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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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?
The average person would not understand that and I admit that when I was in high school I would not have either.
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.
I question your assessment of “average”. Your understanding of “evidence” is clearly lacking.
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?
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Am I mistaken or is Kozmik channeling ivan astikov?
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.
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.