pretzelogik

I am beginning to question my previous concept of war in general. When both sides of conflicts are financed by the same lenders, technology is shared between opposing forces and the same "revolutionary" factions are repurposed for other conflicts, it becomes evident that the players at the top just use the concept of "war" to fleece populations. Not that people aren't killed and stuff isn't blown up, but I imagine the outcomes are generally assured well in advance. They don't call it a "theater of war" for nothing.

Other extra-terrestrials involved in the creation of a subordinate slave species.

I have found no compelling reasons to believe any part of this story whatsoever. There is only one Adam P Lanza in the SSDI matching the supposed age and loaction of the media creation from last December and he expired 12/13/2013, according to official records. Is it even remotely plausible that anyone in the industrialized world does not have some form of recent hi-res image accessible by the PTB, whether a drivers license photo, school ID photo, or anything other that some ghostly, black and white blurrily rendered policesketch looking thing? It's nonsense. I'll say it again, the story here is that the media is CREATING these stories. Christopher Dorner is now burned alive in some Waco truck bomb thing, case closed. Did this guy ever exist? I don't know, but now they have set a precedent of using drones in manhunts and justifying door to door searches of hundreds of houses for this suspected "cop-killer". Did Adam Lanza exist? it's doubtful, but every media pundit and politician with his finger to the wind is calling for victim disarmament. Were there any plane crashes on 9/11? There is no credible evidence to support this claim, yet there are myriad government agencies involved in all manner of intrusion into the lives of every prodcutive person in the US in the name of preventing "terror", all the while causing it. What do these events have in common? They are media driven responses to media creations that are scripted and played out in the minds of the public to advance an agenda. There is no longer any verification of the stories required, whatsoever. Roll tape, activate thug brigade. Simple.

Okay, so we have to retreat 70 years into the past to observe a couple of grainy black and white clips of phenomena that marginally emulate what I experience almost daily in the present. Clips which show, incidentally, contrails that are a result of aircraft (bombers) following specific flight paths. The trails I posted above are not coincident with any flight paths, they linger for hours in balmy, near 90% humidity and the crafts often deposit their payloads under the cover of darkness, in more or less consistent patterns of parallel lines. Perhaps I missed the memo about all the recent South Florida bombing raids. Or perhaps you somehow missed the hundreds of user uploaded images and videos of planes spraying the skies in various areas of the country, while you were searching for your "fav" WWII footage. "Move along, these aren't the droids you're looking for." Remember, it's only real if it's on TV and the authorities say it is.

Thanks, Mr. C for the informative photograph. I live near the two major airports in the Miami - FTL area and have eyes on them daily. I never see anything near them that resembles the image you posted. On the other hand, in other parts of the county, far away from and not coincident to any flight paths, are stem to stern lingering plumes that spread out over the course of the day leaving a haze that is not evident when the spraying does not occur. For example: I am familiar with contrails that vanish seconds after they appear behind the aircraft, I have documented these for comparison. The photos above were taken hours after the planes were gone and lingered long afterward. I am not claiming to know what these are intended for nor who is responsible. I do know what I see with my own eyes and I see planes depositing what must be tons of particulate matter into the skies. I find it interesting that on a site devoted to critical thinking and five sense reality, the tendency to discard all empiricism and direct evidence any time an authority figure makes the conspiracy claim is all too common. Perhaps some direct investigation in the form of looking up regularly would be in order. I know this is going on elsewhere as well.

Translated: "We will leave no stone unturned in finding new ways to manipulate public attention away from the fact that not one scrap of verifiable evidence has been produced to confirm that this event ever happened in the first place and is not a media invention created from whole cloth." Surveillance video footage of a school shooting in Brazil:

I have been compiling video documentation of chemtrails in the Miami area. I see them a few times a week on average. I try to keep a daily video diary of clear as well as chemtrail days. Occasionally, I see the jets themselves. They travel at a pretty good clip going from horizon to horizon in a matter of minutes, and returning, leaving regular rows of plumed smoke. To my eye, the plumes seem more luminous than the billowy clouds, less susceptible to breezes, and linger for hours. Most often they do it early in the morning, and are out of sight by 7 am or so. I have seen them in the afternoon though, as well. It's hard not to notice fast moving jets at near vertical descents leaving giant trails of smoke that cover the sky from horizon to horizon. I have started to mention them to my neighbors, most of whom have not noticed. Recently though, while I was walking my dog, an elderly lady called to me from across the street, asking about the sky and explaining she had never seen a sky like that in her life. I think I recorded an actual contrail not long ago (I meant to, but you have to be quick on the draw with the phone) which vanished almost as soon as it appeared. Not so with the long lingering rows of particulate that are sprayed every week. These are certainly not due to any known fight patterns. I have never experienced a near vertical descent or takeoff in a passenger plane, and I have yet to see any of the passenger planes leaving from or arriving to the airports create these plumes. I have seen similar trails in Boston, Houston and once on a flight over Kentucky saw regular cross-hatched rows of sprayed something or other. I am making no claims as to knowing what it is or why they do it. I am thoroughly convinced it is by intention and not random, I think the regularity and uniform nature of the patterns would bear this out, not to mention the expense that must be involved. I realize correlation is not causality, but this seems to me the wettest year I have seen in the 28 years since I have been here. these plumes definitely create a haze in the sky that is absent when they don't spray. I am surprised that no one here has direct experience of these things. I have heard several accounts fro the Los Angeles area. There are a lot of Youtube vids out there. Of course, in today's world that which is right in front of one's eyes does not hold the evidential weight of some media hack yelling conspiracy,. Sadly, I am one of those old enough to remember that it's okay to believe the things that one experiences with one's own five senses. We are fast disappearing.

I enjoyed the Max Igan vid and thought he made some valid points, on the mark about a lot of things. I am not sure about his civil war prognostication. I can get a very clear picture of what an civil war in America would look like, as there would be very little clarity in terms of defining which side was which. In 1861, there were clear boundaries a union, a confederacy with uniforms, etc. Not so now. The coup, if this country was ever released from the yoke of British imperialism, about which I have doubts, would have occurred in 1912. There is a good research thread about this event here: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=1521 The latest entries are turning up abandoned properties, a couple of abandoned schools, a possible ghost town, so there may be a land clear at work here, as well the usual gun control and fear-mongering. The five minute attention span of the American public, as well as their stubborn inability to flip beyond the first page of any of these outrageous stories in sadly familiar, yet expected. On the plus side, more people than ever before are beginning to notice that the news media is far less about documentation that promotion.

I just saw it last week. I found the most despicable character in the movie that of the one played by Samuel L. Jackson, Mr. Candie's toadie. I looked at that character as a metaphor for a voter in a democratic society. I am having a problem in general, which I felt as a sense of discomfort while watching the movie, with the idea of vengeance. Vengeance is a powerful and pervasive theme and it does feel good to see the oppressed rise up and give the oppressor a taste of his own medicine. The destruction of the plantation was a fitting end for a theme of vengeance, but we all know that burning a church does not end religion. There are quite a few examples of success (empiricism) using the techniques of non-violent communication which responds to brutality with empathy. I am finding near impossible to imagine being empathetic to those that oppress others, even as a mental exercise. The problem is that the need to see vengeance binds oneself to the cycle. It's a work in progress but releasing oneself from the need to see the underdog kick the pants of the bully is tough work.

What is it about expressing your own feelings that causes people to 'express their own feelings'? My wording was a little unclear, thanks for pointing that out. I meant to say was mething more along the lines of how remarking on the nature of one's own internal emotional state, as in "I feel sad." causes people to respond with attacks: "You are a jerk for feeling sad." It says something that rather than questioning why someone may feel sad, they immediately pass judgement. People are not trying to say that Stef is a jerk for feeling sad. You're misrepresenting people's complaints as unreasonable, also known as a straw man argument. If you don't understand the reaction, that's one thing, but don't mischaracterize people's positions and then dismiss it as though you've made an argument. Below are a few of the comments extracted from the Facebook thread (there are supporting comments there too, to be fair) It's incredibly trollish, disrespectful, ungrateful, etc to disparage people contributing as you ask them to. full of sh*t How disappointing! For someone who is supposed to be revered for his rationality and logical clarity, I would've thought Molyneux could've reasoned this one out. You tried to shame your audience for ca$h. How very religious of you. I am not making an argument straw or otherwise, simply trying to understand how posting: "I don't mean to be ungrateful, but (-symbol-)" stirs up the desire to level attack in others. I don't even have an argument, I just want to understand the mechanism that causes people to feel as if they are being attacked when they aren't.

What is it about expressing your own feelings that causes people to 'express their own feelings'? My wording was a little unclear, thanks for pointing that out. I meant to say was mething more along the lines of how remarking on the nature of one's own internal emotional state, as in "I feel sad." causes people to respond with attacks: "You are a jerk for feeling sad." It says something that rather than questioning why someone may feel sad, they immediately pass judgement.

I am very curious about this line of inquiry and/or the leveling of criticism and such. I feel very close to this in that I have been very diligent in applying the RTR and NVC principles to my interactions with others and refraining from posing my responses to perceived slights in ways other than those that express how I feel. As the last poster pointed out, there are digital vendors that deal in small transactions, iTunes for example. I am sure they are not sad when someone purchases only one song and I totally get all of the reasons why a small donation would have caused Stef to feel sadness. What I have experienced and what I am noticing here is how this expression of feelings is experienced by others as an attack. Alan Chapman addressed this above by pointing out that people are used to receiving condemnation, but Stef did not condemn anyone. I feel a bit of disappointment that the reactions aren't geared more toward curiosity rather than attack. "Why the long face, SeaBiscuit?"

What is it about expressing your own feelings that causes people to lash out?

The real reporting on this story, of there is even a story at all, the evidence is so scant, is being done on the web by curious bloggers and forums dedicated to verifying and/or debunking stories put out by the media. It's a tragedy in a way, that one has to do one's own research or look to other amateur researchers who have put time and energy into actually beating the virtual streets to confirm or gather factual information, while at the same time the huge apparatus that as all the manpower and money necessary to conduct this enterprise studiously avoids doing so. One can only come to the conclusion that this is done by design. There is a saving grace nowadays, in that the modern consumer can readily be in touch with contrary evidence and shaky back stories in a few mouse clicks (the Gene Rosen story is oh, so rich), allowing for a much more complete picture of the events if they have some mild curiosity. Sadly, the information blitzkrieg rules the day: "26 dead, including 20 children, killed with an AR15, gunman commits suicide." Next!

PJW from above clip 05:46 - 05:54, "I don't buy into the notion that this never happened or that the parents...the family members... were acted in some sense...." MSM, saved by alternative media. Move along these aren't the droids you are looking for...

Can one of the above posters have a look at the graphic image above extracted from a NBC TV broadcast (it's one of thousands of examples of manipulated video; I used this one because I thought it would be a slam dunk) and explain how the vessel (we can assume it is real for the sake of argument) can be halfway inside the building and neither the vessel, nor the building show any sign of disturbance. Is the lunar lander relevant that particular image? Is a crash test vehicle relevant to that image? I just need someone to explain that frame to me in a way that doesn't contradict what is possible in reality and I may reconsider all the conclusions I have drawn about this. Perhaps you could just point me to one example of any video or picture taken anywhere, ever, that demonstrates this phenomenon. What argument are you referring to, BTW? I am certainly not setting up an argument, I am asking those that know more than I do about such things for an explanation.

I don't know if that comment is in jest or a Jedi mind trick. What I see is the rear half of a cartoon jet protruding from an image of a building with no visible disturbance to either. This is not prior to slamming, this is mid-slam, as it were. If you don't mind, I am curious as to your take on the simplest explanation for how this type of situation could exist in the real world. It's a head scratcher for me.

They don't appear fake, they ARE fake. But why belabor the point in words. Just give me your simplest explanation of this image extracted from a Sept. 11 NBC evening newscast and we can move forward.

The only evidence that I can verify myself are the videos and photographs, as I have no personal connection to any other elements. The 9/11 videos and photographs depict impossible events, therefore must be fake. Proof of this can be verified by examining the videos and photos themselves and noting the numerous conflicts, examples of digital rendering, compositing, crude graphical inserts, cut and paste, etc. One can use the same forensics to dismiss most of the so-called 9/11 victims. There is no debate about this. I will be happy to listen to any countervailing evidence regarding the enormity of evidence showing video manipulation that exists, but as of yet, not a single contradictory eplanation has been offered nor can it be, as it is outside the realm of the possible. As far as who did it, why they did it, or how it was accomplished, I have no opinion as I cannot offer any sort of evidence of proof. I have no access to physical objects, witnesses, scientists and the like, nor could I verify the veracity of any report. I can use my own eyes to see, however and would encourage anyone who thinks there may be some importance to these events to verify the evidence I used to draw my conclusions for themselves. It's quite easy to do, readily available and won't take all that much time. Come on in, the water's fine!

What do you mean when you say evidence?

I appreciate Lucytunes tying this event to 9/11, they are inextricably linked. I have drawn different conclusions about 9/11, namely that the video evidence pesented as "live" footage was constructed in advance of the event as type of Hollywood studio simulation and cannot be taken as evidence to support or debunk any theory as it is false. All the videos aired on television are archived at Archive.org in the 9/11 section and anyone can visit that site and verify for themselves that the videos conflict with themselves and therefore cannot be depictions of real events. The events pictured were physical impossibilities. Not to mention obvious evidence of layering and compositing, easily demonstrated. This is the only real evidence available to everyone where 9/11 is concerned and in my opinion, the real story of that day. 9/11 was primarily a media creation. Yes, the towers were brought down, likey with controlled demolition behind a military grade smoke obscurant, in the most reliable and time tested way possible. Occam's razor. Once one has verified for themselves, not through theory, but unassailable proof that the media is responsible for creating events (as News Corporation states plainly that it does) all other events are immediately suspect. As far as the Sandy Hook thing goes, there are many more reasons to doubt the story than to accept it. Mason-killer points to confirmation bias for pointing out the implausibility of the story while at the same time accepting the story at face value. Perhaps it is easy to shoot large numbers of people at close range, if they are sitting still, or are they in a closet? Or are they running to safety to be taken in by a creepy old man? Or shot while they are running? Or being protected by on or two teachers, or the principal and psychologist who are running toward the gunman as opposed to away after they heard the tumultuous hail of bullets blasting through the front door? Wait a minute, the police scanner said this whole event was over in ten minutes, with suspects proned out outside the building in handcuffs. The aerial photos show no cars or activity. Why did everyone go to the firehouse? Why was the trauma center set up off site? Why were the bodies kept for an extended period of time in the building? Where are the shell casings? Blown out doors? This story has more holes in it Rachel Maddow's Rush Limbaugh dartboard. Like I said: Anderson Cooper said it, I believe it, that's all there is to it. But, like everyone is wont to complain about here, regarding liberty and the state, people are not persuaded by facts. Not here, not anywhere.

I a related story, Obama is considering mandating a pony in every yard, the elimination of homework and chores such as room cleaning, along with the extension of bedtime to well past midnight.

Grammar, logic, rhetoric. Who, what where, when. What are the facts? From my perspective, I have no knowledge of whether the places and people portayed in the media even exist. I have a monitor and speakers that emit light and sounds, or in the case of print media, paper covered with ink. There is no reason whatsoever to accept anything in the news at face value. The facts of this story as they have been presented conflict with one another, the images conflict with one another, the narrative is implusible, if not downright fantastical and as such leaves much to be desired in terms of veracity. Once these basic considerations are taken into account, other supporting evidence such as interviews becomes suspect. I have no evidence that "news" is any different than other programming that is displayed on TV and other digital mediums, for example ScyFy's Eureka or Buffy the Vampire Slayer. What is it about "news" that gives it credibility?

Philosophy has been defined as the art of non-contradictory identification. Media events such as this one and others mentioned above are rife with contradictions. Attempts to eliminate the contradictions by corroborating facts are labeled conspiracy theory, nonsense and the like. What is it about major news outlets that hold such sway over the imagination that the mere idea of comparing their images and narratives against each other for consistency is considered embarrassing? All the major outlets are controlled by a handful of corporations with deep ties to the military industrial complex and ownership interests in major movie production facilities as well. We all know that government relies on murder to get the job done, why is it such a stretch to imagine they lie too?

Mainstream news peddles conclusions and agendas, it does not disseminate facts. when questions are raised about the implausible and unsubstantiated claims made by the media, they are accused of being conspiracy theorists. The idea that a gangly, reticent, mentally unstable youth absconded with some unverified variety of weapons, all purchsed within the last 2 years and waltzed into a school, induced 26 fatalities firing a rounds with near 100% accuracy at a rate of one per second, leaving only one casualty, while wearing body armor yet immediately committed suicide after hearing police sirens while wearing ear plugs, well...it may sound somewhat implausible to say the least. Of course, if Anderson Cooper says that's what happened it must be true.