Antero wrote:The point is that you and your ilk have shat in the well so many times that nobody'll drink. You could have a fucking signed confession from Bigfoot and people would ignore it.

Dear hopelessly naive young man:

Please research the 60 years of media assets owned by the CIA. Plenty of 'shit' that you see in the well was paid for the Agency. Ever hear the old joke that there were more FBI informants at Communist Party meetings in the 1950's than real communists? Same deal with the conspiracy community today- it's overrun by moles, plants, and disinformation artists. A smart person fights his way through that the best he can by focusing on the evidence and checking his sources. A lazy and bitter coward like you who wouldn't accept a conspiracy theory from God Himself if it meant he had to get off his pampered ass and take a stand against the power structure based on what the theory told him is of no consequence to me. Continue to enjoy the one party corporate government of America, the military industrial complex, and the puberty of Big Brother. The only way out is through conspiracy theories, so I guess you're on the plantation for the long haul.

Antero wrote:Here's a conspiracy theory for you: I am of the opinion that those running actual conspiracies (of money, silence, torture, overthrow, imperialistic power, etc.) are major supporters of conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorists. Why? Because if I was involved in a conspiracy, the first thing I'd do would be to leak an ounce of truth and a pound of lies to various conspiracy theorists.

Hey, silly ass mentally-disorganized punk: Thanks for agreeing with me 100% that plenty of the shit that you see in the well is from the disinformation factory owned by the power structure. Thanks for agreeing with me that there are legitimate conspiracies everywhere. Thanks for agreeing with me that the CIA manipulates the media. And most of all, thanks for making a total ass out of yourself in public by arguing against your own bias within the span of a single post. You're my new best friend, after your stellar contribution to this thread in support of conspiracy theories.

Antero wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Avery and Bermas took everything they used off the internet. It was all there first. They didn't write the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They're compilers.

Directly ties to what I said about letting noise into the signal.

More stumbling and bumbling out of you. You keep giving me belt high fastballs, antero.

If there is a controlled media blockade against any discussion of 9/11 theories that contradict the official myth ( and there is ), then the only place you're going to find any 9/11 conspiracy theories is on the internet. Therefore, it stands to reason that filmmakers making a documentary on 9/11 conspiracy theories would do much of their research on the internet. Now me, I like the internet thing. I would miss it. I do research on the internet. I bet you do also antero, but I wouldn't put it past you to lie your face off and tell me that you don't. I bet you 'compile' off the internet all the damn time. I bet you probably use Google as a portal about a million times annually. What I am not willing to bet on is what cockamamie brain chemicals are coursing through your frontal lobe to make you slander the LC guys for using the internet. I mean, common sense tells us that we can find good and bad on the internet, just like we can find good and bad in print.

What you would have to do to make your stupid smear carry any weight is to debunk what they used from the internet, BUT, to do that, you'd have to look at evidence instead of delivering more of your endless posturing about the psychology of conspiracy theorists. I'm waiting for you with the real game, whenever you want in.

Antero wrote:No. I don't actually know who killed JFK - CIA? Mafia? Aliens? It doesn't matter.

I'm really starting to wonder about your state of mind. Do you have any idea how often your actions are contradicting your words? "It doesn't matter.", you say- well then, how does Antero demonstrate to the world what he doesn't care about? He finds a thread on conspiracy theories and rants about them. Interesting. To the casual observer, one might think that antero had a corkscrew up his ass about CT's, but no, that can't be right- why would an allegedly sane man like antero type feverish polemics against things that do not matter? My guess? Antero is scared shitless of seeing the missing backbone of the mainstream left exposed every time the only explanation left to explain a crime is the conspiracy theory. It must hit him like the sniper shot from the front to JFK's temple. Antero's so scared shitless of the Pandora's box that will open up if the fossilized left ever starts to see JFK and 9/11 for what they are, he'll say just about fucking *anything* to keep his distance from those naughty conspiracy theories. He'll say a coup de tat by the MIC on a Dallas afternoon "doesn't matter". Antero would never say that the Florida recount of 2000 'didn't matter', because that's a crime against the Presidency that antero is permitted to complain about. Antero knows the length of his leash very well.

Antero wrote:Well, see, this is why: look at your own rhetoric! "Protectors of the false history"? It's ludicrous to talk about the possibility of a conspiracy with someone whose religion mandates that such a conspiracy exist.

Well, we can get to the bottom of this one very quickly. I hope you understand that any history that is not overwhelmingly accurate is a false history.

Now, I referred to the official history of the JFK assassination as a 'false history'. I will give you the option of referring to the official history as a truthful history or a false history. Are those enough choices for you, or do you need some wishy-washy middle choice? If you tell me that the official history of the JFK assassination is a truthful history, I will laugh at you, and you will look siller than Noam Chomsky on this subject. If you answer, "It's a false history", then I will ask you why this false history persists, and I will again give you two choices. The first will be, "The false history perpetuates itself". The second will be, "The false history persists because the false history is protected". You may nominate a third choice if you wish.

So, antero: Please tell me if the official history of the JFK assassination is a false history, and if so, why does it persist?

When you all meet your maker,
ask him who killed JFK,
and what his/her/their motives were.

He'll tell you, and then you'll know.

clocker bob wrote:He'll say a coup de tat by the MIC on a Dallas afternoon "doesn't matter".

Which MIC Bob?

alpha80 wrote:

clocker bob wrote:He'll say a coup de tat by the MIC on a Dallas afternoon "doesn't matter".

Which MIC Bob?

The military industrial complex. I mean, for christ's sake, we had a four star general and President dedicate his farewell address to warning us about a perpetual wartime economy, but did it do any good for the American public when the Warren Commission took a fat dump in their mouth? Nope. Pearls before swine. "Lone gunman? Oh, that's fine". MLK? RFK? Malcolm X? "Lone gunman? Oh, that's fine". "Oh, 19 hijackers come to america, train as pilots, and a dead guy on dialysis directs the operation- good enough for me". It's like watching people tie their own nooses around here sometimes, I swear.

alpha 80 wrote:When you all meet your maker,
ask him who killed JFK,
and what his/her/their motives were.

He'll tell you, and then you'll know.

I wouldn't bet on it. Even that might not be good enough for some on this forum. They're like the Princesses and the Peas: "Oh, that conspiracy theory is too hard."..."Oh, that conspiracy theory is too soft for me."

clocker bob wrote:

Antero wrote:No. I don't actually know who killed JFK - CIA? Mafia? Aliens? It doesn't matter.

I'm really starting to wonder about your state of mind. Do you have any idea how often your actions are contradicting your words? "It doesn't matter.", you say- well then, how does Antero demonstrate to the world what he doesn't care about? He finds a thread on conspiracy theories and rants about them. Interesting. To the casual observer, one might think that antero had a corkscrew up his ass about CT's, but no, that can't be right- why would an allegedly sane man like antero type feverish polemics against things that do not matter? My guess? Antero is scared shitless of seeing the missing backbone of the mainstream left exposed every time the only explanation left to explain a crime is the conspiracy theory. It must hit him like the sniper shot from the front to JFK's temple. Antero's so scared shitless of the Pandora's box that will open up if the fossilized left ever starts to see JFK and 9/11 for what they are, he'll say just about fucking *anything* to keep his distance from those naughty conspiracy theories. He'll say a coup de tat by the MIC on a Dallas afternoon "doesn't matter". Antero would never say that the Florida recount of 2000 'didn't matter', because that's a crime against the Presidency that antero is permitted to complain about. Antero knows the length of his leash very well.

I hereby question your literacy.

Let me try this again, break it down for you:

For the purpose of constructing an analogy, it does not make a fucking difference who we hypothetically accuse of JFK's murder. It also does not make a difference what conspiracy theory the analogy addresses. It could be the murder of ODB for all I give a shit.

You really wasted a lot of words right there.

clocker bob wrote:

Antero wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Avery and Bermas took everything they used off the internet. It was all there first. They didn't write the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They're compilers.

Directly ties to what I said about letting noise into the signal.

More stumbling and bumbling out of you. You keep giving me belt high fastballs, antero.

If there is a controlled media blockade against any discussion of 9/11 theories that contradict the official myth ( and there is ), then the only place you're going to find any 9/11 conspiracy theories is on the internet. Therefore, it stands to reason that filmmakers making a documentary on 9/11 conspiracy theories would do much of their research on the internet. Now me, I like the internet thing. I would miss it. I do research on the internet. I bet you do also antero, but I wouldn't put it past you to lie your face off and tell me that you don't. I bet you 'compile' off the internet all the damn time. I bet you probably use Google as a portal about a million times annually. What I am not willing to bet on is what cockamamie brain chemicals are coursing through your frontal lobe to make you slander the LC guys for using the internet. I mean, common sense tells us that we can find good and bad on the internet, just like we can find good and bad in print.

What you would have to do to make your stupid smear carry any weight is to debunk what they used from the internet, BUT, to do that, you'd have to look at evidence instead of delivering more of your endless posturing about the psychology of conspiracy theorists. I'm waiting for you with the real game, whenever you want in.

You have succeeded in completely missing the point.

Internet? Fine, whatever. Information is information.

The problem is that you guys are complete whores for anything with the tiniest bit of potential faux-meat hanging off of it, which is why the fact that you assume you're surrounded by moles and plants is worthless - you guys bite anyhow. You say, "This is a theory! Let's add it to the pot!"

If you guys actually think your community is compromised (which it easily is) and your stories are potential plants, I would think the conclusion would be to do more research and discard ludicrous and unsupported theories. Somehow, however, you never fail to bring those along for the ride.

Summary: Your modus operandi is compromised, you know it's compromised, but you guys spread your legs for it anyhow.