Confessions of an Ex-Truther

[porch]

So, there I was at the dinner party, and we're talking politics, indulging in a bit of Bush-bashing. I bring up 9/11 and start, you know, asking some questions. And, hey, I'm not saying they did do it, but what if? *uncomfortable pause* Well, I for one would like to know more about this. After another brief awkwardness, someone shrugs and says, "You never know." Someone else is a bit more reassuring, "I wouldn't put it past them." The conversation moves on, and I leave the party later, thinking to myself, "Why doesn't anyone want to talk about this? What's wrong with them?" This is serious business, after all.

Yeah, I was that guy.

I wasn't in so deep as to be a preacher or anything, but the 9/11 thing was niggling at me for a while. Then I got the internet. For a little bit, this caused a real spike in my truth levels. Gradually, though, through the amazing powers of the world wide web, I was able to address each of my concerns one by one, and get a better understanding of what actually happened. I entered the search with a pretty poor science background, and I ended up learning a little bit. More importantly, though, was learning how to navigate this vast information resource, and evaluate the sources of your facts.

Once I figured it out, I went on a bit of a debunking binge, taking on every opportunity online and in person to educate The Kooks in the ways of The Sheeple. Laying down the Links! These days I don't take any of it quite as seriously. I think a lot of the CTers are localized on the internet. It sort of dawned on me one day, "Oh, yeah, to a whole lot of people, this isn't even an issue." I still step into debates from time to time with concise comments, and still... follow the latest news in the truth. It's fun to have a hobby! :)

Right, so, I don't post here much, but I just wanted to share a bit of that and to thank the jref forums and all the links and resources and stuff provided here for being a big part of my journey into the light. Hallelu-baaaa!

[pomeroo]

[quote=porch;2766266]So, there I was at the dinner party, and we're talking politics, indulging in a bit of Bush-bashing. I bring up 9/11 and start, you know, asking some questions. And, hey, I'm not saying they did do it, but what if? *uncomfortable pause* Well, I for one would like to know more about this. After another brief awkwardness, someone shrugs and says, "You never know." Someone else is a bit more reassuring, "I wouldn't put it past them." The conversation moves on, and I leave the party later, thinking to myself, "Why doesn't anyone want to talk about this? What's wrong with them?" This is serious business, after all.

Yeah, I was that guy.

I wasn't in so deep as to be a preacher or anything, but the 9/11 thing was niggling at me for a while. Then I got the internet. For a little bit, this caused a real spike in my truth levels. Gradually, though, through the amazing powers of the world wide web, I was able to address each of my concerns one by one, and get a better understanding of what actually happened. I entered the search with a pretty poor science background, and I ended up learning a little bit. More importantly, though, was learning how to navigate this vast information resource, and evaluate the sources of your facts.

Once I figured it out, I went on a bit of a debunking binge, taking on every opportunity online and in person to educate The Kooks in the ways of The Sheeple. Laying down the Links! These days I don't take any of it quite as seriously. I think a lot of the CTers are localized on the internet. It sort of dawned on me one day, "Oh, yeah, to a whole lot of people, this isn't even an issue." I still step into debates from time to time with concise comments, and still... follow the latest news in the truth. It's fun to have a hobby! :)

Right, so, I don't post here much, but I just wanted to share a bit of that and to thank the jref forums and all the links and resources and stuff provided here for being a big part of my journey into the light. Hallelu-baaaa!



Very nice indeed! If I were a different sort of guy, I'd call it heartwarming.

[Viper Daimao]

Good for you man, I'm very happy for you, but I have to tell you, you were never a truther. This is made evident by the fact that your mind was open to learning more and understanding what really happened. You were actually asking questions and seeking the truth. Truthers never do this.

[William Rea]

So, there I was at the dinner party, and we're talking politics, indulging in a bit of Bush-bashing. I bring up 9/11 and start, you know, asking some questions. And, hey, I'm not saying they did do it, but what if? *uncomfortable ...snip...here much, but I just wanted to share a bit of that and to thank the jref forums and all the links and resources and stuff provided here for being a big part of my journey into the light. Hallelu-baaaa!

Congratulations on your assimilation 9 Of 13.

[JLam]

I never post in this section, mostly to avoid suicidal thoughts, but I stumbled across this and would like to offer my congratulations on seeing the light.

[Calcas]

Congratulations on your assimilation 9 Of 13.

Look who's back!

How was the beach?

[WildCat]

porch, I must admit I am very disappointed in this "confession". No tawdry sexual affair with Judy Wood, no bong sessions with Dylan Avery, no stories about a drunken Fetzer.

Seriously, this wouldn't even make you lose a "Ms. New Jersey" title...




:p

[Mobyseven]

Very nice indeed! If I were a different sort of guy, I'd call it heartwarming.

Ron - you have a heart? :p

[MIKILLINI]

Congratulations porch, I had gone through the same transformation you have here, also. Coming here to argue "truther" logic and becoming enlightened in actual truth, plus, realizing you are now using critical thinking skills, carries a great value. From My POV, it was a most excellent idea to check out this site.

Besides, Wildcat never lost a Ms. "New Jersey" title either. :D

[pomeroo]

Ron - you have a heart? :p



Shhhh!

[Devil's Advocate]

So, there I was at the dinner party, and we're talking politics, indulging in a bit of Bush-bashing. I bring up 9/11 and start, you know, asking some questions. And, hey, I'm not saying they did do it, but what if? *uncomfortable pause* Well, I for one would like to know more about this. After another brief awkwardness, someone shrugs and says, "You never know." Someone else is a bit more reassuring, "I wouldn't put it past them." The conversation moves on, and I leave the party later, thinking to myself, "Why doesn't anyone want to talk about this? What's wrong with them?" This is serious business, after all.

Yeah, I was that guy.

I wasn't in so deep as to be a preacher or anything, but the 9/11 thing was niggling at me for a while. Then I got the internet. For a little bit, this caused a real spike in my truth levels. Gradually, though, through the amazing powers of the world wide web, I was able to address each of my concerns one by one, and get a better understanding of what actually happened. I entered the search with a pretty poor science background, and I ended up learning a little bit. More importantly, though, was learning how to navigate this vast information resource, and evaluate the sources of your facts.

Once I figured it out, I went on a bit of a debunking binge, taking on every opportunity online and in person to educate The Kooks in the ways of The Sheeple. Laying down the Links! These days I don't take any of it quite as seriously. I think a lot of the CTers are localized on the internet. It sort of dawned on me one day, "Oh, yeah, to a whole lot of people, this isn't even an issue." I still step into debates from time to time with concise comments, and still... follow the latest news in the truth. It's fun to have a hobby! :)

Right, so, I don't post here much, but I just wanted to share a bit of that and to thank the jref forums and all the links and resources and stuff provided here for being a big part of my journey into the light. Hallelu-baaaa!

Do not pick a side in this. Go with the evidence and stand where it stands. When people make the mistake of 'sides', it can become a 'team' like mentality rather than one of logical thought.
If you're on a side, you may just cast off evidence because it does not fit with 'your team' and what they believe.
I think that is the very reason some people are blinded by the evidence is because they have a team mentality, and have closed their minds for the sake of 'the team'.

[Rika]

I dunno. If all the evidence points at a 'team'.. you can more or less pick a side. It doesn't mean you can't switch sides later.

[BillyRayValentine]

Do not pick a side in this. Go with the evidence and stand where it stands. When people make the mistake of 'sides', it can become a 'team' like mentality rather than one of logical thought.

How completely obtuse.

The point is precisely that you dont get to "pick" in matters of fact. You evaluate the evidence, and your choice is made for you (or at least should be).

Once you are certain of where the evidence points, you can't help but mock those who distort it so brazenly. There's nothing illogical about this - and they deserve it.

[scooby]

Then I got the internet. For a little bit, this caused a real spike in my truth levels. Gradually, though, through the amazing powers of the world wide web, I was able to address each of my concerns one by one, and get a better understanding of what actually happened.

LOL - list them, and explain how each was addressed.

[Devil's Advocate]

The point is precisely that you dont get to "pick" in matters of fact. You evaluate the evidence, and your choice is made for you (or at least should be).
Which is exactly what I said.

Once you are certain of where the evidence points, you can't help but mock those who distort it so brazenly. There's nothing illogical about this - and they deserve it.

You have your opinion of debate and education, I have mine.
Do you make fun of people that cannot read?
Why not?
When people are above mistakes, then they can feel superior, because then they are. But seeing that no one will ever be mistake free, it will never be an issue.
Some people cannot be reasoned with, true.
But you may push people away that are sincere in their desire to learn through attack rather than reason.

[DGM]

LOL - list them, and explain how each was addressed.
Show me a truther question that you have a factual conclusion for?

[The Doc]

LOL - list them, and explain how each was addressed.

And who the hell do you think you are? Show some respect.

[Horatius]

Do not pick a side in this. Go with the evidence and stand where it stands.

Which is exactly what I said.





Which is exactly what he did. So why are you telling him to "not pick a side"?

Porch here is exactly what everyone on both "sides" of this debate claim to want - people who will actually listen to the arguments, and actually change their mind on the basis of evidence. And yet, he still gets kicked (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2766310#post2766310) in the teeth (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2766771#post2766771) because some twoofers are annoyed he didn't come down on their side.

If you think he's wrong to choose this side, fine, how about you explain why, rather than just waffling along about how he shouldn't "pick a side"?

[calebprime]

I never post in this section, mostly to avoid suicidal thoughts, but I stumbled across this and would like to offer my congratulations on seeing the light.

my bold. I know exactly what you mean. It's really depressing, in a way. But I'm sort of hooked. The stupid hurts, but I keep coming back for more.


Do not pick a side in this. Go with the evidence and stand where it stands. When people make the mistake of 'sides', it can become a 'team' like mentality rather than one of logical thought.
If you're on a side, you may just cast off evidence because it does not fit with 'your team' and what they believe.
I think that is the very reason some people are blinded by the evidence is because they have a team mentality, and have closed their minds for the sake of 'the team'.

The image of 'sides' is misleading, because it suggests something like equal validity. In fact, you have people ranging from the obtuse to the eccentric to the absolutely loony suggesting ridiculous conspiracy theories. It's a turkey shoot.

Maybe those controversies with two or more plausible sides get discussed in politics and current events--not conspiracy theories.

You may lose your commendable patience and civility if you stick around for a while, and see what you're up against. There are people here who have been posting for four or five years--they've seen every form of madness, and every kind of dodge.

eta: These are not philosophical issues, or cutting-edge science controversies, like quantum mechanics, where the questions and answers are very much open-ended. There tends to be a right and wrong answer here. Planes hit the towers. The towers did not have a concrete core. Etc.

[Alferd_Packer]

I went on a bit of a debunking binge

Been there, done that. I was a debunking fixture over at ATS for a long time until I got totally burned out on forums for while.

It's fun to have a hobby! :)

That's my attitude. I indulge in a bit of debunking here and there, but mostly I just post short quips pointing out the obvious. :D

[Alferd_Packer]

No tawdry sexual affair with Judy Wood,

BRAIN SCRUB!!!!!

[scooby]

Show me a truther question that you have a factual conclusion for?

Porch is the ex-truther - lets ask him.
Let him lead that others might follow.

And who the hell do you think you are? Show some respect.

I'm not allowed to show the respect I have for the 20 or so posters who shill this forum. Rule 8 remember?

[DGM]

.
Originally Posted by DGM
Show me a truther question that you have a factual conclusion for?

Porch is the ex-truther - lets ask him.
Let him lead that others might follow

Nice dodge!:rolleyes:

[scooby]

.

Nice dodge!:rolleyes:

Dodge what, I wasn't even talking to you.
I'm waiting on Porch's list, and chuckling.
Something tells me it's going to be a long wait.

[chippy]

There's no need to get worked up here. If porch wants to list some things that changed his mind, then he can. It's up to him.

At any rate, Scooby, what gives you the impression that porch pulled this whole thing out of his rear? Do you really not think that there are any debunkable claims made by 9/11 truthers? Look about an inch lower, you'll find a link that debunks several 9/11 truther claims.

[porch]

porch, I must admit I am very disappointed in this "confession". No tawdry sexual affair with Judy Wood, no bong sessions with Dylan Avery, no stories about a drunken Fetzer.

Seriously, this wouldn't even make you lose a "Ms. New Jersey" title...




:p


Hee he. I have to keep some things under wraps. If my "Confessions" video sells enough, I'll include the more spicy bits in "Confessions: Final Cut." You have to understand the Truth Market. As a little tease, though, I'll have you know that Judy is a bit of a screamer. "Beam me up! Beam me up!"

[porch]

William Rea: You may (or may not) have noticed that I was being a bit facetious about the whole "conversion" aspect. I thought you were joking along, until someone commented on your post.

LOL - list them, and explain how each was addressed.


These days I don't take any of it quite as seriously.


Sorry, but I didn't start this thread to just end up once again going over detail after detail. If it makes the truther veterans here feel any better, I do still entertain some LIHOP fantasies. I think it probably definitely had something to do with Richard Perle. I mean,

just

look

at

him!


Richard Perle sez: "JACK THE TAB!"

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/porch/perle1.jpg


"OH NOES, SCOOBY SNAX IS KIKCING IN!"

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/porch/perle2.jpg


Then again, my other theory is that China set the whole thing up. They knew an event like 9/11 would draw the US into a quagmire in the middle east, thereby stretching out their resources and giving China the upper hand in the upcoming Water Wars of 2025 (as foretold by PNAC). It's a tough call, because each theory has an equal amount of evidence to support it. But do you actually believe that either theory could be brought down by such a measly weapon as Occam's Boxcutter?

[T.A.M.]

Porch:

Glad to see reason and logic won out.

As for scooby, he is one of our notorious "stand around and yell and scream without any real evidence" truthers...but he is usually harmless enough.

William I don't take as a truther so much as REALLY suspicious of Government, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, welcome aboard (though you have been here over a year).

TAM:)

[Myriad]

William Rea: You may (or may not) have noticed that I was being a bit facetious about the whole "conversion" aspect. I thought you were joking along, until someone commented on your post.


Sorry, but I didn't start this thread to just end up once again going over detail after detail. If it makes the truther veterans here feel any better, I do still entertain some LIHOP fantasies. I think it probably definitely had something to do with Richard Perle. I mean,

just

look

at

him!


Richard Perle sez: "JACK THE TAB!"

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/porch/perle1.jpg


"OH NOES, SCOOBY SNAX IS KIKCING IN!"

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/porch/perle2.jpg


Then again, my other theory is that China set the whole thing up. They knew an event like 9/11 would draw the US into a quagmire in the middle east, thereby stretching out their resources and giving China the upper hand in the upcoming Water Wars of 2025 (as foretold by PNAC). It's a tough call, because each theory has an equal amount of evidence to support it. But do you actually believe that either theory could be brought down by such a measly weapon as Occam's Boxcutter?


The Force is strong in this one!

Welcome to (our corner of) the jungle, porch. We've got fun and games.

Oh, and: :bigclap

Respectfully,
Myriad

[BillyRayValentine]

You have your opinion of debate and education, I have mine.
Do you make fun of people that cannot read?
Why not?


Inapt analogy. A more appropriate one would pertain to people who can read, but intentionally distort words and meanings at their pleasure. And insist that their personal version is the "truth".


When people are above mistakes, then they can feel superior, because then they are. But seeing that no one will ever be mistake free, it will never be an issue.
Some people cannot be reasoned with, true.
But you may push people away that are sincere in their desire to learn through attack rather than reason.

Few truthers on these boards are merely "making a mistake". Most are firmly entrenched in their "beliefs", and deliberately use distortion and innuendo to slander, with malice aforethought, a great many people. You seem unwilling to make a distinction between this (obviously) deliberate behavior, and an honest mistake.

To the extent that someone really is asking questions to learn, that's different. I just don't sense that that's the case very often. Questions that begin with "Why did X happen...", instead of "Did X happen..." (when X clearly did not happen), tend to betray the mindset of the person asking the question, for example.

[scooby]

There's no need to get worked up here. If porch wants to list some things that changed his mind, then he can. It's up to him.

At any rate, Scooby, what gives you the impression that porch pulled this whole thing out of his rear?

It was just a hunch.

[scooby]

Porch:

Glad to see reason and logic won out.

As for scooby, he is one of our notorious "stand around and yell and scream without any real evidence" truthers...but he is usually harmless enough.

William I don't take as a truther so much as REALLY suspicious of Government, but I could be wrong.

Anyway, welcome aboard (though you have been here over a year).

TAM:)

What are you the narrator?

[Dr Adequate]

It was just a hunch. Ah ... same reason you accuse people of mass murder without evidence, then.

Did it never occur to you that believing the first unsubstantiated idea that pops into your head will lead you wrong more often than not?

[scooby]

Ah ... same reason you accuse people of mass murder without evidence, then.

Did it never occur to you that believing the first unsubstantiated idea that pops into your head will lead you wrong more often than not?

Do you know to be honest it did all start off with a hunch.

I think it was because I already knew that someone had used explosives to bring down the building at OKC, and that there'd been some sort of cover up over a probable shoot down of TWA800, and then there was a BBC doc about Ruby Ridge, plus of course - WACO.

I mean hello, mcfly!

[scissorhands]

I think it was because I already knew that someone had used explosives to bring down the building at OKC

I thought everybody knew that.
:confused:

[Horatius]

I thought everybody knew that.
:confused:



I think he means "someone other than the guy who planted the Big Obvious Bomb out front".

[scissorhands]

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.:)

[Horatius]

Ah, my bad then. But I still like the "Big Obvious Bomb" part :)

[T.A.M.]

What are you the narrator?

Now now scooby. Has someone gone to long with out a scooby snack...no need to be so sarcastic, I was merely giving him a little description of the two posters mentioned, William and you.

TAM:)

[Devil's Advocate]

Inapt analogy. A more appropriate one would pertain to people who can read, but intentionally distort words and meanings at their pleasure. And insist that their personal version is the "truth".

Few truthers on these boards are merely "making a mistake". Most are firmly entrenched in their "beliefs", and deliberately use distortion and innuendo to slander, with malice aforethought, a great many people. You seem unwilling to make a distinction between this (obviously) deliberate behavior, and an honest mistake.

To the extent that someone really is asking questions to learn, that's different. I just don't sense that that's the case very often. Questions that begin with "Why did X happen...", instead of "Did X happen..." (when X clearly did not happen), tend to betray the mindset of the person asking the question, for example.

I agree with most of that...other than I have not attacked anyone since I've been here. I have defended myself, but attacked no one.
I just do not agree with people making assumptions and accusing someone right off the jump. Some people have questions, but may word it in a manner that seems suspect to people that have been here a while.
Those people need to realize that they (the newcomers) have not been here, and they do not know what some others have done.
I think people should save ammo until they are sure they are firing upon an enemy. And know that some people my be 'truthers' that want to see the other side. If someone starts junk, then thats another matter all together.

[scissorhands]

Ah, my bad then. But I still like the "Big Obvious Bomb" part :)


If only McVeigh had made a bigger one.
For some people, things are never quite big and obvious enough.:)

[Axiom_Blade]

Inapt analogy. A more appropriate one would pertain to people who can read, but intentionally distort words and meanings at their pleasure. And insist that their personal version is the "truth".


Yes. There's a big difference between ignorant and wilfully ignorant.
Ignorant people can still learn; but those who persist and even revel in their ignorance for some sort of twisted agenda...

In small groups, they can be laughed at.
In large groups, they should be feared.

[MIKILLINI]

Ah, my bad then. But I still like the "Big Obvious Bomb" part :)

:D You mean the one disguised as a truck?

[MIKILLINI]

Yes. There's a big difference between ignorant and wilfully ignorant.
Ignorant people can still learn; but those who persist and even revel in their ignorance for some sort of twisted agenda...

In small groups, they can be laughed at.
In large groups, they should be feared.

I'm doing a willfully ignorant part right now; Is that you Poindexter? I see your avatar is the logo you had for the IAO. :p

[Horatius]

:D You mean the one disguised as a truck?



Yes, that would be the one.



:D

[scooby]

Now now scooby. Has someone gone to long with out a scooby snack...no need to be so sarcastic, I was merely giving him a little description of the two posters mentioned, William and you.

TAM:)

Yes.

Why?

[Civilized Worm]

Congratulations on your assimilation 9 Of 13.


And you insist you aren't a twoofer.

[Freddy]

And you insist you aren't a twoofer.
I read that as a joking "welcome to the NWO" post. But I am not very familiar with William's posting history (except that he doesn't care for the Stundies).

[JimBenArm]

I read that as a joking "welcome to the NWO" post. But I am not very familiar with William's posting history (except that he doesn't care for the Stundies).
That's all he does care about. Nothing else in the world matters, except stopping JREF and the Stundies!

[Civilized Worm]

I read that as a joking "welcome to the NWO" post. But I am not very familiar with William's posting history (except that he doesn't care for the Stundies).


William is a twoofer without the guts to admit it.

[Mobyseven]

William Rea: You may (or may not) have noticed that I was being a bit facetious about the whole "conversion" aspect. I thought you were joking along, until someone commented on your post.

Sorry, but I didn't start this thread to just end up once again going over detail after detail. If it makes the truther veterans here feel any better, I do still entertain some LIHOP fantasies. I think it probably definitely had something to do with Richard Perle. I mean,

just

look

at

him!

Richard Perle sez: "JACK THE TAB!"

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/porch/perle1.jpg

"OH NOES, SCOOBY SNAX IS KIKCING IN!"

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y76/porch/perle2.jpg

Then again, my other theory is that China set the whole thing up. They knew an event like 9/11 would draw the US into a quagmire in the middle east, thereby stretching out their resources and giving China the upper hand in the upcoming Water Wars of 2025 (as foretold by PNAC). It's a tough call, because each theory has an equal amount of evidence to support it. But do you actually believe that either theory could be brought down by such a measly weapon as Occam's Boxcutter?

Hi porch, and well done on using your brain properly! As sad as it is, there are far too many people out there who haven't the faintest clue how to think critically...the truth movement being the obvious example here.

I did think I'd briefly touch on your 'LIHOP or China' hypothesis. You will find that very few of the regular posters here entertain the LIHOP hypothesis, simply because there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it - China is a claim I hadn't heard before, but it would be interesting to see the evidence that brought you to that hypothesis.

What some members here (I don't count myself as one of them) do entertain is 'LIHOI', a term coined (I believe) by TAM that stands for, 'Let It Happen Out of Incompetence'.

But anyway, congratulations on your 'conversion', and welcome (somewhat belatedly) to the forums!

Mobyseven

[Dr Adequate]

Do you know to be honest it did all start off with a hunch. And it never got any further, did it?

I think it was because I already knew that someone had used explosives to bring down the building at OKC Yeah, his name was Timothy McVeigh.

Sheesh.

[porch]

I did think I'd briefly touch on your 'LIHOP or China' hypothesis. You will find that very few of the regular posters here entertain the LIHOP hypothesis, simply because there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support it - China is a claim I hadn't heard before, but it would be interesting to see the evidence that brought you to that hypothesis.

What some members here (I don't count myself as one of them) do entertain is 'LIHOI', a term coined (I believe) by TAM that stands for, 'Let It Happen Out of Incompetence'.

But anyway, congratulations on your 'conversion', and welcome (somewhat belatedly) to the forums!

Mobyseven

Thanks to everyone who has offered congratulations and welcomes here.

Mobeyseven, my LIHOP/China bit was a stab at humour, and maybe a stab at myself. Just acknowledging that my own political bias had a lot to do with what drew me into the realms of truth in the first place. But when I examined the facts, all I was left with was this suspicion based on "their" motive. The Chinese Connection was an example off the top of my noggin of something equally plausible (especially with the tie-in to such a 'spooky' organization as PNAC).

Honestly, though. I do find Richard Perle a bit creepy. I mean, just look at him.

`porch

[MortFurd]

Do you know to be honest it did all start off with a hunch.

I think it was because I already knew that someone had used explosives to bring down the building at OKC, and that there'd been some sort of cover up over a probable shoot down of TWA800, and then there was a BBC doc about Ruby Ridge, plus of course - WACO.

I mean hello, mcfly!
When you use that phrase, you should remember that the fellow who said it was a jerk, a doofus, and an a**hole.

If I were giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'd have to assume that you are the second adjective in the list. If I were in a really bad mood, I'd figure you were all three.

[Mobyseven]

Mobeyseven, my LIHOP/China bit was a stab at humour, and maybe a stab at myself. Just acknowledging that my own political bias had a lot to do with what drew me into the realms of truth in the first place. But when I examined the facts, all I was left with was this suspicion based on "their" motive. The Chinese Connection was an example off the top of my noggin of something equally plausible (especially with the tie-in to such a 'spooky' organization as PNAC).

Heh, sorry about that. When you've been here long enough, you start to find yourself unable to sort out what is real and what is a joke. I jump at anything nowadays, especially 'cui bono'.

Once again, welcome!

[Alferd_Packer]

Of course, you are not a true, full fledged shill until you make Revolutionary91's ignore list.

[LashL]

Hi, porch

I just wanted to add my belated congratulations and welcome, as well.

:w2:

[porch]

Thanks!

Here's another admission, one that I find a bit rough to own up to: I took Alex Jones seriously enough to now feel betrayed by him.

It seems like he's responsible for disseminating so many and so much of the conspiracy ideas that are out there. I encounter truthers on a Canadian maritime messageboard, and invariably, their other "interests" are the Great Green Conspiracy (and the Free Energy Coverup) and the American Tax (Pyramid) System. Most of their notions (and quotes and links) are from infowars/prisonplanet. The tax rebel thing seems to be mostly an American phenomenon. Sure, everyone bitches and moans about paying taxes, and tries to get away with paying as little income tax as possible, but a tax conspiracy? That's downright Un-Canadian! :D I think it just shows that Jones is the true Globalist, exporting his global culture!

I always thought he was a bit of a nutter. "And they said the black helicopters didn't exist!" And the stuff about the Satanists, and the allusions to The Microchip being the mark of the beast from Revelations. Me and a roomie used to watch his videos and laugh at his corny rhetorical style, him pounding on his gigantic stack of "files" and "reports". Still, maybe I found him a bit charming :o in a laughable kind of way, with his used-car salesman hardsell. I thought he was brave. I guess I still think he's brave, but mostly against challengers and opponents in his own head. I don't think he's in it for the money. I think he's a true believer.

What really did it for me was seeing time and again that his referential trail led nowhere, while material contradictory to his kept being reinforced by solid sources and links. The funniest was from some Russo article that claimed Gloria Steinhem was a CIA shill, provocateured* into "starting feminism" so that the Feds could steal more income tax. I clicked the link to see what journal that came from. It takes me to savethemales dot something (don't even go, it's gross - unless you want) and that takes me to two or three other whackmuffin websites that all cite each other in a nice little loop, with an unhealthy side order of misogyny and racism.

One thing I can still come together with Alex Jones on, is transparency in government. I think in general it makes for better democracies. Also, if there was more transparency in government, there might be fewer conspiracy theorists. On the other hand, people will always be people, and some of them will always believe what they want to believe no matter what.





*Yes, provocateured was the exact word I was looking for. It means something like "a nebulous method of manipulation by an ill-defined agency" ;) Someone else might be able to add to/refine that, or come up with a better definition.

[T.A.M.]

There will always be CTists, because there will always be things we do not, know, things that we are not privvy to, things that to some will seem too suspicious.

Where there is paranoia, there will be CT.

There will always be war, there will always be greed, there will always be hatred.

But...

There will always be peace, there will always be altruism, there will always be love and kindness.

They all are, and always will be...human nature.

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

I would just like to state, in the interests of global dominance that alex jones is just a puppet to the British (gawd bless 'er majesty) .... twins (you know who they are...as do they) who regularly pull him.... I mean they yank.... manipulate.... oh bugger

[scooby]

When you use that phrase, you should remember that the fellow who said it was a jerk, a doofus, and an a**hole.

If I were giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'd have to assume that you are the second adjective in the list. If I were in a really bad mood, I'd figure you were all three.

Well, cheer up.

[PhantomWolf]

One thing I can still come together with Alex Jones on, is transparency in government. I think in general it makes for better democracies. Also, if there was more transparency in government, there might be fewer conspiracy theorists. On the other hand, people will always be people, and some of them will always believe what they want to believe no matter what.

There is actually a lot of transparency, that doesn't stop CTs. Look at Apollo. By US law NASA has to release all of its data and with Apollo it has, with the exception of Astronaut medical records which are embargoed until some time after their deaths. The only other classified data from Apollo is a US Airforce project called Chapel Bell, but since it was not something the Astronauts were involved in and is covered under military clearance, its still secret (though there are theories.)

This hasn't stopped conspiracists from seeing Men in Black behind every rock on the "lunar sets". All the data that refutes their claims is publicly available, they could even get a sample of moon rock and run tests on it if they were willing to fill in the right forms and make a good enough case for access, they just don't want too.

Conspiracists don't want answers; they want to keep asking questions. They spend all their time mudding up the nice clear water so that they can JAQ. Look at 9/11. NIST produced 10,000 pages of procedure and conclusions, they explain in detail how they did everything and why they come to the conclusions they did. It's totally and utterly transparent (they have even released their software now), and not one hardcore CT accepts it. They never will. They might claim they want Transparency, but it's the anathema of who they are.

[LashL]

PhantomWolf beat me to it, porch, but I was just going to say that Alex Jones doesn't want transparency in government ... it would put him out of business. Literally.

I don't think that he believes what he spouts, but that is merely my opinion, of course. The reason that I don't think he believes what he spouts is that I think that if he really did, he would have a better grasp on facts and be able to respond appropriately when challenged on his rhetoric, instead of resorting to the same tired responses of "oh, it's been reported" (without being able to produce the reports), "oh, we have massive evidence, total evidence" (without being able to elaborate on what this massive, total evidence is), and the ubiquitous "strawman" and "lawyer tactics" accusations when he doesn't know what else to say, along with his quick fallback to chants and high fives when he cannot think of an answer to a legitimate question (which is often).

I think that if he truly believed what he espouses, he would do far, far better than that. Moreover, I think that if he truly believed what he espouses, he would try to actually do something constructive about it, rather than merely trying to get more converts to his woo to buy his wares.

[beachnut]

Do not pick a side in this. Go with the evidence and stand where it stands. When people make the mistake of 'sides', it can become a 'team' like mentality rather than one of logical thought.
If you're on a side, you may just cast off evidence because it does not fit with 'your team' and what they believe.
I think that is the very reason some people are blinded by the evidence is because they have a team mentality, and have closed their minds for the sake of 'the team'.You are wrong about this too. You have a perfect record.

[porch]

Good points, there.

LashL, do you think that Jones is 100% sane, and simply a con artist? I'm sure he likes getting cash for his merch, but every buyer he gets (conveniently) reinforces his belief that he's accomplishing something by getting the word out. I don't know, I find it kind of intriguing to try to get inside the heads of such individuals. The apocrypha on L. Ron Hubbard is that in pain on his deathbed he screamed at his Body Thetans. That's probably not entirely true, if true at all, but it paints quite the picture. He was definitely a con artist and a swindler, but I also think that he, at least at times, bought into his own BS. The same is probably true with other cult leaders, politicians, salesmen...

I'm not trying to defend Jones. Some people can go to sleep at night, saying to themselves, "I rob people. That's what I do." Whereas others will commit the same thievery during the day and allow themselves sleep only by elaborate self-delusions. I think Jones falls into the latter category, that's all. Pure speculation on my part. Whatever the true nature of his character is, I've given up on looking at anything he does except for entertainment purposes. Speaking of which, one of my favourite pop culture fusion clips is the Alex Jones/Joe Rogan "Belly of the Beast" video. I get a big kick out of that. I'm sure a lot of you have seen it, but just in case, here is a link. I don't know the tags to imbed the video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Orj55fo1u9I

"Oh, sh**, I broke the mask!" Tee hee.

[Jonnyclueless]

One thing I liked about the movie Conspiracy Theorists, as bad as it was.. Was that the character had concocted so many conspiracy theories that the difficulty was trying to figure out which was was actually true.

The jist was that someone was trying to kill the guy because he uncovered the truth with one of his conspiracy theories, but had to figure out which of the thousands was the actual correct one. At the time of the movie I didn't see the humor in this. Now I do.

[Mobyseven]

*Yes, provocateured was the exact word I was looking for. It means something like "a nebulous method of manipulation by an ill-defined agency" ;) Someone else might be able to add to/refine that, or come up with a better definition.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a definition! :D

[Civilized Worm]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Orj55fo1u9I

"Oh, sh**, I broke the mask!" Tee hee.


OK, what the F*** was that?