I'm presuming Flat Stanley is 'theearthisflat' from the other lunatic thread. Pointless trying to debate with people who's ideas are so fractured from reality. It's their way or no way.

Do you mean 1 x Person with 3 Alias. and all three Alias post in this forum ?

Here the trouble causer. You care to add any decent dialogue on this topic . Nah didn't think so..bye byespace cadet

I'm afraid I'm not allowed to divulge personal details. Pesky laws and such.

But in the vain hope it'll put an end to this tiresome nonsense I'll happily agree to transfer £100 via PayPal to anyone who can prove I've used an alternative account in this (or any other) forum this decade.

If half the things I'm routinely accused of are true this shouldn't be a difficult question to answer ...

I reckon JML is The Butcher.They're always stalking and rapid to antagonise my beliefs. And when i challenge a debate they both do one.

=#FF0000EDITED:
You cannot post other posters personal details without their permission.
WANDERER

I've long since given up wondering why people do some of the things they do. Suffice to say we live in a weird, weird world.

That is very weird behaviour. With all the brain insults directed at myself over the months i could quite easily throw back but that'd make me worse than him, if anything i feel sorry for their behavioural actions seriously. Not only that he tried hiding his tracks and pinning those Alias's on me. Gee whiz The Butcher i feel sorry for you. Suppose that's the end of JML. Gee Whizz when challenged to a debate they/he ran off with his tail between his legs.

With this behaviour MY belief's are obviously causing his discomfort. Which means his beliefs are Vulnerable. The PROBLEM he is obviously suffering badly with [url=http://www.drkwamebrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/cognitive-dissonance.pngCOGNITIVE DISSONANCE[/url TUT TUT TUT.

=#FF0000EDITED:
You cannot post other posters personal details without their permission.
WANDERER

Only you see I have raised plenty of debate, however, you run away from anything that conflicts your views and then resort to silly insults and emoticons (Now who does that sound like!) So I have your undivided attention? Lets see if your a man of your word?

1.) How can anyone take anything you say seriously, when you present a quote as undisputable fact of there being an NWO, and then it takes me about 30 Minutes to discredit this, and provide the real quote?

2.) You use the fact that, there was a session ran to help children in disaster in the same day as Sandy hook happened, to prove that this was a hoax. You say that this cant have been coincidence. Yet there were at least six events in the same state, over the month before, and month of the event. Hardly significant proof is it?

So there you go, off the top of my head your starter for 10. Lets see if you can answer for a change.

The thing I don't get is why you are bothering going to all the effort. I mean, I do what I do because I find these topics fascinating and I post mostly for the many others who think similarly. Sure, it would be cool if a few more people clawed themselves out of their stupor - but the truth is it's largely a waste of time and energy appealing to their sense of reason.

No matter the quantity or quality of your evidence these people will keep on raising the bar as though the only kind of worthwhile truth is one which can be derived scientifically. Never mind the fact that in the courtroom the burden of proof is rarely (if ever) so high.

I've lost count of the number of times people dismiss evidence as purely "circumstantial" without realizing not only that such evidence is admissible in a courtroom - but that many cases have been decided [usolely[/u on circumstantial evidence.

[iCircumstantial evidence has a reputation for generally being weaker and less valid evidence than direct evidence. It is interesting and necessary, however, to emphasize that it is simply incorrect to assume that direct evidence is always stronger or more convincing than circumstantial evidence. Aside from scientific evidence, other examples of circumstantial evidence that may imply guilt include the defendant’s motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the defendant had resisted arrest, or if any suspicious behaviors were demonstrated. Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence.[/i

You're better off not engaging with these fools. It's a fundamental mistake to think people behave rationally. Mostly it's just dumb instinct.

I mean, I can't force you to quit banging your head against a brick wall. But I wish you wouldn't. It's not healthy.

He's even formed a conspiracy that seems to involve me. Which is a bit weird. I wouldn't get into a serious debate about the validity of unicorns or why Harry Potter is actually real with someone, so I'm certainly not wasting time with people who think the earth is flat, that everything we see is all made up by secret societies, and that scientists are all hiding truth from all of us. These people are the same as those that would argue for unicorns and Harry Potter. It's not running away from debate, it's that their arguments are so ridiculous that debating them lends them some kind of equal validity with reality. Which they are very far from.

I don't need to create alter-egos to stalk you and discredit you, Stanley. You do a much better job of that without my help.



Besides, I'm not the one on here who's bothered to find out my actual name and post here. Kind of a bit like stalking eh?

You've asked this before, you're getting more weird by the minute.
Are you being serious with that question. Really. Are we talking Sandy Hoax here ? or Paris, or St Bernardino, to be honest all three had special operation drills going on prior or at the time of the event. Instead of providing Sandy Hook i'll provide all three to stop confusion

1.[url=https://youtu.be/GQVRlEe2A94?list=UUSQJwLIjE3Knm4xRQzZ4ldwSANDY HOAX CHILDREN STILL ALIVE[/url
[url=http://www.fortfairfieldjournal.com/ffj/2014/01031501a.htmlSANDY HOAX FEMA EXCERCISE[/url
2. [url=http://beforeitsnews.com/police-state/2015/12/san-bernardino-shooting-happened-during-swat-drill-masonic-symbol-on-hat-2578.htmlST BERNARDINO SWAT TEAM IN OPERATION AT THE RIGHT TIME[/url
3.[url=https://youtu.be/ilp2NOydmJsPARIS DRILLS PRIOR EVENT[/url



You're right, i've provided the ijit with the evidence i'll probably end up using the FOE button to escape the weirdo's interaction from now on. Like i said before he's got one big problem not me

Stalker again offering no debate. Bringing up the earth's shape has nothing to do with this thread. Go on do one and go and pick of another username and play schitziod games with yourself.



=#FF0000EDITED:
You cannot post other posters personal details without their permission.
WANDERER

I can see that I have tapped into a rich seam here.

Yes I've asked before and you still have no answer to either. There were six drills over two months. They happen all the time, there were at least 6 in the same state as Sandy Hook in the 60 days both before and after the attack. Hardly coincidence, infact a 1 in 10 chance.

I see you still try to avoid my first point. You see again, someone shows you were wrong and you avoid it. There's only one weirdo here and that's you. I suggest you stop watching crackpots on Youtube, and reading the Daily odd ball, otherwise it wont be long before your in a mental institute.

I can't comment on 2 & 3 but there are much better sources than those you've quoted on the issue of Sandy Hook. I don't regard Jim Fetzer as a particularly reliable researcher. He did some good work years ago on the Kennedy case but ever since he became tied up with Veterans Today he's become pretty flaky. Bear in mind that the editor of Veterans Today, Gordon Duff, has openly admitted that the publication is "95% disinformation".

I've no idea what JML32 alter ego The Butcher has coughed up. But i'd wager it's nothing to do with this Paris thread followed by a brain insult. I love this FOE BUTTON. :

J L M. It's not hard! You are a clown of the highest order.

I have no problem with people not believing conspiracy theories, they're a lot out there that are just plain bat5hit, and some like the JFK assassination, or opprration mockingbird are just about as open and shut as you can get, and have actually been proven. Yet people still greet people who relay this information with ridicule. As an example, Mugwump has named almost all his sources of information, yet almost nobody, except perhaps Cronus has tried to refute the evidence.
It isn't surprising though, whenever anyone suggests that almost everything a person thought that was true about his perception of society, or the world in general has all been a sham then they usually respond in a dismissive manner, and ignore the evidence that's in front of them. Religious people are a prime example of this.

I really don't mind people objecting to different theories about X, Y & Z. Covert actions are - by their very nature - designed to be opaque. It's the reason ten times as much resources are devoted to the cover story as the operation itself.

What I do object to is people who haven't the faintest idea about what they are talking about attacking others who have invested a considerable portion of their own precious time and energy researching events to a level which would be acceptable in an academic institution.

For instance - I have a rule of thumb regarding 9/11 which has never once let me down: [iThe only people who deny the existence of some form of conspiracy either know next to nothing about the event or have some vested interest in supporting the official explanation.[/i

Only in some topsy-turvy universe is it acceptable for people who haven't even read the official 9/11 Commission Report to claim those who have and don't believe it are delusional.

Which is why I don't bother engaging with such clowns - [ior I ask them to state clearly, prior to entering the debate, precisely what it would take for them to change their opinion[/i - at which point they suddenly become very, very vague. What does this tell you?



I mean, I used to get pretty wound up about it. But now I just find it funny. I know I've done the hard grind. I have over a thousand books on the shelf behind me, heaven knows how much archived video and audio footage etc. etc. I'm not saying I know everything - but I'm more than satisfied that I know something about what I'm talking about.

My opinions are always flexible - which is precisely as it should be. It's the idiots clinging to a completely rigid explanation they don't even realise was disproven years ago who are in error.

The weird thing is - on at least three occasions I've caught out people who take great delight in ridiculing any and all conspiracies publicly espousing a completely different viewpoint in private. This leads me to believe that truth is far less important than social inclusion to these people. Which makes sense really when you consider how intelligence agencies try to muddy the waters. Bear in mind that it was the CIA which first emphasized the effectiveness of labeling people "conspiracy theorists" (see the first link in the Unmediated History Thread) as a means of combating the growing number of people who were dissatisfied with the Warren Commission (which means the joke is kind of on the people using it in a pejorative sense).

I wasn't always this way. For a good thirty years I WAS ONE of these clowns. Before embarking on any kind of serious research I've ALWAYS believed the official story (with the possible exception of JFK). And yet time and time again I've found that my faith in the official explanation was completely misplaced.

Well, I find this thread interesting.

It's certainly made me think about things and events.

The world is never black and white, it's always shades of grey.

Reading around a subject and empowering one's self to be better informed can never be a bad thing.

If you go right back to the first recognised socities, people have always looked to exploit each other, ancient Indian and Persian society is full of this, if we had the historical record to go right back to the Rift Valley, I would presume the same.

Let me add that whilst it's extremely difficult to acquire cast-iron proof of conspiracy and the identities of the conspirators in the immediate aftermath of an event - there are some very reliable indicators that something foul is afoot.

I mean, if the cops are already on the scene, or they were running drills at the location the same day, or the suspect is identified (with detailed biographical data) [iwithin minutes[/i and/or filled full of lead before talking, or within the first twenty-four hours the news reports suddenly change from a bunch of conflicting stories to one single explanation repeated verbatim across all channels, or government officials are [iimmediately[/i calling for new legislation, or shares in companies somehow connected to the events show unusual activity in the week preceding, or the investigation is handed off to the military (or some government body which doesn't seem entirely relevant) or (in the really big cases) stories appear about the nuclear launch codes temporarily going "missing" etc. etc. etc. there's a good chance you are being lied to.

I don't have the time to explain why the above are good indicators but it shouldn't be too difficult to figure out.

People should trust their instincts. Sure, the senses are fallible - but human instinct is a remarkably reliable tool. If something doesn't [ufeel [/uright (like buildings collapsing in a curiously [icontrolled[/i fashion) then it probably isn't. Don't be put off by loudmouth fools labelling you "insane" because chances are you are the smartest person in the conversation.



One thing you absolutely shouldn't do is immediately revert back to orthodoxy the moment you encounter some piece of evidence which doesn't fit the pattern. Just because some small piece of a conspiracy turns out to be false - it doesn't mean everything else is false, too. And if it is false - deal with it and move on. Likewise, just because you are convinced by one conspiracy - don't automatically assume that all conspiracies are true. Deal with them on an individual basis and purely on their merits.

Finally, have some fun. It's a genuinely stimulating and rewarding exercise and if it gets you out of the habit of watching TV then you'll end up much the smarter because of it.

I'm still waiting for an answer from our enlightened ones...

What did all the conspiracy theorists do before the internet?

To be honest i lost enthusiasm during the making of that post after uncovering the schitzoid, i just wanted to stop all dialogue so i hurriedly linked random sources just to end all correspondence.

One of the most compelling video's by Wolfgang Halbig on Sandy Hook this documentary a fascinating watch.



[url=https://youtu.be/K3QTCh3BLNEWolfgang Halbig[/url

Personally I have no objection to people investigating things, reading as much as they want or can in an effort to better inform themselves about something. Who would object to that ... it's what makes us special ... the thirst for knowledge/answers/reasons etc etc .......
Also it is a powerful argument that someone who is very well read in something should hold more sway in a debate (on the face of it), they being an expert in the field shall we say, or certainly having expertise.
That much is fine.

So for instance, if some aspect of American foreign policy is being discussed and the machinations and possible subterfuge connected with it .... then I wouldn't dream of arguing the toss with Mugwump, because he has researched this field and I haven't.
Although having read so much about it, I would trust Mugwump to come up with sensible (and I mean sensible) conclusions.
And I should think, though don't know, that he has in this field.

However, just because someone is an expert in the subterfuge that goes on in this world, does not give them carte blanche to assert that almost everything has more meaning to it than the obvious.

By way of example in Mugwump's case these are two of the things he has said, and I am paraphrasing ....
'There is no way a jetliner could bring down a building as massive as a Trade Centre'. That being the presumption alternative theories naturally follow ... deliberate demolition and murder of American citizens for instance.
Seriously?

Another one was when the explosives detonated in the Chinese port area ... paraphrasing again from memory ...
'That was some explosion, I reckon it was done by one of these babies' ... shows a picture of a missile.
Did the Chinese complain?

So I am sort of saying ... if someone is putting themselves forward as an expert, if they come to unreasonable conclusions, are they a reliable expert?