Forbidden Knowledge (Why I feel the moon landing was a hoax!) (4213 hits)
Category: Science & EnvironmentalLabels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary ets_essays
Rating: 0.05 on 220 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-07-03 21:13:33 EDT
Thank you for clicking on this post. This post contains important information and I humbly ask you to indulge me a bit of your time today so that you might find some measure of understanding of what it is we're dealing with as members of this global society here in the 21st Century.
You, dear reader, are about to embark on a dark journey into the seedy world of psychological warfare, where nothing is what it seems and the control of information, perception, and attitudes is the name of the game. I promise you, if you make it to the end of this post, you will have a deeper understanding of the ways in which the powers that be control this planet and the people on it. These 'people' of which I speak exist in the highest echelons of society and play a game of global chess using the minds and emotions of men as pawns.
Their methods are not new... They have been carefully laid out over thousands of years by the brightest philosophical minds in history and have been used by everyone from the winner of this year's Poker Championship, to the advertising firms that feed our insatiable desire for commercial goods, to the great generals in history.
But I am going to need your full cooperation in this experiment for it to work... In order to do this properly and to understand the full scope of what I'm about to share with you, I will need you to follow my instructions to the letter. I will need you to read what I ask you to read (I promise it won't be much), and I will need you to watch the videos I ask you to look at, refraining from the urge to skip ahead or skim over the post. In other words, please read follow along all the way through so you don't get lost.
Are you ready?
Ok, let's get started...
This post is going to be about the Apollo missions and how they were completely faked by the United States government in a multi-faceted attempt to: a) save (or steal) NASA funds; b) to beat the Russians to the moon; c) to fan nationalistic sentiment during a waning Vietnam War campaign; d) to fulfill Kennedy's call for a moon landing by the end of the decade.
First, I'd like you to watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=landed+moon+fox (45 min.)
While talking to others about this blatant lie by our federal government I get one common response I get is: "It would have taken more technology to fake it, then really go."
Let's address that statement first...
Look up what's called the Van Allen radiation belt. How did the astronauts pass through it without getting radiation poisoning? I've seen and heard a lot of talking heads telling us how the planners accounted for the exposure and planned accordingly by shielding the module and passing through the thinnest parts of the Van Allen Belt, but where can you find specific scientific results giving us data that shows how the shielding they used could have protected the astronauts from the intense radiation? Even astronauts orbiting in low orbit in the shuttle, a mere 250 - 350 miles above the earth have experienced radiation levels from which their bodies took days to recover from and have said that when they closed their eyes, they could actually SEE the electrons hitting their eyes! ...and they were still 700 miles from where the radiation belt really begins!
# The Federal limit for exposure to US workers is 5 REM/year
(10CFR835). Did NASA's Apollo astronauts get special permission to
exceed this limit for the Apollo missions? 25 Rad = 25 REM. Their
travel through the Van Allen Belts and the amount of time they spent
outside the Belts would have given them doses far beyond this limit.
# NASA has never directly addressed how the Apollo astronauts were
shielded. Lead is the only effective shielding (which was not used
during these missions). The radiation levels outside the Van Allen
Belt far exceed the 200-300 RADs inside the belts. Again how were they
shielded? Regardless, their doses would at least have made them sick
from radiation exposure to skin and organs even if it didn't kill
them. None of them suffered any ill effects.
# Apollo astronauts were not protected from solar flares which
were at their worst during this period. There is no way that the dose
reports from the missions are accurate.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9812/08/radiation.belts/
Then there is the shadow argument. The shadows clearly suggest many different light sources. The crosshair markers on the photographs - markers that were supposedly on the lens of the camera - are partially covered over by objects in the frames, proving those objects are the product of photographic manipulation. If you have ever used Photoshop, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
As for the flag waving, if you watch it closely, there are certain movements that can, of course, be caused by the astronaut moving the pole and the inertia of the flag's mass, but it cannot explain ALL movements of the flag. You have to watch it with me sometime and I'll point them out to you.
The most compelling evidence of all are the photographs themselves and the shadows of the objects in the frames. By their own admission, NASA did not use any additional light sources to produce the photos. There is simply NO WAY one should be able to read the name "United States of America" on the lander when that portion of the photo was on the
shadow side opposite the sun.
Also, there is the perplexing problem of no thrust crater under the lunar lander. It's like it was placed there by a crane.
The remainder of my presented evidence would be the Operation Northwoods document wherein we see the U.S. government's willingness to lie to its own people, even killing innocent civilians, if it meant going to war or combating communism in some way.
Then there was the NASA official who was going to testify before Congress in 1967 about how the program was in complete disarray, and had even written a 500 page document detailing his findings about the Apollo program and NASA misconduct, but was killed along with his entire family when his car was HIT BY A TRAIN! Coincidentally, his report was neither presented to Congress nor even FOUND. Poof...vanished.
If we really went to the moon and left pieces of the landers from all 6 missions and flags and footprints and rovers, (how was that vehicle powered again? internal combustion?), then why have we not seen fit to take a single nostalgic photograph of the area through the lens of the Hubble Space Telescope, which can see so far into space that we're looking at how the universe appeared in its infancy?
What am I missing here? OH! There are also outtake videos that exist (though not in that particular documentary) of the astronauts placing filters over the window of the craft that would make the earth appear to be further away than it actually was.
If you speed up the original footage 2X, you'll see the astronauts no longer appearing to float around from step to step, but instead they appear to be running around in earth-like gravity. This is, of course, to be expected even if the landing was real, but it speaks to how the fake was created.
Now at this point in the post you have done one of a few possible things:
a) you have followed along, consuming both the video and my commentary and are convinced the moon landing was a hoax,
b) you skipped the video and read or skimmed my commentary and might be curious to know more, but probably remain skeptical,
c) you immediately began constructing your rebuttal in another window using websites like these - www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
(The http was removed to prevent the links from turning into hyperlinks and providing a skipping point for the wandering eye. If you're going to skip parts, I'll have you skip to the end, thank you)
d) none of the above
The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what you've done until now, because even if you left this post completely and ignored it, you'd still be doing exactly what I wanted you to do.
Allow me to explain... Every bit of what I just said was a complete and utter LIE! Well, maybe not a lie, persay, but I have no idea or interest in the whether the Apollo landing was fake. In reality, all I care about is whether it elicited in you, the reader, a strong reaction either way. What's paramount is that you do one of two things here. By making my case (i.e. Fox and Rupert Murdoch's case) I am encouraging and conditioning you to develop a strong initial reaction to conspiracy-related material in general. It could have been about the Kennedy Assassination or whether or not we had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor or whether aliens inhabit the bodies of our world leaders; it simply doesn't matter in this particular case, because the whole thing has been designed to both discredit the 'conspiracy nut' in the eyes of the skeptic and to make the 'conspiracy nut' take the side of a 'straw man' argument, thus discrediting himself TO himself when it's later refuted.
A straw man argument is a basic misrepresentation of an opponent's position for the purpose of easy refute. Say for instance I want to discredit your powers of judgment of character... I might act like I'm your close personal friend and then suddenly slap the waitress at dinner and generally act a fool, discrediting you by proxy and embarrassing you in front of everyone. No matter how hard you try, it's going to be difficult to gather together all the people who saw the incident and explain to them without skepticism that you don't even KNOW me.
You can think of a straw man as a very weak devil's advocate...kinda like Alan Combs, the 'leftist' commentator on the propaganda powerhouse 'Hannity and Combs'. He is repeatedly pummeled like a Mexican hooker on all sides by both guests and his Republican counterpart, and it's nothing short of genius. By becoming the whipping boy or straw man, the ignorant masses at home, who haven't the slightest inkling of the real complexities of the issue can pat themselves on the back because, hell, their side won again!
All this has a very interesting and subtle effect and is indispensable in any psychological bag of tricks. If someone perceives another person to be taking an easily refutable position, any future claims he might make about anything, whether worth investigation or not, will be instantly rejected by most: (i.e. "This coming from the same guy who thinks the moon is made of cheese." Or, "from the guy who is FRIENDS with the guy who thinks the moon is made of cheese." OR..."The guy the fixes the drain pipes of the guy who thinks that the moon is made of cheese." Whatever.)
If, on the other hand, a true believer of the conspiracy later finds that he was entirely wrong in his conclusion, he will become his own worst critic, and will refuse to listen to any and all future conspiracy theories because, in the immortal words of The Who and George W. Bush, he "won't get fooled again". He will recall the sting of having been made the fool once and will be reluctant to open himself to further criticism.
It is also worth pointing out the power of titles in a work of manipulation. For instance, by referencing the moon landing in the title of this post, I gave you what you thought was foreknowledge of what the post would really be about, so even if when I asked you kindly not to skip ahead, I knew that even if you did, you would still be serving my purpose by doing so, in effect serving my real agenda.
The power of a straw man argument cannot and should not ever be underestimated. Just as red, blue, and yellow are primary colors, the straw man is a primary tool of the psy-ops (psychological operations) specialist, and it cannot be fully understood outside the larger context of Hegelian synthesis and absolute knowledge.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 - November 14, 1831) was a philosopher who postulated that all knowledge is composed of a thesis and an antithesis. These forces, like our modern notions of 'left' and 'right', 'conservative' and 'liberal', or even 'god' and 'devil' cannot be fully understood unless viewed in the context of how they interact with each other. To Hegel, this was the path of absolute knowledge. The two sides taken separately were doomed to internal contradictions and self-negations as a natural law, but taken together they would form a synthesis that would serve as the basis for enlightened knowledge. If one could understand or even manipulate the way in which these opposing forces acted on one another, that person could achieve a sort of god-like status.
The Fox Network headed by Rupert Murdoch along with the other major networks around the world are successful in what they do for this very reason, as are the major advertising firms that create the artificial needs upon which our economy and very ways of life are built. It is not difficult to imagine how one person - or a handful of persons or families all with a common vision and enough wealth and connections - to seize control of this synthesis for their own political, personal, or spiritual ends.
It is likewise not difficult to imagine the possibility that if someone is indeed controlling all sets of information on both sides of the Hegelian fence, they might find it useful to issue a straw man argument such as the video at the top of this post to help develop a general public distaste for conspiracy theories in February of 2001 before the far more important and REAL conspiracy of 9/11 hit later that year. After all, if you control the information, you control thought...for what is thought if not the function of interacting and contradicting facts? And what are humans if not an endless string of evolving and susceptible thoughts?
Thanks for reading, I hope you forgive the next paragraph, which I have placed there for what should be obvious reasons my now...that is, if you've read the whole post. ;)
Why would the CIA and NASA lie to the American public, even going so far as to endanger and kill their own astronauts in the process???
User Reviews
Submitted by tloshjohnson (user info) at 2008-06-11 05:46:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
This here is quality stuff
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-08-13 19:30:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
So ALL the manned missions are faked?
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-07 20:09:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Rad, I do it all the time.
And I made shit about 90K, too, thankyasomuch.
Submitted by FunnyAsCancer (user info) at 2006-07-07 07:03:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wow. I found this, expecting the 200+ reviews to be about him wasting post 90K on an ETS rant...
And only Steve mentioned it at all.
WEEEEEIRD.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2006-07-07 03:47:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-07-07 03:01:55 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-06 16:42:58 (#)
Ranking: -2
C'MON, MAKE THE WHACK JOB BLOW HIS TOP DAMNIT!
DON'T MAKE ME DO IT MYSELF!
===
...he says, hunched double, frantically masturbating his still flacid cock.
========================
I've actually done that.
fuck you.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-07-07 03:01:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-06 16:42:58 (#)
Ranking: -2
C'MON, MAKE THE WHACK JOB BLOW HIS TOP DAMNIT!
DON'T MAKE ME DO IT MYSELF!
===
...he says, hunched double, frantically masturbating his still flacid cock.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-07 00:23:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836&
HOLY SHIT!
MAN USES CHICKEN WIRE AND KEROSENE AND NEWSPAPER AND A CINDER BLOCK TO REFUTE THE GOVERNMENT STANCE OF THE WTC FALLING BECAUSE OF JET FUEL BURNING!
BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW KEROSENE IS EXACTLY LIKE JET FUEL IN EVERY WAY, AND A CINDER BLOCK OVER CHICKEN WIRE IS THE EXACT DESIGN OF THE TRADE CENTER AND EVERYTHING IN THE TRADE CENTER WAS MADE OF NEWSPAPER SO OH MY GOD DAMNED GOD THIS GUY HAS TO BE RIGHT BECAUSE HE MADE A SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT THAT PROVED NOTHING YET HAS PICTURES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ATTICA!
ATTICA!
I BET THIS GUY DOESN'T PAY HIS FEDERAL TAXES EITHER, SO BRAD AND HIM CAN SHARE A CELL IN GITMO AND BE PERSECUTED BECAUSE HE DOESN'T DRINK THE FLOURIDATED WATER!!!!!!!!!!
*sigh*
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-07-06 21:57:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/90000#2050256 -- this should be on the next 'pwned montage'...
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-07-06 17:38:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
whoops.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-07-06 17:38:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
holy shit! people can see electrons now?!?!!? WITH THEIR EYES CLOSED?!?!?!?!? OMG THAT'S LIEK TOTALLY FUCKING AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-06 16:52:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Looks like you're the one losing it, Jay. Take a Xanax or something
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-06 16:42:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You all are just not trying...
At 200 plus reviews, Brad used to be threatening people's lives with high powered rifles and shit.
C'MON, MAKE THE WHACK JOB BLOW HIS TOP DAMNIT!
DON'T MAKE ME DO IT MYSELF!
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-07-06 14:37:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 21:59:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, I see now why you think what you're thinking, but let me spell this out for you with some examples...
[ . . . ] Let's see...ABC, NBC...get the picture? No? Not yet? Ok, how about this... NBC is owned by GE, which is one of the nation's top 10 defence contractors. Still don't see the connection?
----
So what? If you trace my family line back far enough, I'm betting you could connect me with the freemasons, the druids, and the knights templar (and any number of shaman on my NA side.) Does that connection imply that I'm privy to eldritch secrets that have been passed along my family line? No. Basic scientific method, Bradly; correlation does imply causation, and it certainly doesn't imply the kind of massive conspiracy/coverup you're talking about.
Ok, let's look at my local rock radio station, 103.1 GBF, which my music has appeared on. They are owned by a local company called Regent Communication which in turn is owned by Clear Channel, who also happens to own, among the 6 or 7 other stations in the local area, WGBF-AM which features the following talk radio/propaganda lineup:
"Dave Ramsey's" money and life advice from 6am-8am,
Warren Korff's local "AM Magazine" from 8-9am,
"Laura Ingraham's" political talk from 9-11am,
"Rush Limbaugh" from 11am-2pm,
"Sean Hannity's" conservative talk 2-5pm,
"Dave Ramsey" again from 5-6pm,
"Michael Savage's" ultra conservative talk from 6-9pm,
"George Noory's Coast To Coast AM" from 9pm to 5am.
---
In general I root for the liberals, but you have to be unbiased. Clear Channel also owns KTLK LA, which features Al Franken from 9 AM to Noon, WINZ FL that runs Al Franken and the Majority Report... I'm not even going to go on, because this like saying that CCC is part of a trailer trash plot because their TV Networks run the Springer Show. They broadcast these programs because people want to watch them. If it is profitable to cater to various platforms or demographics, they will do so. Once again, there is no verifiable connection.
Is this starting to make sense to you?
---
There's circumstantial evidence, there are some what-if's, and there's a lot of speculation. Which of these do you want me to make 'sense' of? I mean if we can assume that the government is capable of launching a conspiracy of this magnitude, what's to stop them from messing with all the 'indie' (spell that tabloid) news sites you cite? What would stop them from getting to YOU?
It's Cotton Mather logic, Bradley.
Watergate is one example of an 800lb. gorilla that, in my opinion, the men who put Mr. Nixon in office were no longer willing to maintain and felt he was too destructive to their ends. He became a liability, so instead of another messy assassination, they took forced him to resign. I'm not an expert on Watergate, so I don't know all the specifics of how the story broke, but I assure you, it was because someone allowed it to break.
----------
Assure me? How can you assure me of anything, Bradley? As you said yourself, you're not an expert on Watergate. You don't know. You don't have a single fact to point to.
The thing is, even if a story gets local press for 15 minutes, if the home office (national office) wants the story shut down, it will be.
----
OK, so one newspaper, one editor who's in line with one reporter, goes rogue and decides to publish some evidence they found tying Bush to 9/11. That's just going to be swept under the rug? They're just going to shut it down? Have the issue pulled and replace with, what, a Ziggy comic strip? It doesn't work that way, Bradley. We live in the information age, and that shit would explode all over the internet without hours, and we live in an age of greed, where every news station would be all over it, each looking to drag a politician into the mire to make a couple bucks.
You want a country where your scenario would work? Try North Korea. Try a country that's been succesful in censoring their press.
For instance, did you know that local news in Oklahoma City carried a bevy of reports of a second and a THIRD bomb recovered at the Federal Building? Do you ever remember hearing about this in national news AT ALL? Look it up, dude. You can even find footage, I'm sure. This is but one small example.
---
So what? My news station covered a report of a kitten that got stuck in a tree. It wasn't carried to national news because (gasp) no one cares. In general, they'd rather hear more about Angelina Jolie and her drooling crotch fruit than "NEWS FLASH: FEDERAL BUILDING DID NOT BLOW UP."
I hope this clarifies things a little, and you can at least see I have a case here and am not just spouting out my ass.
---
Here's the thing; I think you're intelligent, and that you mean well. You almost remind me of St Augustine in that you are so intelligent that your arguments perpetuate themselves. You have faith in these conspiracies, and that faith is enough to propagate belief in spite of proof -- it is stronger in fact because it exists WITHOUT proof; things that can be validated by our senses, after all our easy to believe in and understand. These theories of yours are considerably harder.
You can believe in these theories all you want. Far be it from me to stop you. Just don't get so bent out of shape when people point out the obvious --it's not good for your blood pressure.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-06 11:57:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 21:59:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Watergate is one example of an 800lb. gorilla that, in my opinion, the men who put Mr. Nixon in office were no longer willing to maintain and felt he was too destructive to their ends. He became a liability, so instead of another messy assassination, they took forced him to resign. I'm not an expert on Watergate, so I don't know all the specifics of how the story broke, but I assure you, it was because someone allowed it to break.
The thing is, even if a story gets local press for 15 minutes, if the home office (national office) wants the story shut down, it will be. For instance, did you know that local news in Oklahoma City carried a bevy of reports of a second and a THIRD bomb recovered at the Federal Building? Do you ever remember hearing about this in national news AT ALL? Look it up, dude. You can even find footage, I'm sure. This is but one small example.
I hope this clarifies things a little, and you can at least see I have a case here and am not just spouting out my ass.
---------------------------------------------------------
That almost sounded like a reasonable argument, you been taking your pills or did you leave the basement for a few minutes?
Unfortunately it is still bullshit.
You are still ignoring the fact that there would be literally thousands of reporters and hundreds of editors that were being told to bury there stories against their will. You don't think this would come up? You don't think a single reputable reporter or editor would come out and condemn their being silenced?
As far as the OK city bombing what makes more sense (and I haven't looked into it other than google, but I only see it tied with conspiracy theory websites) some local cop hears a rumor
passes it to a reporter who runs with a story that turns out to be BS so they drop it. Or some secret shadowy association of news moguls, bankers and colonel sanders for some unknown reason don't want more bombs discovered?
Use your head.
Your theories don't stand up to common sense, reason, or the facts. Same with 9/11, hundreds if not thousands of people woiuld have to be in on the conspiracy that some shadowy orginization is behind (when it could have been done with more conventional means much easier) or terrorists got creative.
Submitted by MyNameIsTim (user info) at 2006-07-06 09:31:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
what about all the other manned space missions? were they all faked too?
Submitted by hollygolitely (user info) at 2006-07-05 22:56:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 22:30:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-07-05 22:06:12 (#)
Ranking: 2
Mr. Tooth (thanks, Rob), does your cheek ever get tired of accomodating your tongue? :-D
-----------------
Kinda hard to keep straight sometimes... My tongue, that is.
Submitted by Bubba2341 (user info) at 2006-07-05 22:06:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Mr. Tooth (thanks, Rob), does your cheek ever get tired of accomodating your tongue? :-D
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 21:59:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-07-05 20:53:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
By that theory, Watergate should have never been exposed.
What you're talking about is a massive, almost communistic cooperating that would have to exist and operate on such a massive level; a kind of compact that would have to exist right down to the level of the local editor, yet somehow remain a complete secret to the general public.
-------------------
Ok, I see now why you think what you're thinking, but let me spell this out for you with some examples...
Pick a local paper or TV affiliate - ANY local paper or TV affiliate. Let me pick one for illustration purposes...how 'bout my local paper here in Evansville, Indiana, 'The Evansville Courier and Press'. Now let's look at who owns this newspaper, EW Scripps Company.
They own a total of 23 Newspaper Affiliates across the country (and that's not even including TV stations it operates) the most visible of which being Scripps Howard in Washinton, D.C.
Let's look at Scripps Howard's bio: http://www.scripps.com/newspaper/newspapers-L2-page-final.html
"Scripps Media Center is a bilingual, multi-media company based in Washington, D.C.
The Media Center is home to Scripps Howard News Service (SHNS), one of the nation's largest news services, distributing more than 150 stories, commentary, photos, graphics and political cartoons, and more than 100 multimedia content packages daily to nearly 400 newspapers and websites around the world. SHNS serves 18 of the top 20 markets in the United States with stories ranging from government to gardening and investigative reporting to entertainment and sports; a combined daily circulation of the client list exceeds 22 million. Reporters in Washington and around the world go beyond the headlines to explain and analyze major issues.
The Washington bureau also is responsible for national and international editorial policy for the Scripps Howard group of newspapers. The news service is the exclusive provider of the best stories and photos from Scripps Networks, including HGTV, Food Network, DIY, FINE LIVING and GAC."
Now let's look at its TV stations: http://www.scripps.com/broadcast/broadcast-L3-television.html
Let's see...ABC, NBC...get the picture? No? Not yet? Ok, how about this... NBC is owned by GE, which is one of the nation's top 10 defence contractors. Still don't see the connection?
Ok, let's look at my local rock radio station, 103.1 GBF, which my music has appeared on. They are owned by a local company called Regent Communication which in turn is owned by Clear Channel, who also happens to own, among the 6 or 7 other stations in the local area, WGBF-AM which features the following talk radio/propaganda lineup:
"Dave Ramsey's" money and life advice from 6am-8am,
Warren Korff's local "AM Magazine" from 8-9am,
"Laura Ingraham's" political talk from 9-11am,
"Rush Limbaugh" from 11am-2pm,
"Sean Hannity's" conservative talk 2-5pm,
"Dave Ramsey" again from 5-6pm,
"Michael Savage's" ultra conservative talk from 6-9pm,
"George Noory's Coast To Coast AM" from 9pm to 5am.
I don't think I need to tell you what all Clear Channel owns, but in case you have no idea, here: http://www.clearchannel.com/ See for yourself. I also don't think I should have to tell you how much money just the handful of companies I've mentioned in discussing but 2 of my local media outlets have given to politicians over the years...
Is this starting to make sense to you?
Watergate is one example of an 800lb. gorilla that, in my opinion, the men who put Mr. Nixon in office were no longer willing to maintain and felt he was too destructive to their ends. He became a liability, so instead of another messy assassination, they took forced him to resign. I'm not an expert on Watergate, so I don't know all the specifics of how the story broke, but I assure you, it was because someone allowed it to break.
The thing is, even if a story gets local press for 15 minutes, if the home office (national office) wants the story shut down, it will be. For instance, did you know that local news in Oklahoma City carried a bevy of reports of a second and a THIRD bomb recovered at the Federal Building? Do you ever remember hearing about this in national news AT ALL? Look it up, dude. You can even find footage, I'm sure. This is but one small example.
I hope this clarifies things a little, and you can at least see I have a case here and am not just spouting out my ass.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-07-05 20:53:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 18:01:27 (#)
Ranking: 0
C. Even straining greed at the network level out, you have thousands upon thousands of individual reporters, each of whom would gain virtually limitless amounts of cash and fame for exposing something of the faked moon landing/bush tied to 9/11 variety. Would someone risk their jobs, even their lives for that? You bed your ass.
-------------------------------
This is just flat out WRONG.
Editors control the major papers and producers control the programming on the stations, so if a reporter spends all their time on a story that these people will untimately NOT publish, they're going to be out of a job. Where else are they going to find work? Public stations? They're funded mainly by corporations as well. So where else is there? Indie? There's no money in indies and as we've seen in a PLETHORA of instances just on this site, any time I ever link to an independent news source, I get reemed for it being 'incredible'.
Your whole argument is complete nonsense and shows to me that while you have an understanding of the theory behind how things SHOULD work in the news business, you are clueless to how they actually do work.
===
By that theory, Watergate should have never been exposed.
What you're talking about is a massive, almost communistic cooperating that would have to exist and operate on such a massive level; a kind of compact that would have to exist right down to the level of the local editor, yet somehow remain a complete secret to the general public. Every level of the system, be it the press, industry, or the government would have to remain in compliance without any level of greed or competition, with no one side, with no one individual, willing to go maverick and take down the other or confess on their deathbed. It's the sort of thing that could only exist in a fantasy novel or an X-Files episode, which is exactly where your theories belong.
Submitted by mono_blanco (user info) at 2006-07-05 20:52:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Always good discussion...
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-07-05 20:20:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Well I for one find this post fascinating.
I think you do an excellent job presenting your case and defending your point of view Mr. Tooth.... (And without resorting to pointless shock value catch-phrases to undermine your credibility! You get an extra check mark for that.)
I do think you are a little too eager to believe in the almighty "THEY" and as such are unable to convince some of the more practical minded skeptics with your "sky is falling" sensibilities. I know you are as equally poor at taking advice as the people you enjoy yelling at- but do me a favor and at least open yourself up to the possibility that >SOME< of these larger events might not have ANYthing to do with the sort of high-level manipulation you so emphatically suggest. I mean it's quite likely that some (or even most) of these events are just the result of the natural fucked up order of things and not orchestrated by some shadowy group of corporate puppet-masters. Besides, it tends to promote a more productive conversation/debate if you at least entertain the notion that you don't know everything.
As for the rest of you people, the reverse is true. There is some really strange shit going on in this world and some high level explaining need to happen. Soon.
People like ETS and their delightful quest to push the "herd" towards their own personal definition of enlightenment will hopefully, at the very least, initiate some sort of collective demand for answers. We are far too complacent as a society and our apathy allows some really repugnant shit to go down.
I'm not saying that he isn't annoying, preachy and somewhat of an arrogant dickhead... but IS super smart and you really gotta admire his passion and manic energy.
Keep on keeping on, I say.
Oh, and personally I think it was faked... but I have only half-assed the research portion of the program because deep down I don't really give a shit.
r.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 19:43:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 19:27:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's a new insult for you, I'm getting tired of calling you a psychopath/conspiracy theorist/blah blah
YOURE FAT FAT FAT
-------------
heh.
Come on, man...add me to MSN! What the hell can it hurt? If I don't 'do it for ya' you can ignore me.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 19:27:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's a new insult for you, I'm getting tired of calling you a psychopath/conspiracy theorist/blah blah
YOURE FAT FAT FAT
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 19:14:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2006-07-05 18:28:48 (#)
Ranking: 0
Shit! You got a lot of reviews! Quit reviewing your own "joke!"
-----------------
This isn't a joke. And as long as people are debating, I will participate.
Submitted by Yams (user info) at 2006-07-05 18:28:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Shit! You got a lot of reviews! Quit reviewing your own "joke!"
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 18:05:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
E. Cover-ups? Let's talk about cover-ups. Let's say you're right about your earlier post, and Bush DID rig 9-11.
-------------------
BUSH didn't 'rig' 9/11...not alone anyway. Bush is a fucking puppet, let's get that straight right now. The people that rigged 9/11 are sitting in offices at Chase Manhattan Bank, The World Bank, Citibank, DoD, Halliburton, DynCorp, and about a hundred other institutions many of which you've never even heard of.
I can tell you this... You want to really know who was behind 9/11? Look at the attendees of meetings like Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission, then look at the companies they head up.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 18:01:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
C. Even straining greed at the network level out, you have thousands upon thousands of individual reporters, each of whom would gain virtually limitless amounts of cash and fame for exposing something of the faked moon landing/bush tied to 9/11 variety. Would someone risk their jobs, even their lives for that? You bed your ass.
-------------------------------
This is just flat out WRONG.
Editors control the major papers and producers control the programming on the stations, so if a reporter spends all their time on a story that these people will untimately NOT publish, they're going to be out of a job. Where else are they going to find work? Public stations? They're funded mainly by corporations as well. So where else is there? Indie? There's no money in indies and as we've seen in a PLETHORA of instances just on this site, any time I ever link to an independent news source, I get reemed for it being 'incredible'.
Your whole argument is complete nonsense and shows to me that while you have an understanding of the theory behind how things SHOULD work in the news business, you are clueless to how they actually do work.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-07-05 17:37:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:18:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-07-05 14:59:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
And haven't you ever questioned your preconceptions about corruption in the media?
-----------------
There's a lot to address in your review, but this is the main thrust of it.
My view that the media is corrupt and in collusion with the same corporate, industrial, and banking institutions that buy and control our politicians is based on ANYTHING but a 'presupposition'.
One need only watch the news they avoid covering to see it in action.
====
A. That wasn't the "thrust" of my response by a long shot and you know it. It's just, taken out of context, the only part you could debate.
B. Networks and newspapers are in competition. The more viewers they can boast, the more demand for ad time/space. The more exclusive (and sensational) their stories, the more people will pay. If a news agency were to get a lead into any of the conspiracy theories you've covered, they would have a stranglehold not only on the story rights, but on the attention span of the American Public.
C. Even straining greed at the network level out, you have thousands upon thousands of individual reporters, each of whom would gain virtually limitless amounts of cash and fame for exposing something of the faked moon landing/bush tied to 9/11 variety. Would someone risk their jobs, even their lives for that? You bed your ass.
D. If you continue to insist that the established news agencies are corrupt, how do you know the ones YOU cite (Muckraker and the like) aren't ALSO run by the government? Hell, couldn't the government have bought off everyone you knew, maybe be running your very THOUGHTS from a sattelite hanging over New Jersey?
E. Cover-ups? Let's talk about cover-ups. Let's say you're right about your earlier post, and Bush DID rig 9-11. He payed someone to ram planes into the Pentagon and the WTC, and had a special ops crew remote detonate the second tower to remove any possible evidence. Then he killed the real Bin Laden and paid off a SECOND guy to play the part in a bunker near Area 51 and rigged a war to cover the entire thing up and justify his oil-based conquest of the middle east. Do you know how many people would be required to pull this off and how many EXTRA people you'd have to keep quiet? Not only special ops agents, spin doctors, film crews, and requisite security personell and janitoreal staff, but also any friends or family members who had any clue of what they were doing. Elementary chaos theory (not to mention Murphy's Law) says that ain't gonna happen.
Submitted by mockidol (user info) at 2006-07-05 17:11:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Now you're calling the moon landings fake?
This is just cliche now...
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-07-05 17:00:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/iraq/iraqwar6.html
The part about the difference between what was shown on CNN and CNN International on the day Saddam's statue was toppled is quite interesting. It starts at around 3:20 if you can't be arsed to watch the whole thing.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:45:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:56:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
Wait...
Has Brad migrated over here now?
DAMNIT...
I was making fun of him on his other post...
Anyway, can someone lemme know when he starts threatening to kill people and shit?
I love that...
And this may make NO sense now, but it will in a few days...
BradLibs.
--------------------
Oh goody! Another tribute post is coming courtesy of Jason Greening, internet stalker!
Go on, Jay... Write a post about how much you hate me and howmuch of a fool I am. You're serving my interests by doing so.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:40:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:10:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thesis: We should not ritualistically eat human beings.
Antithesis: We should ritualistically eat human beings.
Synthesis: We should sometimes ritualistically eat human beings.
Just because you can present two ideas that are diametrically opposed to each other does not mean the answer lies somwhere in the middle. Garbage like this is why people think the truth must lie right in between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter.
-------------------
No, what you're missing is that your synthesis has become yet another thesis that requires yet another antithesis to fit your patricular worldview...
For instance, if you recombined these arguments enough you could have just as easily arrived at the synthesis of "We should ritualistically eat human beings only so long as our life depended on it."
You have to see the usefulness of being able to control the INPUT of both thesis and antithesis. THAT'S where the true power lies. It's not only in controling the synthesis, which kinda sorts itself out, but it's in the narrowing and controlling of the initial INPUT where the true power is.
For instance, you might have Fox News report that it's ok for Bush to spy on Americans. Then you might get CNN to report that it's NOT ok and in fact illegal. What you have done is pitted the two sides in diametric opposition in the effort of focusing the debate, knowing that the synthesis doesn't really even matter when you can simply buy off any of the main candidates of the two parties involved! In the effort to find synthesis, all other possible candidates from different parties are forgotten.
To control the media and propose no just one, as in a dictatorship, but TWO viewpoints lends the illusion there is a choice, when in reality there is none.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:28:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:06:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
You can debate the merit of debunking philosophy all you want, but the fact is that you were establishing Hegel as a valid source for your argument of triads, and all of your following points depend on that argument. When the source of your argument is not correct, it negates on the rest of your points.
If you want me to skip the error on Hegel and focus on the ideas instead, why would being able to muck about with synthesis make you godlike or whatever it was that you said?
-----------------
No, an error in attributing the idea itself does not negate it.
'Mucking about' with both sides of the dialectic (in American politics, the constant, pointless bickering between Republicans and Democrats) allows those those control both sides through the art of campaign contributions and monetary lobbying to basically control everything. To keep the dialectic raging at all costs is to maintain power, simply because they have already helped to propel both candidates into the limelight and know they can continue to influence whichever one makes office.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:23:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:16:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:10:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:59:00 (#)
Ranking: -2
Or what about someoene who says they are going to live off the grid to get away from society then still lives at home with his parents?
===
I see you mention this a lot, indo. Just curious - do you honestly believe he lives with his parents?
-----------------------
Yeah. He has told a number of lies about his life and what he is going to do. Why would I beleive him not living with his parents to be any different?
===
I'm sure my integrity is just as suspect to you, but unless they're very, very tiny and only come out when I go to the bathroom, I can assure you he doesn't live with his parents. There's plenty of things you can attack him for - might as well use one that's actually true.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:16:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:10:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:59:00 (#)
Ranking: -2
Or what about someoene who says they are going to live off the grid to get away from society then still lives at home with his parents?
===
I see you mention this a lot, indo. Just curious - do you honestly believe he lives with his parents?
-----------------------
Yeah. He has told a number of lies about his life and what he is going to do. Why would I beleive him not living with his parents to be any different?
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:14:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:10:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
Thesis: We should not ritualistically eat human beings.
Antithesis: We should ritualistically eat human beings.
Synthesis: We should sometimes ritualistically eat human beings.
Just because you can present two ideas that are diametrically opposed to each other does not mean the answer lies somwhere in the middle. Garbage like this is why people think the truth must lie right in between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter.
===
Brilliant analogy.
>claps<
r.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:10:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Thesis: We should not ritualistically eat human beings.
Antithesis: We should ritualistically eat human beings.
Synthesis: We should sometimes ritualistically eat human beings.
Just because you can present two ideas that are diametrically opposed to each other does not mean the answer lies somwhere in the middle. Garbage like this is why people think the truth must lie right in between Michael Moore and Ann Coulter.
Submitted by FilthyAssistant (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:10:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:59:00 (#)
Ranking: -2
Or what about someoene who says they are going to live off the grid to get away from society then still lives at home with his parents?
===
I see you mention this a lot, indo. Just curious - do you honestly believe he lives with his parents?
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:06:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You can debate the merit of debunking philosophy all you want, but the fact is that you were establishing Hegel as a valid source for your argument of triads, and all of your following points depend on that argument. When the source of your argument is not correct, it negates on the rest of your points.
If you want me to skip the error on Hegel and focus on the ideas instead, why would being able to muck about with synthesis make you godlike or whatever it was that you said?
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 16:02:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am not pretending to be a writer. I am just reading stuff on uber. Bart has not made any rules that say you have to post to review. If you want people to have to post to review email bart or go to pulsehead. Until Bart changes ubersite, I am free to read whatever is made available to me and that does not make me a troll. If anything comes up that I feel that I want to post about I will.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:59:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:54:30 (#)
Ranking: 0
hypocrite: one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not
------------------------------
Wouldn't someone who talks about how bad America is and all the evil things the Govt does then still pays tax be one of those?
Or what about someoene who says they are going to live off the grid to get away from society then still lives at home with his parents?
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:56:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Wait...
Has Brad migrated over here now?
DAMNIT...
I was making fun of him on his other post...
Anyway, can someone lemme know when he starts threatening to kill people and shit?
I love that...
And this may make NO sense now, but it will in a few days...
BradLibs.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:54:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hypocrite: one who puts on a mask and feigns himself to be what he is not
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:50:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Debunking philosophy... Now THAT is funny.
Doesn't matter who said it, the principle is still the same.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:46:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 11:45:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, I can fully understand why it might be difficult for someone like you, Indo.
Don't you have an oil rig or a .50 cal to attend to?
--------------------------------------------------
You mean someone who has had real jobs and an education besides conspiracy videos from google?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:45:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:39:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
yep, don't really have a desire to talk to you though, ESPECIALLY in the fucking mood I'm in. I just told my boss to go fuck himself. Guess I won't be getting that raise this time around!
===
HAR HAR! Method works for the French!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:45:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:24:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
I used to have sympath for you because people are so nasty to you here, especially since Jeremy seems to like you, but right now you are acting like the biggest brat. Why do you take -2 so personnally?
-----------------
Dude, I'm so numb to ratings at this point, I barely even notice them anymore. You're right about one thing though, many people are pretty damn nasty to me here and, as a result, I come off as heartless and arrogant when I strike back.
Don't get me wrong, I had noticed you've rated a few of my posts favorably when many others didn't and for that I thank you, but I was just looking for a little honesty on this one.
I realize I called you an 'idiot' up front and that was probably presumptuous. Sorry for that. Put a dog in attack mode and he'll bite the hand of his even master by accident.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:44:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
No, it's not hypocritical for her to say that. You may think it's unfair, but if you think it's hypocritical you need a dictionary alongside that Philosophy 101 book.
There are plenty of examples of people criticizing those whose work is put up for display without hypocrisy.
It is even logical and commonplace for someone of lesser talent in a particular subject matter to criticize someone of greater talent whose work is available for scrutiny.
For example, I can comfortably say the Orioles suck without being able to hit a ball thrown anywhere faster than 70 miles per hour. I can also say in all honesty I would rather listen to audio tape of Courtney Love getting fucked by a horse than listen to a song by Hole.
Doesn't mean I can sing.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:40:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
P.S.
Brad, you don't know shit about philosophy. Hegel didn't invent thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. He didn't even popularize it. He didn't even use it. And it sure as shit wasn't the cornerstone of his work like you make it out to be.
Hegel's philosophy, if you did understand it, is nothing more than debunked rubbish. Schopenhauer had this to say:
If I were to say that the so-called philosophy of this fellow Hegel is a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudophilosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage, I should be quite right.
— Arthur Schopenhauer, 'On the Basis of Morality', trans. E.F.J.Payne (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1965), pp.15-16.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:40:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I am not struggling to cover up anything. You are acting like the biggest arrogant brat that I have ever met. I think that you don't want people to read your post, so that you can be right about people. I read the whole thing, and I even watched the video, and When you said read the post idiot, I went back and read the whole thing to make sure I did not miss anything and I did not. You were just acting like a prick. You can believe me or not. I don't really care. I don't know what you have been doing this whole time. I was just trying to let you know that you are overly self righteous, but I guess you are to full of yourself to care what anyone else has to say, otherwise you would not throw so many tantrums.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:38:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:36:56 (#)
Ranking: -2
i'm not going to bother reading any of your posts anymore, especially if you're giving out revenge -2s.
I used to think you had interesting things to say, but you're just an American Caulaincourt.
--------------------
You revenged me first buddy.
You've been -2ing my shit for months now, while I've barely touched your shit. Shall we dig up the stats and compare???
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:37:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:30:56 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:13:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
You are such a baby. I hardly ever comment on any post. You are just mad that I did read your post.
-------------------
Look, I'm not mad that you didn't read my post. I couldn't give a shit less whether you did or didn't read it. In fact, I made it clear in the post that really no matter what you did didn't matter.
-------------------
What the HELL was I trying to type there!?! Heh.
I think I was trying to say it didn't matter whether you read it or not, I just wanted you to be at least honest about it after you got busted out.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:36:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i'm not going to bother reading any of your posts anymore, especially if you're giving out revenge -2s.
I used to think you had interesting things to say, but you're just an American Caulaincourt.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:34:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:19:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
How can the night wear shining armor?
---------------
hahahah... touche.
---------------
Trust me brad, if I wanted to jump up and tear you apart because I was coming to my wife's rescue, it wouldn't be a quick comment that I thought your post was stupid.
You'll know when you've pissed me off, but thank you for telling me to suck it. Are you working on getting down to zero friends so that you can be justified in saying "They're all against me!"?
------------------
No, I just want your wife to fess up and stop pretending she read the post initially when she actually didn't. Plus, I want her to know that I don't necessarily appreciate someone calling my post that I thought out and wrote 'silly' when she's never seen fit to put herself out there in a post. It's just a little on the hypocisy side, doncha think?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:30:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:13:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
You are such a baby. I hardly ever comment on any post. You are just mad that I did read your post.
-------------------
Look, I'm not mad that you didn't read my post. I couldn't give a shit less whether you did or didn't read it. In fact, I made it clear in the post that really no matter what you did didn't matter.
What enflames me, if anything, is your struggle to cover up the fact that you didn't read it by claiming you did. I think you were being deliberately dishonest.
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.
Trust me, honey, this ain't me being mad by a LOOOOONG shot. This is me bemused.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:26:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You do not have to leave a comment for it to count as a review written.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:24:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I used to have sympath for you because people are so nasty to you here, especially since Jeremy seems to like you, but right now you are acting like the biggest brat. Why do you take -2 so personnally?
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:22:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:13:16 (#)
Ranking: 0
You are such a baby. I hardly ever comment on any post.
Hmm. That doesn't add up...
Everything you ever wanted to know about firefly
User id: 307
# Messages posted: 0
# Reviews written: 6101
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:19:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
How can the night wear shining armor?
Trust me brad, if I wanted to jump up and tear you apart because I was coming to my wife's rescue, it wouldn't be a quick comment that I thought your post was stupid.
You'll know when you've pissed me off, but thank you for telling me to suck it. Are you working on getting down to zero friends so that you can be justified in saying "They're all against me!"?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:18:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-07-05 14:59:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
And haven't you ever questioned your preconceptions about corruption in the media?
-----------------
There's a lot to address in your review, but this is the main thrust of it.
My view that the media is corrupt and in collusion with the same corporate, industrial, and banking institutions that buy and control our politicians is based on ANYTHING but a 'presupposition'.
One need only watch the news they avoid covering to see it in action.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:17:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If you are as angry as you seem in all your responses to people, than you are more ridiculous than I could have possibly imagined.
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:15:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Dude, I'm all about having arguments and what not, even name-calling and shit-throwing. But, it's another thing completely to fucking bum around here talking shit when you've never put your own self out there for comment. Keep on with the posts, if you didn't make people think then you wouldn't have two posts on most heated right now...
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:13:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You are such a baby. I hardly ever comment on any post. You are just mad that I did read your post.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:10:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:08:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 14:44:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
IF you did not act like such a cunt than you would not need to apologise.
---------
I'm not one to stand up for people on some website, by and large, but firefly why don't you POST something for the wolves here to tear apart before you act like anything you say makes a fucking bit of difference?
GOd I fucking hate trolls.
--------------
THANK YOU.
Submitted by FartSmeller (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:08:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 14:44:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
IF you did not act like such a cunt than you would not need to apologise.
---------
I'm not one to stand up for people on some website, by and large, but firefly why don't you POST something for the wolves here to tear apart before you act like anything you say makes a fucking bit of difference?
GOd I fucking hate trolls.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:02:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-07-05 14:59:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
This post is rubbish, and I'm not talking about the first half of it, which was more credible than the second half.
--------------------
Ah, the night in shining armor.
Dude, suck it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 15:00:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Like I've said already, this isn't about trying to be "better than anyone else". I think I've said that 1000 fucking times now. Stop harping on that mantra like it's going make it so. Who are you trying to convince? Yourself or others?
You shouldn't have been surprised I would harp on your "-2 no comment". Next time, if you don't want me to call your ass out, give more of a fucking comment in your first review, otherwise suck it up and take it.
By the way, I don't that that seeing as you've never seen fit to create a single fucking post on this website you have much room to say a goddamn word about how I come off in mine. Of course, you CAN...but that big fat ZERO beside 'Posts' in your profile speaks volumes; I don't give a damn who you're married to.
Submitted by Razor (user info) at 2006-07-05 14:59:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This post is rubbish, and I'm not talking about the first half of it, which was more credible than the second half.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-07-05 14:59:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-04 20:12:50 (#)
Ranking: 0
Really, like Rocdocc said, you guys have to read the whole post. If you don't, you are just making fools of yourselves.
What you need to understand is this: there are conspiracy theories that are nonsense and there are some that warrant further investigation. The purpose of Fox giving a voice to the ones that are nonsense, they are effectively controlling your attitudes against the conspiracies that ARE, or at least COULD BE, real.
Guys, you have to understand this. We're nothing but subjects under a power that we do not fully comprehend. These people really are geniuses and masters of perception and unless we're vigilant in opposing these forces, make no mistake, they WILL overrun us little by little until at some point we will wake up and find that all the freedoms and dignity of life we held so dear are gone.
===
Vigilance is great. Speculation and paranoia, meanwhile, are self-perpetuating and self-defeating. The difference between a conspiracy theory and an exposee is one thing; fact. Woodward and Bernstein hunted down leads and investigated sources. You, on the other hand, beg the question through Google with phrases such as "apollo conspiracy" or "kennedy AND assasination AND gunman AND bigfoot," then you point us to sources with obvious flaws, circular reasoning, or downright bad reporting and throw colorful soundbites at us when we disagree.
And haven't you ever questioned your preconceptions about corruption in the media? Sure, certain networks have biases, some are probably even in collusion with corruption in the government and various businesses, but don't think about big, looming corporations. Think about the individual reporters.
Can you imagine what would happen if any one of them came across evidence of a faked moon landing or linking between Bush to 9/11? That reporter would be a god in his time. Political biases, even threats to their lives would mean nothing, because you're talking all the money, fame, and movie rights he could handle; probably his own university. The story would be bigger than Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, and Oliver North put together.
Now you can talk about cover-ups, but remember Murphy's Law; whatever can go wrong will, and all it would take would be one video clip, one telephone conversation, one intern who knew too much to go public and good luck trying to silence the fervor that ensues.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 14:44:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
IF you did not act like such a cunt than you would not need to apologise.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 14:37:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If I had read this at any other time you would have fooeled me, however, this was one of the first post I read today, and I was not busy, so I read the whole thing. I do not think that I am so intellegent that I would never fall for something like this, so if you want to tally me with the people that you have duped go ahead. I unlike you could careless about being better than everyone. If I had thought this post was about the moon landing being a hoax, I probably would have given it a zero and left. I know I am not better than anyone who thought that this post was about landing on the moon and I don't know why you care so much about being better than those people, or getting people to look stupid. It is obvious that you care alot about it though, or you would not present your posts so arrogantly and you would not respond to people like they don't know as much as you, or that their reasoning is somehow false because it is different. If you did not wish to feel so superior, you would not act like a baby and call everyone stupid, or jump into an argument with everyone who disaggrees with you.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:58:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:47:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
Why would I care about covering my ass over an ubersite post? If this is not about you feeling superior than why would you care? and why are you always belittling everyone who is not inagreement with you most? You are so stuck on yourself that can't even see anything else. You are so arrogant that every word you type is covered in it, but you can't see that. All you can see is your point of view and your thoughts and everything outside of that is wrong. It is obvious not only in this post or any other post you have written, but in your reponses to people. You want everyone to be less than you and you want to be aways be right. You act exactly like Jack McCallum.
-----------------
And how many times have you seen me admit when I'm wrong or apologise for something I said to someone?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:56:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:46:05 (#)
Ranking: -2
Why the fuck would I want to talk to a condescending, arrogant asshole like you? Enlighten me please.
----------------
Because you might be surprised.
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:54:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Why don't you eat Neil Armstrong's ass, you fucking delusional cocksniffer?
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:53:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
here come the black helicopters
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:47:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why would I care about covering my ass over an ubersite post? If this is not about you feeling superior than why would you care? and why are you always belittling everyone who is not inagreement with you most? You are so stuck on yourself that can't even see anything else. You are so arrogant that every word you type is covered in it, but you can't see that. All you can see is your point of view and your thoughts and everything outside of that is wrong. It is obvious not only in this post or any other post you have written, but in your reponses to people. You want everyone to be less than you and you want to be aways be right. You act exactly like Jack McCallum.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:46:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Why the fuck would I want to talk to a condescending, arrogant asshole like you? Enlighten me please.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:42:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:39:28 (#)
Ranking: -2
yep, don't really have a desire to talk to you though, ESPECIALLY in the fucking mood I'm in. I just told my boss to go fuck himself. Guess I won't be getting that raise this time around!
--------------------
That blows.
Ok, you don't have to talk to me now, but add me anyway, we'll talk later when you calm down.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:40:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
blow me
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:40:24 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Add me: electrictoothsyndrome.at.msn.com
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:39:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
yep, don't really have a desire to talk to you though, ESPECIALLY in the fucking mood I'm in. I just told my boss to go fuck himself. Guess I won't be getting that raise this time around!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:37:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:35:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
Hey, could you give us another opportunity to drive you away from here, NEVER to come back? Seems it didn't really work the first time.
-----------------
Hey. You got MSN?
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:35:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Hey, could you give us another opportunity to drive you away from here, NEVER to come back? Seems it didn't really work the first time.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:27:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:09:02 (#)
Ranking: 0
It is not the words themselves, it is how you present things like you are a god toying with people. It is ridiculous. This whole post is ridiculous.
--------------------
This is what you're not understanding... I TOLD you I was playing devil's advocate. What part of that don't you understand? If it seemed like I was toying with people, it's because I was playing the part of the very people I'm trying desperately to expose!
If you think the way I acted in the post was a bad thing, then GOOD! We're in ABSOLUTE AGREEMENT!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:25:59 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:06:11 (#)
Ranking: 0
The post itself is arrogant and this whole thing is just silly. It seems like the whole point of this
is a trick you are playing to make yourself feel superior. You call this an experiment, but I think you just want to feel like you are more clever than everyone else. Did you make this post so that you could look at the reviews and see a bunch of people yell at you for being a conspiracy theorist and than pat yourself on the back for fooling people? Regardless of any content that is the way this post came across to me and that is why I gave it a negative two.
-------------------
So you're one of these people who thinks that anyone who DARES to predict the actions of people and give intelligent, informed reasons for such predictions and then turns out to be correct is arrogant?
And if people are fucking predictable, I can't help that. But the fact remains, I made my point. I think that's pretty goddamn undenyable. Doesn't really matter HOW 'silly' you think it is.
Don't you fucking lie. You didn't read the post, and THAT's why you gave it a -2! It's just that goddamn simple.
You think I'm arrogant, but I think you're trying to cover your ass so you don't look like yet another one of the morons that played right into my hands. Hurts to be called out by an arrogant asshole, doesn't it?
And honey, this isn't about feeling superior to any of you fucks. This was about making a point. That's it. I think I did that quite nicely if I do say so myself.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:09:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:09:02 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It is not the words themselves, it is how you present things like you are a god toying with people. It is ridiculous. This whole post is ridiculous.
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:06:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The post itself is arrogant and this whole thing is just silly. It seems like the whole point of this
is a trick you are playing to make yourself feel superior. You call this an experiment, but I think you just want to feel like you are more clever than everyone else. Did you make this post so that you could look at the reviews and see a bunch of people yell at you for being a conspiracy theorist and than pat yourself on the back for fooling people? Regardless of any content that is the way this post came across to me and that is why I gave it a negative two.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:04:56 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Furthermore, when I said, "I am encouraging and conditioning you to develop a strong initial reaction to conspiracy-related material in general," you have to read between the lines.
By *I*, I meant 'Fox News', because I was taking their part. Playing the devil's advocate game and showing you how manipulation happens.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 13:01:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Why would you be irritated by my thanking people for clicking on the post and expressing my appreciation up front for following along in its entirety?
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 12:55:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I actually look forward to your post and I always hope that there is something interesting in them, but sometimes the way you present things irrates me like this stuff
"Thank you for clicking on this post. This post contains important information and I humbly ask you to indulge me a bit of your time today so that you might find some measure of understanding of what it is we're dealing with as members of this global society here in the 21st Century."
"While talking to others about this blatant lie by our federal government I get one common response I get is: "It would have taken more technology to fake it, then really go."
Let's address that statement first...
Look up what's called the Van Allen radiation belt. How did the astronauts pass through it without getting radiation poisoning? I've seen and heard a lot of talking heads telling us how the planners accounted for the exposure and planned accordingly by shielding the module and passing through the thinnest parts of the Van Allen Belt, but where can you find specific scientific results giving us data that shows how the shielding they used could have protected the astronauts from the intense radiation? Even astronauts orbiting in low orbit in the shuttle, a mere 250 - 350 miles above the earth have experienced radiation levels from which their bodies took days to recover from and have said that when they closed their eyes, they could actually SEE the electrons hitting their eyes! ...and they were still 700 miles from where the radiation belt really begins!"
"Then there is the shadow argument. The shadows clearly suggest many different light sources. The crosshair markers on the photographs - markers that were supposedly on the lens of the camera - are partially covered over by objects in the frames, proving those objects are the product of photographic manipulation. If you have ever used Photoshop, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. "
"As for the flag waving, if you watch it closely, there are certain movements that can, of course, be caused by the astronaut moving the pole and the inertia of the flag's mass, but it cannot explain ALL movements of the flag. You have to watch it with me sometime and I'll point them out to you."
"If you speed up the original footage 2X, you'll see the astronauts no longer appearing to float around from step to step, but instead they appear to be running around in earth-like gravity. This is, of course, to be expected even if the landing was real, but it speaks to how the fake was created."
"Now at this point in the post you have done one of a few possible things:
a) you have followed along, consuming both the video and my commentary and are convinced the moon landing was a hoax,
b) you skipped the video and read or skimmed my commentary and might be curious to know more, but probably remain skeptical,
c) you immediately began constructing your rebuttal in another window using websites like these - www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
(The http was removed to prevent the links from turning into hyperlinks and providing a skipping point for the wandering eye. If you're going to skip parts, I'll have you skip to the end, thank you)
d) none of the above "
"The bottom line is, it doesn't matter what you've done until now, because even if you left this post completely and ignored it, you'd still be doing exactly what I wanted you to do."
"I am encouraging and conditioning you to develop a strong initial reaction to conspiracy-related material in general. It could have been about the Kennedy Assassination or whether or not we had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor or whether aliens inhabit the bodies of our world leaders; it simply doesn't matter in this particular case, because the whole thing has been designed to both discredit the 'conspiracy nut' in the eyes of the skeptic and to make the 'conspiracy nut' take the side of a 'straw man' argument, thus discrediting himself TO himself when it's later refuted."
"Thanks for reading, I hope you forgive the next paragraph, which I have placed there for what should be obvious reasons my now...that is, if you've read the whole post. ;)"
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 12:41:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 12:26:44 (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
------------------
Oh COME ON, George! We almost had a conversation going there!
I thought we had an understanding... :'(
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 12:36:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, I was kidding about the 'Jew' thing, in case you didn't get it.
'International Banker' is a code word for 'Jew' according to the Anti-Defamation League. If someone prints or says anything against 'International Bankers' they are blacklisted by the ADL and labeled 'racist' and 'anti-semitic'.
True story.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 12:33:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by firefly (user info) at 2006-07-05 12:13:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Your post bother me alot and it is not because of what is written in them, but how you always come across as so arrogant like you know everything the people reading your post are thinking, or how they will responded, and only you can be right about anything. You act exactly like Jack McCallum.
----------------
Whaddayaknow! She speaks!
Considering you didn't even read this post at first speaks volumes. You already have it in your head you're not going to listen to me, and that's precisely what I'm talking about.
And if you're looking for someone to point a finger at and call 'arrogant' and a 'know-it-all', don't forget your husband, because he's about the worst I've seen when he really gets going.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 12:30:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Here's a video that will help explain how some of these things are interconnected: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2641342891593561909&q=trilateral
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-07-05 12:26:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-07-05 12:19:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-07-05 12:01:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
A perfect example are those word problems in math tests where you have to find the length of the missing side, or the distance the train traveled given certain other information. By process of reason the correct answer can be reached.
Likewise, if you know a certain set of premises that you hold to be true such as the importance of finding means and motive in a crime and asking yourself the all-important questions such as "Who stands to gain from this?" a little thing called 'intuition' can guide you in the right direction, where, at length, evidence will prove you right or wrong.
-------------
I'm glad me managed to have that discussion without hurling insults around (maybe I did throw one..).
Of your point above I would disagree because in the example you are working on known figures, however in the analogy you are using 'set of premises that you hold to be true'.
I think there is quite a majour difference.
-------------------------
You're right, when you break everything down and examine yourself, examining yourself, examining yourself, examining yourself, ad infinitum, there appears to be NO WAY to decipher even the fact of your own existence, let alone truth from fiction, but to live a life at that level of skepticism WILL drive one insane.
It's like Decartes said: "I think, therefore I am."
At some point you have to stand on something...some premise or belief you hold to be true, even if it's based on a measure of faith, because without it, without the ability to utilize reason and say 2+2=4 we are truly lost.
I believe in investigation based on reason and fact, nothing more. If I am disproven in anything I postulate or theorize, so be it! I will be happy because I have arrived at the real truth. I am not selling people videos or magazines about 9/11. I am not giving lectures on the subject. I do not garner a living from it. I have nothing to gain or lose by it.
I just want the truth, and I want other people to be able to suspend their preconceptions of 'conspiracy theories' putting them aside long enough to really examine this ONE THING...just this one...with a completely open mind. Why? Because I think it's of extreme importance we try to get to the bottom of it before it happens again.
There are certain things that have happened in the 20th century that smell of inside dealings:
J.P. Morgan's Jekyll Island meeting.
WWI
Federal Reserve
League of Nations
Council on Foreign Relations
United Nations
Trilateral Commission
Great Depression
Pearl Harbor
WWII
Bohemian Grove and Manhattan Project
Cold War
Bretton Woods
.....
.....
.....
The list keeps going. And how are these things connected???
You'll have to research that for yourselves. I can only point you in a direction and humbly ask that you join me in looking at all these things and seeing how international bankers with names like Rothschild and Rockefeller actually DO control everything that happens in foreign policy.
I think it was David Rockefeller himself who once said, "Give me control of a nation's finances, and I don't care who's in office."
Indeed.
Submitted by moneyshotforyou (user info) at 2006-07-05 12:17:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I bet you send out a lot of those emails that say shit like
"If you mail this to eight people in five minutes, your life will change."
I find humor in how these small cults begin. One person thinks up a lovely conspiracy and makes every simple minded mother fucker in a clan believe it.
You are the definition of that. Your thoughts are weak. Every bit of evidence you have ever brought to ubers attention appears to be hit with a mini-gun yet you fall for it.
It must be nice to have the mind of a child.
It must have hurt when they told you about Santa Clause. I have some bad news to tell you about the tooth fairy.
Email me.
I don't want your emo tears to ruin an uber day.
Submitted by firefly<