powerful would take orders from unnamed people for unexplained reasons with tangents and nonsense, I’ll respond to allegations of CIA murder plots with tangents about spy movies.
Frank Olson committed suicide in 1953. The facts surrounding his suicide and his semi-unwitting participation in early CIA experiments with LSD are well known and not in dispute by the CIA or anyone else. They cast the CIA in a poor light, but are not evidence for any sort of grand over-arching conspiracy. I can think of several much more controversial things the CIA has been involved with right off the top of my head. They don’t prove your conspiracy theories either, and neither does the fact that his sons are just now filing a lawsuit.
This is what** Loach** calls your “yada yada yada” style of reasoning. “in the 1950’s the CIA was involved in controversial research into psychotropic drugs, yada yada yada, therefore Illuminati.”
Thanks for the opportunity to get some questions answered.
-
What’s up with the whole Petraus thing that’s in the news?
-
Does the CIA, the Illuminati, or any other powerful secretive group have a particular interest in you?
-
Do you vote?
-
Do you ever hear or see things that other people around you claim that they cannot hear or see?
-
Do you have supplies that you keep in case you need to flee a natural or man-made disaster?
-
Are you a tax protestor?
-
What are TPTB trying to accomplish by decriminalizing marijuana?
-
Do you own a firearm(s)?
-
Is the rise of evangelical Christianity part of the big plan or is it a power play by the church against the Illuminati or whoever?
-
When you were in school, did the instructors dislike or mistreat you because you challenged their establishment teachings?
-
Do you ever feel an urge to hurt yourself or other people?
-
Was the introduction of crack cocaine a deliberate plot by TPTB?
-
Were the Clinton’s involved in Vince Foster’s murder?
-
Do the police or other people with power hassle you?
-
What’s really going on with the census? What about that supplemental survey they send out at the same time?
-
Are companies like Google or Exxon or Monsanto part of the secret power structure, or are they pawns like the rest of us?
-
Have you ever been followed by people you didn’t know? Did you confront them?
-
Why did TPTB introduce and popularize “zombie” scenarios in movies/books/etc. in the last few years?
-
Vaccines. All bad or just some of them?
-
Is there technology to “read people’s minds”? Has it ever happened to you?
That’s all for now!
Kozmik, have you read the linked article? Do you believe that in that article, the New York Times asserts that Frank Olson was murdered by the CIA? Do you believe that article provides convincing evidence that Frank Olson was murdered by the CIA?
You mean there’s a difference between “the family believes the CIA is criminally responsible for his death” and “CIA goon squad members pushed him out the window”?
What remedy do you propose to deal with the grand conspiracy?
If you can’t beat em join em?
If more people can be persuaded to recognize the hidden powers that control us, we can vastly increase the number of message board conspiracy postings.
No, not necessarily because of not doing what they say. In Frank Olson’s case, it was because of what he uncovered.
The New York Times is trustworthy because CNN is trustworthy.
Next you might ask: Why is CNN trustworthy? Bear with me. What was printed in The New York Times on September 12, 2001 was live on CNN on September 11, 2001 and what was live on CNN on September 11, 2001 is ultimately trustworthy (unless, of course, you want to question reality or, alternatively, you want to subject it to conspiracy theory).
This cover of People magazine sums it up.
No, not that I know of.
Yes.
No, not to my knowledge.
No.
No.
I don’t know.
No.
Probably the latter.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Probably.
Except for checking out a “suspicious vehicle” one morning on my way to work, no.
I don’t know. Haven’t heard about the supplemental survey.
Pawns. From the Novemeber 28, 2012 New York Times article, Integrity of Internet Is Crux of Global Conference:
No, not that I know of.
The TPTB did not introduce “zombie” scenarios in movies/books/ect. Not everything is directly related to conspiracy theory (though, it is tangentially related).
Some.
Yes. No.
Yes, I have read the article and I have read the headline of the article. The headline states that the C.I.A. drugged Frank Olson. I believe that. In the article, it says that “the Olsons came to believe that he had been murdered to keep him from talking about disturbing C.I.A. operations that he uncovered”. I believe that. I believe that in the article, the Olson family asserts that Frank Olson was murdered by the CIA. I believe that the article provides convincing evidence that Frank Olson was murdered by the CIA and the convincing evidence is that Frank Olson was drugged by the CIA.
Fighting ignorance.
Whose?
By this reasoning, all trust is unconditional, every news outlet that has ever broadcast live video is always trustworthy, and every news outlet that makes a reference to live video that was broadcast somewhere is is always trustworthy. Believe everything you read.
Cool. I thank you for your candor, it’s normally very difficult to get people to discuss these kinds of things openly.
Also, despite my typo in #14, I do know the difference between plural and possesive and the correct use of apostrophes.
A couple more:
-
Are all voice communications being monitored/recorded in order to scan for keywords? The technology exists, but is anyone bothering to do it?
-
Why are they allowing global climate change to occur? Clearly, a variety of different methods could be used to stop or reverse it, ranging from changes in land use and fuel type, all the way up to selective depopulation or orbital weather control. Is there a plan to let things get much worse, then step in as some sort of “white knight” to save humanity?
-
The supression of Tesla’s most world-changing works? Was that done by TPTB or was it just dirty tricks style competiton by Edison et al.?
More typos. The first question mark in #3 was unnecessary.
You are doing it wrong.
If you really wanted to fight ignorance you would offer some kind of proof. The sad part is that I think you believe you are. But other than the posts you purposely ignore, when you offer proof the cites you give never actually say what you think they do. That is when you are not acting coy and/or cryptic.
I wasn’t trying to be literal here, but I think I may have literally been right. A lot of TV stations broadcast live footage of September 11th - I am sure all the major ones did - and every newspaper reported on it the next day. So they should all be trustworthy.
How do you distinguish between things TPTB are controlling and things that happen either by chance or by other actors?
So, in addition to Marley’s excellent point, you’re saying that the Times printed exactly one piece of news that you were able to confirm was real, although in the same breath you point out that it would be simple to believe it wasn’t real, and therefore everything they print is true.
Do you genuinely believe this to be a good argument? Do you not see any holes in that logic at all? Those are real questions. Please answer them.
Yours, mine, and everyone else’s.
An excellent point, by Smeghead’s own admission, that I will address in answering his questions.
Yes. Look up something called Total Information Awareness.
Global climate change is allowed to occur probably for the simple reason that once the people commonly accept that man effects the climate then it will be a short step for the people to accept that the climate can be deliberately effected. The power that a “Ministry of Meteorology” could wield would be unprecedented, controlling the populations of South America, Africa, Asia - the entire world.
Probably the latter.
Even though TPTB controls the entertainment industry that does not mean that everything in the entertainment industry is directly related to TPTB. Some things can be chalked up to pop culture phenomeon.
No, I am not saying that the Times printed exactly one piece of news that I were able to confirm was real. I am saying that, theoretically, every piece of news in *The New York Times * can be ultimately derived from CNN. For example, on November 29, 2012 CNN had a White House correspondent reporting live on the Obama/Romney White House lunch and in the November 30, 2012 New York Times there is an article on the Obama/Romney White House lunch.
I do believe that this is a good argument. I do not see any holes in that logic.
Live on CNN today; published in The New York Times tomorrow.
Assuming that is true, what characteristics do you use to determine which is which? It’s not enough to say they’re different, you must have some way to distinguish them.