Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How To Make Sense Of Conspiracy Theories - Holocaust
12-06-2011, 04:42 PM
Post: #31
RE: How To Make Sense Of Conspiracy Theories - Holocaust
(12-05-2011 02:03 PM)blueshift Wrote:  The word "wait" is the biggest 4 letter word in America.

Lol, I thought "bigg" was the biggest four letter word.

www.facebook.com/dystopianofficial
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2011, 01:35 AM
Post: #32
RE: How To Make Sense Of Conspiracy Theories - Holocaust
I think it's mentioned somewhere in my Conspiracy Theories video (I forget which part) that other supposed non- conspiracy theories imply as much discretion and secrecy of bureaucracies as what is being rejected. EG, the mass extermination of jews and other "non-desirables", involving many thousands of German Personnel over a period of many years (which I believe happened) would be far more difficult to pull off than say a fake moon landing or a massive staged terror attack. That doesn't mean I conclude those things as true, but the possibilities can't be so easily discounted either.

Mkultra has given a very interesting 9/11 scenario there, several aspects of which I've not heard before. There are a couple of points I'd like to add. Apparently a method of secrecy that was allegedly used by certain totalitarian regimes to keep projects secret (scientific for example) was to threaten, incarcerate or simply execute key personnel after the fact. Thus limiting the number of people capable of blowing the whistle. I can't give any examples off the top of my head, but it's possible.

Regarding 9/11 a factor I've always found interesting, and that never seems to get talked about even by those who "challenge" the official story, is the Anthrax letters. Look at the list of recipients (Democrats in congress, the NY times, ABC news, CBS, NBC etc) and look at the timing (just a few weeks before the Patriot Act was passed). It scared the hell out of journalists across the board. So the question has to be asked ... were the letters sent to influence media coverage of terrorism (be it by War on Terror bureaucrats or Al Qaeda)? Until that question is answered, we can't consider press coverage on the subject to be free and impartial.

Regarding Stand In Stan, I'm surprised you take him seriously. His anonymity is suspect for a start. Isn't he the same idiot who posted a massive video attacking everything in 2001: A Space Odyssey, saying the whole film was a piece of crap? Why would some anonymous person want to spend so much time doing something like that? From what I've seen he posts new videos very frequently. How does he have the time? I have to sell DVD copies to fund my work. ... I didn't watch his whole video (the one you linked) because he came out with so many poor assumptions in just a minute or two I didn't consider him worth listening too. He expresses hardly any awareness of political and military history. I've been reading a book that is cited in the Stanley Kubrick Archives as one of the director's favorites. It's called The Code Breakers by David Kahn. It outlines the history of encoding and decoding messages since the Egyptians right through to the decade it was written (1960's I think). You don't realize how intelligent people in power positions can be until you read books like Kahn's. The sophistication of military and psychological operations in warfare is beyond the casual comprehension of average people. Summing it up for them in a few simple sentences is like trying to teach a complex programming language in half an hour. It's like me trying to thoroughly explain the hidden narrative of a Kubrick film in three minutes. Unless the listener is willing to patiently learn the key elements that make up the code it will just baffle them and many will simply turn away to avoid the headache of having to learn, especially when the subject matter is painful.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2011, 11:40 AM
Post: #33
RE: How To Make Sense Of Conspiracy Theories - Holocaust
He didn't post a video about 2001, and he's not anonymous - his brother did the 2001 video, and he has videos where he shows his face.

And his major point with 9/11 is that a conspiracy of that magnitude wouldn't make any sense the way people had previously explained it. He was explaining that - in the way most people described it - it would be a plan that made no sense and would most likely fail. He was saying that if you were to present the plan to anybody in high power that it's unlikely that they would accept it based on logic alone.

And I think he's right. I think 9/11 is a very hard thing to fake, and the end result isn't worth the cost for anybody except an enemy of the United States. I don't honestly see why you would not take what he says seriously just because he doesn't show his face and (at least you assumed), he had bad things to say about 2001. I've taken many pro-2001 arguments as stupid, and his brother's argument against 2001 is also stupid, but I think this guy is not somebody who spends all of his time on youtube bashing things. He mostly talks political, social, economic, and religious topics and he doesn't update all that often. But they are vlogs, which are easy to make and don't take much time. So really I think you've got it all wrong about him, but if you disagree with what he says, ok. He was talking specifically about the 9/11 conspiracy theories that it was planned and carried out by the bush administration, and most of those conspiracy theories have been almost proven wrong by Popular Mechanics which consulted many experts on the subject and found out that almost all of those conspiracy theories are based on assumptions and not on real evidence. And the logic also doesn't really work in those cases. Conspiracy theories of that magnitude either don't happen or don't get noticed.

www.facebook.com/dystopianofficial
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-07-2011, 11:07 PM (This post was last modified: 12-07-2011 11:09 PM by robag.)
Post: #34
RE: How To Make Sense Of Conspiracy Theories - Holocaust
(12-07-2011 11:40 AM)Bassbait Part 2 Wrote:  He didn't post a video about 2001, and he's not anonymous - his brother did the 2001 video, and he has videos where he shows his face.

And his major point with 9/11 is that a conspiracy of that magnitude wouldn't make any sense the way people had previously explained it. He was explaining that - in the way most people described it - it would be a plan that made no sense and would most likely fail. He was saying that if you were to present the plan to anybody in high power that it's unlikely that they would accept it based on logic alone.

And I think he's right. I think 9/11 is a very hard thing to fake, and the end result isn't worth the cost for anybody except an enemy of the United States. I don't honestly see why you would not take what he says seriously just because he doesn't show his face and (at least you assumed), he had bad things to say about 2001. I've taken many pro-2001 arguments as stupid, and his brother's argument against 2001 is also stupid, but I think this guy is not somebody who spends all of his time on youtube bashing things. He mostly talks political, social, economic, and religious topics and he doesn't update all that often. But they are vlogs, which are easy to make and don't take much time. So really I think you've got it all wrong about him, but if you disagree with what he says, ok. He was talking specifically about the 9/11 conspiracy theories that it was planned and carried out by the bush administration, and most of those conspiracy theories have been almost proven wrong by Popular Mechanics which consulted many experts on the subject and found out that almost all of those conspiracy theories are based on assumptions and not on real evidence. And the logic also doesn't really work in those cases. Conspiracy theories of that magnitude either don't happen or don't get noticed.

Which videos does he show his face and does his brother show his face? It's a long time since I had a look at the 2001 guy's stuff (whose voice sounded near identical) and he was def anonymous at the time. And the question still stands, how do either of them manage to produce so many vids without selling DVDs? ... and why produce an almost feature length vid slating 2001 as crap?

The main reason I don't take him seriously is his limited logic. Simply saying people in positions of power would reject such a proposition is his personal opinion. Operation Northwoods was proposed and, though apparently rejected, demonstrates that governments do consider such actions. And if Northwoods had been carried out it certainly wouldn't have been declassified later. Lots of governments throughout history have carried out horrendous plans against their own populations. Why is the US gov exempt from that? They've done a lot of awful things since 9/11 that appear illogical and even crazy - invading Iraq based on no evidence of WMDs (with lots of evidence to the contrary from weapons inspectors) takes a lot more long term co-ordination and manipulation of resources than carrying out or deliberately allowing a single major terror attack. Like I said Stand in Stan expresses no awareness of military and political history, which is full of very sophisticated grand scale operations.

As for the claim there's nothing to gain from 9/11 for the US gov, I've already cited Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard. He lays out the American establishment global domination agenda in it without shame and he states the agenda won't work without some catalyzing fear inducing event. If there's nothing to gain from engineered terror attacks by govs against their own people then why did the Nazis and so many other regimes do it? It could equally be said there was nothing to gain for Al Qaeda. The attack turned the whole world against them and gave the West an excuse to invade the middle east. That's not much of a strategy for an apparently organized global terrorist network.

As for Popular Mechanics, I read through that report and it was obvious within the first two pages it wasn't an investigation, but merely a cognitive infiltration piece (see Cass Sunstein on the tactic of covert recruiting of trusted sources to rebut conspiracy theories on behalf of gov). It used the straw man technique of taking fringe whacko versions of alternative 9/11 theories and putting them to the forefront as if they represented the views of all who question the event (eg no plane theories), while taking the more convincing arguments against the official story and pushing them into the background.

I'm not telling you that I know what happened on 9/11. I'm saying that the possibility of it being a military operation, carried out by some rogue element in or on the fringe of the US gov to justify global domination wars, with the anthrax letters to suppress media dissent, is just as plausible as the government's version.

After reading Popular Mechanics very limited study I went to Nist's reports on the topic and found some interesting stuff. The timing of the attack, starting 15 mins before the working day began, and the first plane hitting the top of tower one instead of further down, ensured the buildings were only half occupied and that 99% of occupants escaped before they collapsed. That's a complete contradiction with the CIAs claims that the attacks were done to cause maximum death. Doing it just an hour later and hitting the buildings further down (thus blocking escape routes) would have multiplied the death toll and beheaded a lot of US corporations.

At the very least, even if 9/11 was just a real terror attack with no complicity or awareness from any rogue US establishment networks, an investigation needs to be done regarding how the event was consequently used to justify global domination wars and police state infringements on the American public.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-22-2011, 10:38 AM (This post was last modified: 12-25-2011 04:12 AM by MKultra.)
Post: #35
RE: How To Make Sense Of Conspiracy Theories - Holocaust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious

One would think this would have been a major scandal from the start here in the US, but not surprisingly its only got limited MSM coverage. However, recently this story has started to heat up under strong pressure from the public. I only bring this up here because there are some interesting similarities to the potential 9/11 "conspiracy theory" I described a few posts back.

Notably, we have an intelligence agency (ATF) covertly supplying weapons to Mexican criminal organizations through the use of undercover operatives. Unfortunately, these guns were used to kill a US border patrol agent, (and likely hundreds of civilians within Mexico). When the details of the operation unexpectedly became public after the death of the border patrol agent, notice what the official storyline is...

" The stated purpose of the operation had been to permit the weapon's purchase and transit to Mexico, in order to build a bigger case against Mexican criminal organizations." (Presumably to make arrests at some future date.)

"... the ATF knowingly allowed as many as 2,500 firearms to be sold illegally to known or suspected straw purchasers. One of those purchasers accounted for over 700 illegal guns."
"... the ATF ordered its agents working the program not to arrest illegal gun buyers or to interdict thousands of guns that were allowed to "walk" into criminal hands."
"... Senior ATF officials in Washington were regularly briefed on the operation and approved of the tactics employed."
"... the ATF agents who opposed the operation and who raised objections were told to 'get with the program' and threatened with job retaliation if they continued their opposition

The excuse/cover story for this operation provided by the US Attorney General is essentially..." intelligence failures" allowed these guns to get into the wrong hands, and resulted in unintended consequences, (deaths of civilians).

Once again we have the exact form of potential conspiracy I tried to detail in my 9/11 post… A documented case of an intelligence agency purposefully facilitating a stated enemy. Allowing them to conduct criminal operations under the pretense of "entrapping/arresting them at some future date". When/if discovered by the public, insulating those who are culpable though a potential cover-up called "intelligence failures".

As I stated in my previous 9/11 posts... how do we know for certain the ATF would have ever arrested the suspects involved, and prevented these criminal organizations from operating if not uncovered by the public? How do we know the leaders of this intelligence agency were not simply doing exactly what they intended... facilitating criminal activity? (Perhaps for the purpose of covertly destabilizing Mexico and the southern US border, or to provide a justification for the US federal government to increase anti-gun legislation in the US in the name of “preventing gun violence”… that they covertly helped to facilitate. ) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/...on-debate/

I believe this kind of conspiracy/cover story may be far more common within the intelligence community that we want to admit.
-------------

On a related note… I believe this film below gives a realistic portrayal of actual intelligence activity. While it may not be a great film in terms of drama, art, and filmmaking... I found the history of the CIA that the film presents intriguing. It didn’t do particularly well at box office despite its star power. I believe mainstream audiences were probably unfamiliar with much of the background history to make sense of many of the more subtle references to historical covert operations, and there are virtually no action sequences. Additionally, the film’s characters always speak in the double meaning verbiage of "plausible deniability", knowing their words might always be recorded by hidden wire taps and possibly used against them. This makes the spy vs spy plotlines a bit too vague for typical popcorn moviegoers.

Despite these issues… I thought the film was interesting and worth a rental for those interested in the topic of covert intelligence history. I’m not aware of many films out there attempt to present the subject realistically in historical context, (JFK comes to mind). Most are stylized James Bond /Jack Ryan style fictional accounts.



If anybody knows of any good historically accurate films regarding intelligence activity? I would be curious to hear suggestions.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
12-24-2011, 09:36 PM
Post: #36
RE: How To Make Sense Of Conspiracy Theories - Holocaust
I'm a huge fan of the Connery / Moore era Bond films. They're utterly ridiculous, but perfect comedy action escapism. The Good Shepherd captured the complex reality. Unfortunately that's the problem with the subject matter. Intelligence agency activities aren't very fun and dramatic, they're like slow methodical chess games drawn out over years with many players on the board. Unless the viewer is willing to stretch their intellect and learn the intricacies of deception involved they'll never appreciate the subject and will go back to their bubble gum chewing version in idiotic films that have a muscular guy brandishing a gun on the cover who never questions the motives of his unseen superiors.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
01-06-2012, 01:18 AM
Post: #37
RE: How To Make Sense Of Conspiracy Theories - Holocaust
(01-05-2012 02:45 AM)MikeOldfieldFan Wrote:  Another sad reality is that whereas WWII gets a lot of media attention the murders in China by Mao Zedong almost get none media attention. He killed more people than either Hitler or Stalin.

I wonder how many people know of this?

Sounds quite easy actually to keep things hidden from the public. Even when it's not even hidden.

I didn't know it, but just read up. 40-70 million apparently. That's nearly as many as WW2 all together and it all happened after WW2 ended. Ironically Mao's policies are attributed for the near doubling of Chinese population size in the same period.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-20-2012, 09:04 AM
Post: #38
RE: How To Make Sense Of Conspiracy Theories - Holocaust
(11-17-2012 05:22 AM)Barryloves Wrote:  In one sense, Holocaust denial began during World War II, as the Nazis tried to carry ... about historical events and more about classical antisemitic conspiracy theories. ... Deniers would be able to create that impression if historians and other ...



personal injury lawyer Austin

Why is your post broken up into fragments of sentences?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
11-25-2012, 01:45 PM (This post was last modified: 11-25-2012 01:47 PM by Scatterbrain114.)
Post: #39
RE: How To Make Sense Of Conspiracy Theories - Holocaust
(04-05-2011 01:22 PM)Bassbait Wrote:  I got that point. People should be allowed to question whatever they want. It's just that skepticism sometimes outweighs it's own usefulness. When you are talking about something as bad as the holocaust, don't pretend like it's impact is lessened by the attention it's been given. Yes, the great leap forward and the great purge were horrible things, but the holocaust was horrible to. Those two things weren't an act of genocide.

The Great Purge was fueled by Stalin's own fear of losing power. That's a horrible thing.

The Great Leap Forward was a horribly misguided attempt to get the country on track. It was horrible in execution, but it wasn't the worst idea on the planet.

Hitler's holocaust is far more sinister in nature, though. It wasn't fueled by stupidity or fear. It was fueled by nothing but hatred. The Great Purge outranks in numbers, sure, but the holocaust was, you know, the time when babies were thrown in the air and fired on, as well as all of the tragic things that the people of The Great Purge and The Great Leap Forward died of. The holocaust was not a thing of numbers, it was a thing of morals. Just like how 9/11 was horrible, not because of it's number, but because of how evil it was.

The holocaust should not be denied it's impact just because there were other atrocities. They should be equally remembered and equally left behind. I'm saying that it's not fair to disregard the people who had their babies shot, then themselves were worked nearly to death and then got thrown in a gas chamber as "not having it as bad as the Russians". It's just not fair to the victims of the holocaust. To be fair, all of the atrocities of the world are just that, atrocities, and should not be considered more or less important. I don't consider the holocaust somehow more important than the Great Purge, but I consider it a horrible time in history that should be remembered as a warning story.

The trouble is in magnifying your scale. Just to avoid confusion, I agree with everything you said, I'm just presenting a new topic..

To treat every atrocity that's ever happened objectively is probably the smart way to go. In other words, horrible things are all equally horrible and good things are all equally good. After that point, it just becomes a numbers game. Ie, how many people were affected in that horrible thing, or that good thing? Karmically (I just made that word up, so correct me if you dare..) speaking, the true results of the action are determined by volition. If someone intends to do something truly evil, then the action itself is truly evil; if someone intends to do something truly good, then the action itself is truly good. As old Spock, the granddaddy of logic put it, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
(11-20-2012 09:04 AM)robag Wrote:  
(11-17-2012 05:22 AM)Barryloves Wrote:  In one sense, Holocaust denial began during World War II, as the Nazis tried to carry ... about historical events and more about classical antisemitic conspiracy theories. ... Deniers would be able to create that impression if historians and other ...



personal injury lawyer Austin

Why is your post broken up into fragments of sentences?

Probably just bad typing habits; I tend to end a lot of my sentences with '..'. Putting '..'s randomly in the sentence is just a more terminal form of the same disease Tongue

“It’s not where you take things from – it’s where you take them to.” -JLG
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump: