Today, an individual, who in my life, has always been a person to try and make others feel less then what they are, including me, once again starts his assault on my views. He constantly takes what you may believe or think and tries to make it seem stupid even if you have facts or evidence. This sickness isn't exclusive to this person, of course, but he would be at the extreme left of others who are infected with the same virus.
In particular, today, I am once again accused of holding to views that he calls conspiracy theories, even when I can show the facts and information that move them from conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact. But the facts mean nothing as it often does with many people.
For me, this ignorance is due to fear and a desire to simply not acknowledge what is really occuring in our world because then the person becomes culpable for non-action. But what they don't realize is that non-action is an action and like the german people suffered for the actions of the nazis so to will those of us who allow those in leadership roles in governments and corporations to treat the inhabitants of this planet and the planet itself with contempt.
Because of the internet we especially have no excuse when it comes to understanding what is happening in the world on a global level in politics, religion, business, economics, wars etc. There is simply zero excuse. The world is hemorrhagging from the outright oppression of those in power, namely, the wealthy elite and those who rule under them, namely political leaders.
The banks, the corporations, the elitist families such as the Rockefellers, Rothschilds and others are draining us of our freedoms, our ability to succeed or creep our way out of a meager existance as they continue to plot ways in which they will drain us of our personal wealth via such routes as increased taxation.
So to those who call me a conspiracty theorist, please sit down with me and show me how my views are theory when I have facts to substantiate the claims. If you can I will change my views. (Sadly, this isn't a public forum lol....so those who call me that aren't able to read this!)
16 comments:
Who is this person, Zane?
Theory building is not just about fact finding, it's also about employing sound methodologies to be able to distinguish between good research and bad research. Method is everything. You know this from your experience among fundamentalists who read the Bible without much thought as to how the Bible should be read in the first place. Different methodologies will yield different results; methodologies tell us which questions are worth pursuing and which questions are not.
I'd like to know more about your methods, and in particular, how your methods are able to discriminate between good evidence and bad.
Ya the hermeneutical approach matters in everything. But in direct relation to what I am dealing with the hermeneutic can be specific so that simplifies the answer to your question. In dealing with the issue of wealthy elitist trying to inlfuence their agenda the following criteria in the form of questions can be employed in beginning to establish a sound theory:
1) Historical similiraties. Do we have any accounts within history that are similar or near identical?
2) Have other options been examined that would better explain what is occuring utilizing Occam's razor?
3) Could this be disinformation, misinformation or propaganda? (Examining the people communicating the information, how the information fits into their known agendas, have any hiddend agendas been discovered etc.)
4) How can I be sure the information is accurate?
5) Where is the information coming from?
6) Are there multiple sources, independant of one another, (relationally, socially, politically etc) expressing the same information?
7) Is their actual researched empirical evidence/data when statements utilizing physics or the sciences are being presented.
8) Can the statements being made hold up to a logical examination?
That would be the basic criteria I try to employ when doing my research or hearing a claim.
What my post isn't saying is that someone has to believe me. What it is saying is that if a person is going to criticize me before doing their own research then lets sit down and look at the information together. I have moved from theory to conclusion on many of the issues based upon the information I have researched these past years. I have allowed the evidence from both camps to speak concerning the issues.
Now having said that: Some of the issues dealing with Roth and Rock are theory and some for me are no longer theory. The issues of 9/11/Bush admin invovlement and such are no longer theory. The evidence is simply overwhelming.
http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/home.html
Here is a site you can check out.
If the evidence is overwhelming the Bush admininstration was behind 9/11, why hasn't anyone been indicted? It's unreasonable to believe members of the Bush administration could avoid legal ramifications of such a scandal. When Clinton was accused of something as inconsequential as perjury Kenneth Star pursued the case with a degree of hostility and vehemence that has never been matched in the history of American politics. Believe me, Bush has many, many enemies. If he was guilty of anything as extreme as you believe, he would be in prison.
Ockham's Razor, as you referenced, is clearly working in my favor on these issues. Postulating a scandal that would have to involve so many people at so many levels is neither simple nor does it give you any explanatory advantage over believing it was really just a terrorist plot.
lol... well ummm no but if that works for you and helps you sleep at night that is cool.
If you want to ask me questions about the evidence and such I will gladly share with you or point you in the right direction. If you want to remain resistant to hearing my reasoning after examining the evidence then that is your perogative.
Your application of the razor can't be applied if you have no information. That would simply be laziness.
There have been dozens of attempts to bring the Bush admin to court.
As for your issue with Bill Clinton. They spent 100x the amount of money on investigating Bill Clinton then they did the 9/11 terrorist attack. Why? There are various theories out there as to why they went so hardcore on Bill but I honestly don't know.
What is known is that Bill declared a number of military endeavors during that time period that the majority of Americans were clueless about because they were focussed on his 'indescretion'.
Occams razor doesn't necessitate that the execution of a strategic event has to be easy. It only necessitates that the simplest reasoning is probably the correct reasoning.
The wealthy have the power. The wealthy Bush family are associated with the wealthy Saudi family the Bin Laden's. Many of those in power with the Bushs have been life long friends and business partners, with the same political agendas and idealogies "MONEY, Power, and global domination".
The CIA and FBI funded the training of the Al Quaeda and Taliban. (I could keep going here if you like)
This event didnt happen overnight. There have been succesive attempts, false flag attacks, in the US to bring about policy changes that take away the freedoms of the people slowly but surely.
The point is if I continue to share the evidence, Occams razor, for me, would say: The logical and simplest answer is that a number of the ruling elite, namely the Bush admin, bin Laden's, etc. were in collusion to create an indicent that would allow them to go in on Iraq, Afghanistan and eventually Iran. OIL.
If you want to actually see evidence laid out quite well there is the documentary that I watched a few days ago that I have already mentioned to you
'Core of Corruption'. You can find a copy of it on Youtube.
You can also watch a new one out by James Bermas called 'INvisible Empire' Its very well done for the first 90 minutes and then towards the end it kind of feels rushed and a bit annoying. It's also on Youtube.
If you go to my Youtube channel Facing42 you will find dozens of videos you can peruse. about 28 of the videos have been deleted by Youtube that were amazing news broadcasts from C-SPAN. 2 of my youtube friends accounts were shut down due to 'copyright violations' even though they were airing C-Span footage which is public. They had literally, combined, thousands of videos related to the issues.
I also have a number of pdf documents and other research videos on my hard drive if you wish to peruse them.
I also posted the http://cms.ae911truth.org/ website for you but here it is again.
You can also watch their evidence being presented on Youtube.
There is a new Loose Change documentary as well. Its called Loose Change: An American Coupe. I have a copy on my harddrive but I havn't seen it on Youtube yet.
If you havn't watched the originals you should. Even though they are not 100% accurate in their assertions and theories the documentary does a great job in asking questions that deserve answers.
So once you have examined these things in some capacity and have a working knowledge of the information it will be much easier to converse about the matter.
Otherwise, there is no reason to have a dialogue about the issues in question.
Hope that helps!
It doesn't help at all. You assume, for whatever reason I don't know, that evidence can only be interpreted in the way you've interpreted it. You also assume you and your friends are the only persons that have ever heard of these particular scenarios, or have ever thought through the implications of large scale corruption. You cite the perogatives of Planned Parenthood like no one but you and a handful of others know the ins and outs of their secret agenda. I am actually in favor of what Planned Parenthood is trying to accomplish around the world, and many others are as well. Population, on many accounts, is a growing problem. There's no scandal here.
Your tone as to the function of Ockham's Razor is also condescending. You imply that my interpretation of Ockham's Razor is aimed at evaluating the actual events you describe, but Ockham's Razor cannot evaluate events, only theories about those events. Desirable theories do involve simplicity and explanatory power; they say nothing about the complexity or lack of complexity they try to describe. Einstein's theory of general relativity is more complicated than Newton's observations, but Ockham's Razor still prefers Einstein because of an explanatory advantage.
Do you honestly believe intelligent, and well-educated people are unaware the CIA trained Al Quaeda during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. There's no secret here.
The important point that appears to be elluding you is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; theory building is not an activity that is easy to master. Professional historians, legal experts, and journalists train for years and years in elite programs beyond the undergraduate level to be able to contribute meaningfully to the world of ideas.
I won't engage you on the evidence because I'm not a trained historian, nor am I a journalist, nor am I a legal expert. I am a philosopher, but not really an expert at that either. I've not published papers, nor do I have a Ph.D. If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you have to enter into an arena in which your ideas can be scrutinized by professionals who can tell you whether your views have any merit at all. From where I sit, given the reasons I've cited already, they do not; but, once again, I'm not an expert in the relevant fields.
As for laziness, it is not laziness to exclude from consideration ideas that have little or no merit. If a fundamentalist tells me he has evidence the world was created in six days, I have no epistemological obligation to take him seriously. This is why method is so important; method excludes from consideration ideas that are not worthwhile.
Like I said, if you don't want to examine the evidence for yourself then there is no reason to dialogue.
I have no desire, as I stated at the beginning, to fight with you over this.
I was not intentionally being condescending in my statements concerning your intelligence. I merely pointed out that to proclaim that occams razor would support you would be an act of laziness if you aren't examining the evidence. That isn't a belittling comment unless that is how you wish to interpret the statement.
And I believe in your comment on occams razor in regards to 'the scandal' as you reference it, you state, "Postulating a scandal that would have to involve so many people at so many levels is neither simple..." You are addressing the strategic ability to pull it off as 'not simple' and then postulating that occams razor thus favors your perceptions. My comment stands proper that occams razor in your argument is focussed on the complexity of the strategic implementation.
If that is condescending to you then perhaps its more about you viewing me as less intelligent then yourself? Otherwise I am unsure of how it is condescending.
If, like I said, you feel that you cannot listen to experts in the field who are against the 'official' story postulated by the Bush Administration then that is your choice. I just get confused that you will instead listen to the 'official' side of the story and adapt that as the right answer. Again, I am just confused by that stream of reasoning.
As for whether people know the CIA trained Al quaeda etc. I believe I have done enough research to know that this is common knowledge amongst the experts. I don't believe I stated otherwise.
So according to you, you won't engage me on the evidence or the issues because you are not an expert? Yet, in the same paragraph you argue that you are not an expert in philosophy but you will take on the task of philosophizing in general at a unviversity level? That confuses me somewhat.
And still you simply say you won't research any of the information because according to you my views have no merit. (I am unsure how you can coclude my view has no merit without weighing the evidence) My views are baseed off the evidence from my own personal research and the thousands of experts with PHD's in their various fields of expertise. I have done my best to try and point you in their direction so you can engage their information but for some reason you are resistant to doing so.
I'm still unsure how that makes sense but to each their own I guess.
As for Planned Parenthood I believe I stated that the organization was started by the people who are known Eugenicists. I am sure that Planned Parenthood has many great concepts to it but I would hazard a guess that the evidence postulated against Planned Parenthood is also accurate (ie population control via eugenics).
Your ethical perceptions differ from mine in terms of various issues and so on terms of ethical consideration we will probably differ on our perceptions of Eugenics as well.
If you feel, and I stress the subjective in your case, that my views have no merit, and you don't wish to engage the information from experts who oppose the official story then, again, that is your choice.
I am comfortable in my present views on the 9/11 issue and believe them to be based on accurate concise information and evidence.
If I had the time, money and ability I would gladly write a book on the issue but the books have already been written. The documentaries have already been made and my 2 cents would just be adding to an already full pot of coins.
On a side note, when I engage Jamie Dagg on issues surrounding Global Warming, Eugenics, global domination by the elite I do so humbly and with consideration for his views. Jamie and I have had many conversations that we disagree on and I respect his positions even though I disagree with him. He, I am sure, thinks I am crazy, as do I him :) but I understand why he believes what he believes.
Even in the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement facebook site I became well known amongst the leader of the movement and we had amazing conversations although we disagreed with one another on the best way to proceed with overpopulation issues. They titled me a sympathizer with their cause.
Why do I share that? Because I am willing to engage people in their views as I have been with you. I take great joy in the fact that our conversations and research have helped me establish a much more 'realistic' concept of the world around me.
I brag about you all the time to people and share how our conversations are instrumental in my philosophical development.
I don't have the time or the money to go back to school anymore. I have to do my research at home, which I do. I study, and research and study and research. I form opinions, thoughts and theories based on that research in hopes of understanding the world around me better.
I understand thay you may be in agreement with guys like Dave who think I am a lunatic and that is your choice. My original post still stands, it hurts when your friends belittle you for holding to a view they are unwilling to research for themselves, instead of showing some level of respect for the work you have put into the research.
I do chuckle about some of your comments though ie extraordinary claims call for extraorinary evidence of which I totally agree. Hence why when I look at WTC 7 and it falls like a building under demolition that people claim small fires throughout the building brought it down in that fashion. To me that is an extraordinary claim that requires an explanation that 'the official' story can't explain. Whereas, the simple explanation "It was brought down by demolition" explains it.
Demolition experts from all over the world state "It was a demolition" yet their voices go unheard.
Anyway, that is merely one example of hundreds.
Don't be so angry and mean in your words with me. And stop thinking I am belittling you or trying to be condescending towards you. Remember you are talking to the guy who loves you and is your friend.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4874421830690006054#
there is a better link for core of corruption. full film and a bit better quality.
Here is one video presentation if you are interested from one of the heads of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8182697765360042032#
If I came across as angry and mean, that was not my intent. I think good friends can disagree and yet remain good friends. I do respect you, and I don't think you're a lunatic, I just think you're wrong, or most likely wrong, in this case.
Ultimately, I think our differences are methodological, not evidential, although you don't seem to appreciate the importance of this point. I'm not saying that you and others have fabricated evidence, I'm simply saying that evidence can be interpreted variously. You are utilizing a method of reasoning called abduction, or inference to the best explanation. This is a good method, and we (as humans) use it all the time; however, the method does have weaknesses.
If someone tells me there are ghosts in her house based on evidence that things in her basement have been moved around, I might wonder whether this is really the best explanation of how things were moved around in her basement. Is there, in other words, a better explanation for how things were moved around? She has evidence, no doubt, but the evidence can be interpreted with greater success in other, more plausible, ways.
When I lived in Florida, I had a young fundamentalist student who was convinced that Moses really parted the Red Sea because chariots had been found in underwater excavations. My question for him was this: how does that show that Moses really parted the Red Sea, were not chariots used with regularity in the ancient world? Why would chariots at the bottom of the ocean show that Moses really parted the Red Sea? Once again, of course, this student had evidence, but the evidence alone does not, and cannot, support his conclusion that Moses had really parted the Red Sea.
Please don't take this question the wrong way, I don't mean to be disrespectful; but, on your view, what types of theories would count as nonsensical? Arabs in the Muslim world, with some frequency, dismiss the holocaust as a Jewish fabrication. Some of the more intelligent proponents of this view have even produced evidence to support their claims. Are we obligated to take this position seriously?
I completely agree with you. I don't think our methodologies are different though. In fact, that is how my research started. Some things didn't add up when the Weapons of Mass Destruction issue was discovered to be a lie.
I started to think, "Well if they lied about that was there anything else that was fabricated?" I then began the journey of looking into what led to the Iraq war. I watched Loose Change. It had some really great questions to ask (and a lot of crap that was inaccurate) but the questions asked were ones that were legitimate. That was actually about 6 years ago. I slowly did research in that regard to try and answer those questions but it wasn't until about 3 years ago when I actually had the time to delve into the research more.
As stated, one of my goals was to try and assess what was disinformation, misinformation and propaganda.
My research ended up tail doving into other areas namely, ufo's, global warming, wealthy elite, eugenics, planet niburu (x) and a few other areas.
Without going into detail my research showed that the ufo mythology stemmed from a U.S. military disinformation scheme in order to cover-up their actual weapons/plane testing, which began in Area 51. Some evidence would suggest they are working and have built a plane called 'Aurora' that has plasma propulsion.
What started to occur when I began looking into many areas was a common thread of many elite families being involved, mentioned, connected with the stories which led me to research them more and more. This then led to my research on Centralized Banking, Oil companies, major corporations etc.
Anyway, i say all the above to show the progression of my research not as a means of evidence or the like.
Back to your question, which I think is a great one and the reason I went researching.
The ghosts, the parting of the red sea, and no holocaust.
The ghosts (supernatural): I agree that one must first look at the other possibilities that would seem more likely.
Let me again use the example of WTC 7. If it looks like a demolition (in collapse), and sounds like a demolition (explosions just prior to its collapse), and then someone says, "Small fires weakened the steel and for the 3rd time in history we have a perfectly uniform collapse of a building that fell into its own footprint." ( a good ghost story)
I then say, well if we have no historical evidence of this occurring, steel can't be melted by a building fire, and a plane didn't hit WTC7, then what the hell happened? And for me the ghost story is the official story. The story for me that makes most sense, based off the evidence, is "It was a demolition". Then you have to ask, well if this is accurate, then who stood to benefit from the WTC 7 collapsing?
As for the Red Sea (miracles): Again, I would argue as I did with WTC7. I feel the official story is being swallowed hook line and sinker instead of looking at the evidence and that which follows the laws of physics. Miracles, as you know, tend to have no known explanation or evidence to substantiate how the miracle was performed, apart from saying God did it.
WTC7, on the other hand, has a logical sound explanation with evidence from history, video, and testimony. It would be a miraculous event that only God could have performed to make the fires melt steel and make the building fall perfectly into its own footprint just like a demolition. The miraculous story is the official story. The one that makes sense and doesn't require a miracle is the story that the building was demolished by demolition.
As for the non-holocaust (not sure what to title it lol): Again, I did do some research in this to discover that many of the people who would hold to this are not necessarily saying that the nazis didn't kill Jews. What many of them say is that most of the Jews died from starvation, sickness and disease. They would argue that the story on numbers is an outright exaggeration and that gas chambers were never used. Instead of 6 million they argue for 1 million. Are they correct? I still havn't finished my investigation but when you see videos of jews being shot in the head, you hear thousands of stories from survivors stating what occurred, you begin to see a different picture then the theory postulated by the 'non-holocaust' people. The numbers issue is a solid question though. In fact there are people who are well known thinkers who would disagree with the numbers as well.
Theories that postulate a claim and do nothing to produce verifiable evidence I would see as nonsensical. I think that certain matters need to be taken seriously by certain people or groups of people. If someone is claiming that my wife had an affair I would say show me the evidence. If they showed her kissing another guy, I didn't know, on the cheek I would go to her and ask her who he is. Depending on that answer and me verifying her information I can then make an informed decision whether to beat the hell out of the guy or chuckle cause its her cousin.
If someone claims the holocaust didn't occur then those of Jewish decent should consider responding, which is what actually occurred.
There is a documentary, made by a Jew, on this issue actually. Fantastic documentary! I will look for the title later.
There is no obligation to take the theories seriously by anyone. But I am not sure if that is the right question. I would probably ask, "Should the evidence be examined to assess its validity?" And i would answer yes to this. Who should be the ones doing it? Those who are experts in the field should be the ones at the front lines.
9/11 affected the entire world. As a result we are all responsible to look into the claim that their was possible collusion on the part of various leaders in the US government, the Israeli government, the Pakistan and Saudis governments. Why? Because 1 million Iraqis are now dead as a result. Afghanistan is now seeing similar horror stories of death as Iraq and Iran is next on the list. Blowback is a bitch and these people need our help.
If we have been lied to then we need to reveal the lie and present the truth.
I want to type more but I have to go get my daughter for her piano lesson!!
Post a Comment