Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
I was taught that the Trilateral Commission ruled all. Was I lied to?
No, not when you consider the fact that members of the Trilateral Commission (in a real-life version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers") have had their essences corrupted and taken over by Illuminati posing as pod people.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
Keep on confirming to yourself that you are supposed to present the sober fraction.
The more you feel the need of doing so the more the wisdom of your unconsciousness is displaying the order of first aiming then gathering, and intellectual depth of lemming obedience.
And keep in mind for just one single example of your congruency: The warning of European secret service about the assassins heading to the USA was idled away on receiving side by a single officer, right.
With, mind you, not only one but all of the equal dispatches sent to US colleagues by states securities of several EU states.
One must be brain dead to eat such and so much more of incredible inconsistency that is meant to serve as explanation for complete improbability. Just what mustn´t be can´t be. This way things will work. Simple as that; period. After all religion is science too, innit.
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
Events like 9/11, sightings of Sasquatch, UFOs and the like have a few things in common. They are rare, they attract wide attention, and the informations that almost everybody has to go on is at best second hand, at worst fantasy, or intentional falsehood.
The English common law system of trial by jury developed to arrive at decisions in cases like these. Decisions, not necessarily the truth. The principle of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" evolved in response to the difficulties inherent in decisions based on human evidence. In an interview the famous Texas criminal defense lawyer, "Racehorse" Haynes explained it like this:
"The defense's job is easier than the prosecution's. The jury has to believe the prosecution's whole case, but for the defense to win they just have to find some part of the defense case that they like."
"How is that, Mr. Haynes?"
"Well, suppose you say my dog bit you. I would say, 'My dog doesn't bite. Besides that, he was locked up in the house that day. Besides that, I don't have a dog.' The jury only has to believe one part of that for me to get off."
Sasquatch, 9/11 and so on are rare but attention grabbing events. Except for a very, very few of us, we have to rely on stories told by others. Conflicting stories inevitably arise. To disbelieve the "official" position, all you have to do is to believe some part of the counter-stories.
In English speaking countries it's perfectly legal for a jury to find someone "innocent" even if they believe he really did the crime, provided that the prosecution hasn't presented an airtight case. But the jury is not empowered to go on and convict another guy they were already p1ssed off at. There's a reason for that.
Sasquatch, 9/11 and so on are rare but attention grabbing events.
There is a huge difference between 9/11 and Sasquatch. That 9/11 happened is an established fact. The conspiracy theorists may wish to spin "reasons" why the US Government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks, but that the attacks occurred is beyond question.
Sasquatch, on the other hand, exists only in the tales of those claiming to have seen it. There is no unequivocal evidence that it exists at all, or that those claiming to have seen it were not mistaking a bear, or even a shadow, for something that they perceived as "Sasquatch.
If you wish to use the metaphor of a jury trial with a prosecutor and defense attorney, the case of 9/11 might conceivably pass muster as an event that actually occurred, and the purpose of the trial would be to determine who was responsible.
In the case of Sasquatch, however, the case would never even make it to court.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
That the US side was informed and forwarned by several EU states securities is no hearsay. ( Which is how disregard of the messages needed being absurdly explained, in place of simply just neglecting / concealing.) -
Same with series of further blatant conditions that were not vague at all.
I often wonder what it is that makes some conspiracies risible and others credible.... and have decided ( well for tonight at least) that personal culpability may be a crucial factor.
For some a life of privelege, unearned opportunity, successful market speculation and the entrenchment of inherited wealth might make the illiminati risible. Whereas others, possibly new to the accumulation of wealth, might find their subconscious guilt transformed into sympathy for the Yeti and 'skepticism' about moon landings.
And this is All TO THE GOOD as long as genuine introspection is avoided.
That the US side was informed and forwarned by several EU states securities is no hearsay. ( Which is how disregard of the messages needed being absurdly explained, in place of simply just neglecting / concealing.) -
Same with series of further blatant conditions that were not vague at all.
Ruphus
You underestimate the depth of my skepticism, brought about by a career in science and technology, much of it subject to comment in highly respected news media.
I have mentioned before having a copy of Scientific American on a shelf above my desk. When asked about it, my response was, "It contains an article about the Space Surveillance Network. Over a career of more than forty years, it is the only account I have seen of a large project, about which I have personal knowledge, and which contains no significant error of fact or emphasis."
The Scientific American and other publications including the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, The Economist, Le Monde, El Pais and El Universal all have consistently published articles with serious errors of fact or emphasis about events or projects of which I had personal knowledge. In most cases I attributed the errors not to a conscious attempt to mislead, but rather to beliefs due to political bias of one kind or another.
As far as I am concerned, everything in the news is hearsay. Not that I don't believe any of it. It's just that I am prepared to consider the possibility they have gotten something important wrong.
. In most cases I attributed the errors not to a conscious attempt to mislead, but rather to beliefs due to political bias of one kind or another.
I have known a few journalists and in general they have a refreshing lack of political bias. However what they do have to an alarming degree is a pathological attraction to 'story'. They express the gossip gene to an alarming degree.
The elements which make a story 'better' and which they often shoehorn into their copy are, sadly, not generally of their choosing.
I have another take on conspiracy theory, I think it is a form a narcissism. A person who believes in a system of events or ideas that as Richard said can't be verified, but minor aspects of which can appear real, use it to signify that they are different from the crowd. It is a device they use to differentiate themselves from the common person.
People are drawn to belief systems whether they know it or not, conspiracy theory activists are basically a benign form of cult follower. The strange thing about cult worlds and the media is that there is a such thing as Investigative Journalism, but what is it that makes investigation legitimate in each persons stream of rational understanding of a subject? It relies on personal experience with vetting out sources. What can you do for example, when a person asks you to look at a problem in science and then they tell you it has been peer reviewed, but you know something about how the science community works and what they gave you as "proof" was not a peer reviewed analysis? You have to have a lot of patience.
That´s alright. I am reading current SPIEGEL all the time with awareness of details from their own preceding editorial which they do not know themselves anymore.
However, what has quality of journalism to do with facts not just reported on, but confirmed and commented by concerning instances?
As far as I am concerned, everything in the news is hearsay. Not that I don't believe any of it. It's just that I am prepared to consider the possibility they have gotten something important wrong.
In total agreement on this, Richard. Very often both network and cable news, as well as the print media, come out with a "breaking story" that, in their haste to get the story out, is incorrect or incomplete. Usually, however, the process of corroboration with other sources and refinement of focus narrows the story down to the essential truth in later updates. The same generally holds true in the case of scientific and medical studies. Peer review either upholds or challenges a study. This was the case in the infamous study by the British physician Andrew Wakefield whose 1998 study fraudulently linked autism to MMR vaccine in children. Peer review and investigations showed Wakefield's results to have been fraudulently obtained via skewed evidence that he was unable to replicate. His study was rescinded and Wakefield lost his license in the UK. Unfortunately, many people believed Wakefield and refused the MMR vaccine to their children, leading to an uptick in childhood measles. And some people still believe Wakefield, in spite of the evidence of his deliberately fraudulent and discredited study!
That the above occurs, however, does not explain the conspiratorial mind. Conspiracy theorists do not actually care about facts, even after they have been corroborated and refined to their essence. It does not explain why there are still people who believe the moon landing never occurred, and that it was a US Government hoax that was actually filmed at a meteor crater with a moon-like landscape near Flagstaff, Arizona.
Nor does it explain why, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, there are still people who do not believe that 9/11 was actually planned and executed by Al-Qaeda; that the US Government actually conceived the plan and was complicit in its execution (to the point where some believe the twin towers and the damaged sections of the Pentagon were actually internally wired to implode!). In spite of overwhelming evidence that the moon landing actually occurred and that Al-Qaeda planned and executed the terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, there are people who remain willfully oblivious to all rational thought and prefer to spin fantastic theories that exist only in the synaptic impulses (if the synaptic impulses are indeed still firing!) in their own minds.
I suppose we should not be surprised that conspiracy theorists still abound, as there is still a "Flat Earth Society" whose members genuinely believe that the earth is flat. This in spite of the fact that we have known it is spherical since the time of Eratosthenes in Hellenistic Greece who, using trigonometry and the angle of shadow cast by the sun in Alexandria, Egypt, calculated the circumference of the earth with a high degree of accuracy for the time. But of course members of the Flat Earth Society will argue that from the time of the ancient Greeks to the present day, efforts to portray the earth as a sphere have all been a conspiracy to deceive. No doubt the Illuminati have been behind it from the beginning.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
When you´re finished with trying to insult me, see how everything in your chosen view is upside down.
You are defending the most obvious Reichstags burning ever whilst considering yourself Galileu whereas simply observing minds are supposed to be trivial, naive, baised and uninformed spinners. Even suppressing the manifest fact that you sheeps are the vast majority on earth, far from a tiny minority of autonomous thinkers dedicated to understanding whatever there be, and so much farther even from incorruptible spirit being.
How about refraining from deflecting your characteristics on people for their sobriety? However obscure appearing to you, but some have chosen to not be wriggling opportunists. For some reason they take things how they come, instead of limiting themselves to fittings of personal comfort and official parols.
Whereas contrasting you has been raised to follow a career. Forming a same interchangable mindset under any regime.
Your equivalent of the sixteenth century would be sitting in fine cloth, preparing files for catholic inquisitors. You leaf in the wind as proclaimer of a round earth ? That ought to be the only actual joke made in this thread so far!
-
But hey, you know what? I am all mistaking. You with all that fluffy posting in this thread have merely missed out on plausibly unrolling why the US states security ignored diverse of the EU´s warnings about the assassin´s landing.
I am all ears, ready to apologize for my erring about your sincerely inquiring mind.
Pointing to patent contradictions of your Brave World is supposed to be nuts, whilst your ordinary trial to insult is supposed to be insignia of your pragmatism!?
But you can´t insult me, because you do not have the intellectual background for me to count on it.
Conservatives have been measured as of low intelligence ( which is only inherent to their blind view), and you are merely helping to prove it, which again might make others reconsider what they might have believed from official propaganda already.
If you really believe the US `defence´ system couldn´t prevent a group of retarded low brow amateurs from travelling to USA and attacking, and such even when the system is being alerted by foreign services, then the least one should see you doing would be demanding a cut down on immense expenses of the overblown yet dysfunctional states security, while the US´ official household being right before bankruptcy anyway. But that would again require just too much of independent thinking.
The insane are you. And that as obviouisly as it gets. Standing by a deserting planet full of entirely needless grief, injust and destruction, yet applauding autocratic systems.
A thorough brainwash that leaves any somewhat healthy mind seriously worried about where we have come to with refined mass manipulation.
Here is another example of journalism getting things wrong. Not getting the facts wrong, but arriving at the wrong conclusion.
During the Cold War, a major part of my job was to render Soviet strategic missile defenses ineffective by seriously degrading the operation of their radars and other sensors. This was done by developing and fielding on the West's strategic missile systems a variety of technologies such as jammers, decoys and other techniques.
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology physics professor wrote a series of articles in the Scientific American criticizing various U.S. defense programs, among them the one I just mentioned. The professor had his facts largely correct, though the details of the systems he criticized were supposed to be secret. He pointed out how the Soviet sensors could be upgraded to defeat our countermeasures, again largely correctly. He concluded that since out countermeasures could be defeated, it was a waste of money to develop and deploy them.
Scientific American, a highly respected magazine popularizing science and technology, published editorials condemning the stupidity and wastefulness of this particular program.
Since I spent a fair amount of time at Lincoln Laboratory, a government lab managed by MIT in the Boston area, I happened to meet this professor, and became fairly well acquainted with him. I brought up his article about our strategic countermeasures.
"I think you did a good job of getting the supposedly secret details of our systems, and I think your proposals for defeating them are valid, but I disagree with your conclusions."
"How can you disagree with my conclusions," asked the professor, "when you agree with my facts?"
I replied, "You overlook the point this this is war. We know how the Soviets could defeat our systems. But they suffer from at least three disadvantages. First, their sensor technology is at least 20 years behind that of the West. Second, we can predict fairly accurately what they would need to do to defeat our present systems, and we have already developed technology to defeat those upgraded Soviet sensors. Third, it would cost them somewhere between ten and fifteen times as much to defeat our current systems as it has cost us to field them. That is a significant economic advantage. They have already spent about a hundred billion rubles on strategic defense, while our system to counter their defense has cost about $200-million. The war doesn't end with one more Soviet advance, and it's bleeding them dry to keep up with us."
The professor's facts were correct. But he only looked at a part of the picture, and drew the wrong conclusion.
This is a persistent failure of journalism. For example we hear over and over about Congressional gridlock, but we hear little or nothing about its root causes. And we hear a great deal of political propaganda.
Conspiracy theorists do not actually care about facts, even after they have been corroborated and refined to their essence.
Maybe for some, like the Annunaki theorists or the Wakefield case that you mentioned (which I don't really know about), but for others on the other hand of course is a fundamental aspect to care about facts, for instance I can make reference to presidents like John F. Kennedy or George Washington who were aware of these secret societies that are highlighted in almost every conspiracy theory. In fact conspiracies and secret societies have always existed throughout human history, and if we start with that... that is a fact:
I believe this below is one of the most strongest documents that we have of the existence of a secret society called “The Illuminati”
It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
And I'm not even mentioning the fact that building seven fell down by itself, no plane hit that building!, how did it fall?, why was the building evacuated hours before it fell down?.
quote:
In spite of overwhelming evidence that the moon landing actually occurred
uhhh, the original magnetic data tapes containing the recorded transmission from the moon's surface are missing. The data on these tapes includes the original slow-scan TV signals, plus voice and telemetry data of the first Apollo landing, all we have are copies, look it for yourself. Why some of the evidence of such an important event like the first time humans land on the moon should be missing? I don't follow what overwhelming evidence you are pointing out. Can you please link me to that overwhelming evidence, I would be very happy to see them!
_____________________________
La pureza no se puede perder nunca, cuando uno la lleve dentro de verdad...
I may be repeating myself, but the key hallmark of a proper conspiracy theory is that it is irrefutable. No evidence can be brought forth to counter the theory without the allegation that said "evidence" is itself part of the conspiracy. Science, properly conducted, by contrast is (eventually) self-correcting, though some scientists never become reconciled to more advanced views; it is only when the last few vigorous partisans of the "old school" die off that the newer scientific theory is (almost) completely embraced. I am speaking here of scientists with no religious or political axe to grind; I'm not referring to, say, opponents of evolution, partisans of "intelligent design", etc. I remember well reading refutations/denunciations of plate tectonics by certain old-school geologists when I was a grad student.
Similarly, we must await the final passing of the last believers in certain conspiracy theories before we are finally free of nonsense about moon landing hoaxes, 9-11 conspiracies, etc. Just be patient.
. In most cases I attributed the errors not to a conscious attempt to mislead, but rather to beliefs due to political bias of one kind or another.
I have known a few journalists and in general they have a refreshing lack of political bias. However what they do have to an alarming degree is a pathological attraction to 'story'. They express the gossip gene to an alarming degree.
The elements which make a story 'better' and which they often shoehorn into their copy are, sadly, not generally of their choosing.
D.
"Political bias" was a misnomer. As usual, I will explain at length.
At Kwajalein I had the pleasure of hosting for a week two outstanding journalists, a reporter for the New York Times and a photographer for the Washington Post. Both were on leaves of absence and working on books about U.S. strategic missile defense.
When I met them at the airport, after introducing myself I laid down ground rules. "I will not be quoted. I will not be paraphrased on 'background' without attribution. I expect to drink a glass of whisky with you from time to time, and to relate facts and express opinions, but they are not to appear in your work attributed to an employee of this place."
The Washington Post guy grinned, and asked, "Spent any time in Washington?"
"A fair amount."
We got on very well. Each was extremely bright and well informed. They were articulate, curious and fair minded.
After a few days of official tours, appointments with other workers and a few glasses of whisky at my place, the New York Times guy said, "It's a shame you won't let us quote you on background. It has been extremely interesting to spend time with you. You express informed and practical views on defense, but your attitudes toward the environmental damage we are causing here, and the detrimental effects on Marshallese culture have surprised me, along with quite a few other things you have said."
"That is precisely why I will not be quoted. The questions you ask imply your preconceptions and the story you are out to research and write. My views don't fit your preconceptions. Furthermore, there would not be space in your book to express my views clearly. They don't fit into the buckets you have for ideas. They would not take you toward your objectives."
Instead of "political bias" I should have said "preconception". The professor I mentioned earlier was well informed, well intentioned, and took pains to be fair. His preconceptions kept him from seeing the whole story. He reached the wrong conclusion from the part of the story he could see.
All of us have preconceptions. What we get from even the best journalism has been filtered through the preconceptions of others. If it cuts across our own preconceptions it can help to make us think. But it can't be relied upon to be the whole truth.
And witnesses to the truth can take years to decide at last to talk about it. There are dozens of cases of this in my current reading, Caro's biography of Lyndon Johnson, and Ana Hernandez' incredibly brave account of the drug wars in Mexico, Narcolandia.
RNJ
On a more positive note, this afternoon I attended the sixth and last of the Miró Quartet's concerts of all the Beethoven Quartets. They finished with Opus 130, with the Grosse Fuge, its original finale. Austin likes standing ovations, but I heard and participated in the most enthusiastic one ever at the end of the performance. Before the concert and at intermission I had chatted a bit with the man next to me. As we walked up the aisle leaving he said modestly, "I feel I have led a rather circumscribed existence."
I replied, "No one having heard that can call his existence circumscribed."
Conspiracy theorists do not actually care about facts, even after they have been corroborated and refined to their essence.
Maybe for some, like the Annunaki theorists or the Wakefield case that you mentioned (which I don't really know about), but for others on the other hand of course is a fundamental aspect to care about facts, for instance I can make reference to presidents like John F. Kennedy or George Washington who were aware of these secret societies that are highlighted in almost every conspiracy theory. In fact conspiracies and secret societies have always existed throughout human history, and if we start with that... that is a fact:
I believe this below is one of the most strongest documents that we have of the existence of a secret society called “The Illuminati”
It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.
The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
And I'm not even mentioning the fact that building seven fell down by itself, no plane hit that building!, how did it fall?, why was the building evacuated hours before it fell down?.
quote:
In spite of overwhelming evidence that the moon landing actually occurred
uhhh, the original magnetic data tapes containing the recorded transmission from the moon's surface are missing. The data on these tapes includes the original slow-scan TV signals, plus voice and telemetry data of the first Apollo landing, all we have are copies, look it for yourself. Why some of the evidence of such an important event like the first time humans land on the moon should be missing? I don't follow what overwhelming evidence you are pointing out. Can you please link me to that overwhelming evidence, I would be very happy to see them!
What a freaking joke man. Every clip you choose. Wow, really man. THe famous secret society speech of JFK (taken out of context) ... probing the politicians about skull bones, oh lord, the plane that hit tower two, it was grey...no it was silver...no it was black...no it was a military plane...no it was a jet fighter.... ... and not even going any where near the moon landing BS. Some guy tried to say shadows are supposed to be PARALLEL on the moon. FUK they are not parallel on earth! Get off the video games and take a look outside at the real shadows for once. GET A FREAKIN LIFE GUYS!!!!!!!!
It is customary in professional mathematics journals and in graduate texts and lectures to give only a sketch of a proof. The reader or listener is expected to fill in the intermediate steps, by means that ought to be common knowledge, or easily devised.
At the Princeton Institute for Advanced Study they used to say, "If Lefschetz says, 'The following is obvious,' it is wrong, and it will take you about 15 minutes to prove it. If Von Neumann says, 'The following is obvious,' it is true, and it will take you six months to prove it."
So let me have a go on this one:
1. George Washington makes a speech in the 18th century defending Freemasonry against the charge that it is a secret society with political aims like the Illuminati and the Jacobins. (By the way, why haven't we heard more about the Jacobins lately? Are they really, really secret now?)
2. John F. Kennedy makes a speech about Communism, and is subsequently assassinated.
3. Both George W. Bush and John Kerry belonged to an undergraduate fraternity for rich kids, which happens to retain the secrecy that almost all college fraternities used to have about everything, and most other such fraternities retain to the present day about some of their activities.
It follows that there is a secret conspiracy that controls world politics and economics, QED.
Ummm....I think I'm going to need a few more hints to connect the dots here...this is too hard.
Well you are one of three things: Ignorant, arrogant or just plain stupid. And on top of all of that you are overbearing. At least a nut job has some level of intelligence (sorry but if you wanna throw insults around be prepared to have them back)
This is not directed at anyone in particular, but can we go easy on this kind of thing? This is a flamenco forum and the usual suspects bashing each other is entirely predictable. If not, I will lock this thread.
Since the times of Sokrates literate westerners to a certain degree should be educated in self-observation.
Warshippers of Wonderland who have been so enagaged in suggesting about the biased psyche of conspiracy theorists show in the same time perfectly unable to raise the least bit of self-observation. More even, firmly omitting to note how they are giving the Three Monkeys.
A position that is actually / sincerely prepared to know will not shy away from any aspect. Only religious-like precondition makes ignoring of given facts as hysterically like in this thread.
Of the oh so sober and informed posters not one has done what anyone without anxiety of information would do. Asking what there could be to the pointer at neglected 9/11 warnings.
Look at what has been targeted in silly terms of down-playing and insulting, but not one word about the actual objections on 9/11 whereabouts ( of which I chose to mention only one). Where are the refutes?!
Would it not be conclusive to deliver those, instead of waisting time with aggression? Why are there no countering arguments presented? Why such argumentative and psychological bust?
Because it is the irrational setting of goal first, with manouvers to follow suit. Whereas the order of science, which has been mentioned here out of all mainly by who show merely arbitrary, would be observing first and and concluding afterwards.
Jehovha´s Witnesses could be envying your plutocratic church verve. -
Anyway. Here is what you were invited to in content, but refuse to even consider as question:
HAS THERE ACTUALLY OCCURED SOMETHING LIKE IGNORED WARNINGS ABOUT THE 9/11 ATTACKERS?
For the dreaded answer cuttings from a NY Times article:
quote:
On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration’s reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
...
the C.I.A. prepared an analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real. ...
And the C.I.A. repeated the warnings in the briefs that followed.
In case of any needing it explained: Journalistic reliability is not of relevance regarding existence of objects already officially confirmed and reflected on by instances in question.
The presentation of facts and evidence to refute the conspiracy theorist's worldview has no effect on him at all. The reason it has no effect is because he will not allow facts and evidence to disturb his preconceived "Narrative." The "Narrative" is not just everything to the conspiracy theorist, it is the only thing. Moreover, the conspiracy theorist is convinced that anyone who presents evidence to refute the "Narrative" is a member of the conspiracy itself, for if he were not, why would he be participating in the attempt cover it up?
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
"Political bias" was a misnomer. As usual, I will explain at length.
I am personally fascinated by the genetic basis for dishonesty and in particular self deception. Human beings can detect in others (and in particular those they know well) dishonesty to the extent that this can yield a genuine advantage.
This would tend to render a range of longterm social strategies unlikely to succeed. However their success may be made more likely if the person engaging in them is unaware of their own true goals.
I was just about old enough to find Ronald Reagans claims about StarWars defense risible. Was Ronnie a better actor than his film performances suggest or was he himself a believer ? . Well I don't know.
In Britain at this time it is not generally legal for an MD to prescribe a placebo. Although there would be undeniable benefits in a significant number of cases it is felt to be demeaning to the patient. Also it might be a clinical cul de sac for unimaginative or jaded health professionals.
But just suppose that you,as patient, has been prescribed a placebo. On the way home, a nurse might inform you that the doctor had given you a sugar pill. Who has treated you with respect ?
I note that the job of placebos is more often done by dubious drugs of marginal demonstrable clinical value. Whilst it is true that these drugs may well be better as placebos (due to enhanced presentation) than the traditional sugar pill they do tend to have wide ranging side effects.
I was talking to a retired drug company rep and he talked at length about the enhanced effectiveness of one drug or another of 'acceptable' toxicity and how it saved the world from the plague. And all this largely due to a stellar yet notably dishonest advertising campaign publicly overstating its value and effectiveness.
I might wonder.... 'He knows all philosophy is a function of circumstance ...right ?. And there must be a control group in which the world ended, right ? Might I have the location of and precise figures for that ? (I'm guessing it isn't twentieth century China, may Haiti under Columbus would be a better contender).
Anyway I have to go I just heard the bell ring and there may be cheese !!! (CAREFUL WITH YOU FEET !!!)
Printable Version
(sorry but if you wanna throw insults around be prepared to have them back)
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread