|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 23, 2015 14:27:08 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 15:19:22 GMT -5
I suggest it was Professor Plum, in the Observatory, with the Poison
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2015 18:20:46 GMT -5
I suggest it was Professor Plum, in the Observatory, with the Poison    |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Jul 23, 2015 21:19:03 GMT -5
I suggest it was Professor Plum, in the Observatory, with the Poison No one does consensus trance domination quite like the lizard people. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 24, 2015 19:28:55 GMT -5
No one does consensus trance domination quite like the lizard people. Global warming is deliberate on their part to cancel the next ice age 'cause that would slow them down too much. |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Jul 24, 2015 20:06:17 GMT -5
No one does consensus trance domination quite like the lizard people. Global warming is deliberate on their part to cancel the next ice age 'cause that would slow them down too much. What else could warm their cold, cold, hearts  |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 26, 2015 16:03:04 GMT -5
I have already commented on these, andrew, but other things have come up within my explorations... It's also why the Paul McCartney issue grabbed my attention. Like I said, I wouldn't like to say whether there is truth to that theory or not, but if it true, the level of flagrant deception fascinates me. Regarding deception; reigning back on what some may consider to be extravagant theorizing, sometimes people lie and deceive simply because they like the pleasurable sensations it evokes. On the one hand, lying is motivated from fear, to avoid being found out and experiencing pain from the expose and possible unwanted consequences. On the other hand, while there appears to be no fear motivation, lying can be a power trip, thus one feels quite good about oneself when deceiving others. The ability to trick others can be quite intoxicatingly pleasurable, and there are no gains to be had other than the pleasure of being able to pull the wool over other's eyes. It's one of the reasons some people use one or several sock puppets when engaged with others in online forums. Though when i think about it, if the statement is true that there are two core motives for human behavior, 'fear or love', then i doubt lying and deceiving others via sock puppetry is motivated by love. So what would the deceiver seek to avoid, what are they fearful of? One answer comes to mind, they fear thinking and feeling inferior to others, so they deceive and thus feel superior to others for not only deceiving, but in not being found out. Like you, i also am fascinated by the concept of deception, and why people do so. From people engaged in sock puppetry to people causing far more serious harm to others, like the willful act to kill their own kinfolk in 9\11 in order to influence them to allow them to go kill other people in order to secure the natural resources and obtain more material wealth. The greater the crime against their fellow human beings, the greater must be their wounds\dysfunctions...though i theorize, at the fundamental level, no different from sock puppeteers....fear and feeling inadequate\inferior in some manner. I read the other day in a David Wilpenis interview that that there may well be off planet colonies that have tens of thousands of people on them. Again, is it true....I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. The truth of it all will come out, I feel sure. Would not surprise me either. Many conspiracy theories i examine are well constructed and thought provoking as being valid claims. What stops me from falling into the trap of blindly believing them is i have not done my own research, i have not seen the evidence for myself. I remain open that the claims are possible, but i also am aware much of the evidence is theoretical, and that leaves me with doubts. Take off world colonies, on the one had, some say we went to the moon, and some say this is impossible because of the Van Allen Radiation Belt. Conspiracy theorists, who may or may not have any scientific background\expertise, claim going through this belt, regardless of how much shielding, will result in quick death...while over at NASA, which is full of highly skilled scientists with tons of high tech equipment, have known of the Belt since the 50's and have been studying it and know of the radiation levels and have constructed appropriate shielding, thus the moon landing was possible. So, are the NASA people lying, do the conspiracy theorists have factual data of the Belt? I do not know. What i know is claims from both camps are possibly correct, and i would have to conduct my own research with access to high tech equipment, and that's just not going to happen. Truth sometimes takes a lot of time and effort to obtain, but many take the easy path of just believing what others claim is the truth because they have done the hard work and are quite convincing in their arguments. 9\11 is easy to figure out, Building 7 was a controlled demolition, but off world stuff, not so easy to figure out. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 26, 2015 16:38:17 GMT -5
I have already commented on these, andrew, but other things have come up within my explorations... It's also why the Paul McCartney issue grabbed my attention. Like I said, I wouldn't like to say whether there is truth to that theory or not, but if it true, the level of flagrant deception fascinates me. Regarding deception; reigning back on what some may consider to be extravagant theorizing, sometimes people lie and deceive simply because they like the pleasurable sensations it evokes. On the one hand, lying is motivated from fear, to avoid being found out and experiencing pain from the expose and possible unwanted consequences. On the other hand, while there appears to be no fear motivation, lying can be a power trip, thus one feels quite good about oneself when deceiving others. The ability to trick others can be quite intoxicatingly pleasurable, and there are no gains to be had other than the pleasure of being able to pull the wool over other's eyes. It's one of the reasons some people use one or several sock puppets when engaged with others in online forums. Though when i think about it, if the statement is true that there are two core motives for human behavior, 'fear or love', then i doubt lying and deceiving others via sock puppetry is motivated by love. So what would the deceiver seek to avoid, what are they fearful of? One answer comes to mind, they fear thinking and feeling inferior to others, so they deceive and thus feel superior to others for not only deceiving, but in not being found out. Like you, i also am fascinated by the concept of deception, and why people do so. From people engaged in sock puppetry to people causing far more serious harm to others, like the willful act to kill their own kinfolk in 9\11 in order to influence them to allow them to go kill other people in order to secure the natural resources and obtain more material wealth. The greater the crime against their fellow human beings, the greater must be their wounds\dysfunctions...though i theorize, at the fundamental level, no different from sock puppeteers....fear and feeling inadequate\inferior in some manner. I read the other day in a David Wilpenis interview that that there may well be off planet colonies that have tens of thousands of people on them. Again, is it true....I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. The truth of it all will come out, I feel sure. Would not surprise me either. Many conspiracy theories i examine are well constructed and thought provoking as being valid claims. What stops me from falling into the trap of blindly believing them is i have not done my own research, i have not seen the evidence for myself. I remain open that the claims are possible, but i also am aware much of the evidence is theoretical, and that leaves me with doubts. Take off world colonies, on the one had, some say we went to the moon, and some say this is impossible because of the Van Allen Radiation Belt. Conspiracy theorists, who may or may not have any scientific background\expertise, claim going through this belt, regardless of how much shielding, will result in quick death...while over at NASA, which is full of highly skilled scientists with tons of high tech equipment, have known of the Belt since the 50's and have been studying it and know of the radiation levels and have constructed appropriate shielding, thus the moon landing was possible. So, are the NASA people lying, do the conspiracy theorists have factual data of the Belt? I do not know. What i know is claims from both camps are possibly correct, and i would have to conduct my own research with access to high tech equipment, and that's just not going to happen. Truth sometimes takes a lot of time and effort to obtain, but many take the easy path of just believing what others claim is the truth because they have done the hard work and are quite convincing in their arguments. 9\11 is easy to figure out, Building 7 was a controlled demolition, but off world stuff, not so easy to figure out. Yep I am the same, I tend to be open to what I am being told, but maintain a level of scepticism until I learn enough to be convinced. Sometimes a researcher comes across so well in terms of the evidence they present and the way they present it, that I am willing to believe it. The more that the researcher approaches a subject objectively, the more I am likely to believe it, though I do also enjoy listening to those that present very little objective evidence except for personal testimony. This guy (ex special services marine) has some interesting things to say on the subject of off world colonies: www.intellihub.com/mars-disclosure-randy-cramer-captain-kaye-expands-upon-mars-recall/ |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 26, 2015 17:30:35 GMT -5
And you're also consistently inaccurate. What specific beliefs have I expressed about 9/11 in this thread, other than my opinions about the conspiracy theories themselves? There have been a few, but can you even discern what they are? Why would i waste my time debating\arguing or exploratively discussing with someone who clearly expressed they do not want to... What I think I know or don't know isn't important because I'm not interested in debating the cause of the collapse of the towers with you. My only interest was to express my opinion that your ideas are rooted in paranoid fantasy.Seems to me that you can't discern the absence of a belief from a belief. Just because I don't choose to take on your beliefs doesn't mean that I have a similar set of fixed opinions on the underlying questions. It seems to me that the genuine absence of opinion is a state that escapes you altogether. Seems to me it escapes you, not me. What I think I know or don't know isn't important because I'm not interested in debating the cause of the collapse of the towers with you. My only interest was to express my opinion that your ideas are rooted in paranoid fantasy.Time and time again i see you, popee, satchitananda and the semi retired enigma and Reefs, expressing judgements of others that are actual elements of yourselves, but you fail to be aware of\realize. But when pointed out to you people, that's when the defensive-attacking comments come forth. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Jul 26, 2015 17:39:00 GMT -5
Man I must be way too deep in the consensus trance perpetuated by the lizard people as I can't find enough oomph to care about fake beatles... I used to read New Dawn and the other conspiracy magazine, but never felt like it went anywhere and that there was some weird insular dark dynamic with the whole thing - forever telling people the intricacies of how they were being lied to and manipulated and forever offering solutions of how to be free (EMF protectors, colodial silver etc). I think they were more interested in the exciting drama of the whole thing rather than actually being free. New Dawn is not a conspiracy magazine. It consistently contains articles from a wide range of topics other than conspiracies. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 26, 2015 22:08:17 GMT -5
And you're also consistently inaccurate. What specific beliefs have I expressed about 9/11 in this thread, other than my opinions about the conspiracy theories themselves? There have been a few, but can you even discern what they are? Why would i waste my time debating\arguing or exploratively discussing with someone who clearly expressed they do not want to... Then this is just more of your fantasy: Andrew and i are discussing, open mindedly, while you and Envy Adams are closed minded to anything alternative to your established beliefs on the matter, If you haven't read what I've written about 9/11 on the thread, then what you wrote there has absolutely no basis other than your imagination. Just because my interest was in demonstrating the paranoid and fantastic nature of the conspiracy theories doesn't mean I have any such "established beliefs". There's a difference between not taking on your beliefs and having my own of a similar nature. Specifically, the question that andy and I ended our discussion on was whether or not each tower was struck by a 767 that day. Do you share his opinion that there's any uncertainty about that fact? You see, my interest ends where the cray-cray begins.  What I think I know or don't know isn't important because I'm not interested in debating the cause of the collapse of the towers with you. My only interest was to express my opinion that your ideas are rooted in paranoid fantasy.Seems to me that you can't discern the absence of a belief from a belief. Just because I don't choose to take on your beliefs doesn't mean that I have a similar set of fixed opinions on the underlying questions. It seems to me that the genuine absence of opinion is a state that escapes you altogether. Seems to me it escapes you, not me. In terms of opinions of one another and one another's conclusions we're on exactly the same ground -- you've expressed at least as many about me and mine as I have of you and yours In contrast, I have no opinion on most of the conspiracy material you're putting up, and draw my conclusion from only the most extreme of statements like the one andy made about the planes. Can you discern the difference between my absence of an opinion about and an absence of interest in that material from one that is counter to yours? My interest here is in the extremes, because of what they reveal about the person with the extreme views. What I think I know or don't know isn't important because I'm not interested in debating the cause of the collapse of the towers with you. My only interest was to express my opinion that your ideas are rooted in paranoid fantasy.Time and time again i see you, popee, satchitananda and the semi retired enigma and Reefs, expressing judgements of others that are actual elements of yourselves, but you fail to be aware of\realize. But when pointed out to you people, that's when the defensive-attacking comments come forth. Oh, what specific judgement of you was in that sentence you underlined? What was it that was judged? As you have identified yourself with your ideas, the reality you've created with your thoughts is one in which you are judged as they are judged. |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Jul 27, 2015 4:47:21 GMT -5
Man I must be way too deep in the consensus trance perpetuated by the lizard people as I can't find enough oomph to care about fake beatles... I used to read New Dawn and the other conspiracy magazine, but never felt like it went anywhere and that there was some weird insular dark dynamic with the whole thing - forever telling people the intricacies of how they were being lied to and manipulated and forever offering solutions of how to be free (EMF protectors, colodial silver etc). I think they were more interested in the exciting drama of the whole thing rather than actually being free. New Dawn is not a conspiracy magazine. It consistently contains articles from a wide range of topics other than conspiracies. Ok, maybe it's different now. When I used to read it 20 years ago it seemed to be heavily focused on conspiracy stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 28, 2015 19:46:58 GMT -5
New Dawn is not a conspiracy magazine. It consistently contains articles from a wide range of topics other than conspiracies. Ok, maybe it's different now. When I used to read it 20 years ago it seemed to be heavily focused on conspiracy stuff. Obviously they dug too deep, angered the lizardlords and were subsequently sanitized. |
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Jul 28, 2015 20:07:48 GMT -5
Ok, maybe it's different now. When I used to read it 20 years ago it seemed to be heavily focused on conspiracy stuff. Obviously they dug too deep, angered the lizardlords and were subsequently sanitized. Well looks like the lizard lords haven't quite got down to business - the tag cloud reveals all.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 28, 2015 20:16:17 GMT -5
Obviously they dug too deep, angered the lizardlords and were subsequently sanitized. Well looks like the lizard lords haven't quite got down to business - the tag cloud reveals all. It's a trap!  .. they publish just enough to lure in those sincerely curious about the real truth so they can id and track them. |
|
