|
Post by stutefish on Mar 22, 2007 12:31:15 GMT -4
I get it, now.
The poll and its attendant question are confusingly presented.
The thread topic: "US, UK, Covert and False Flag Ops" is also the subject of the poll.
The poll choices, "Real" and "Nonsense", refer to the thread topic.
3onthetree's opening question, about using media outlets, "namely, the BBC", as propaganda or counterintelligence dissemination channels (either wittingly or un-) can actually be ignored for the purposes of answering the poll.
As I hope I've already made clear, it's my opinion that some alleged "US, UK, Covert and False Flag Ops" are "Real", and that others are "Nonsense". It's a shame that the poll choices didn't include this option.
3onthetree, have you considered the possibility that nobody answered your poll because they don't trust you to deal fairly with them in the administration or interpretation of the poll? Have you considered the possibility that nobody answered your poll because they felt it was badly or confusingly worded, and weren't comfortable answering an unclear question? Have you considered the possibility that nobody answered your poll because their honest answer wasn't an option?
You've seen my give my honest answer here. What do you make of it?
ETA: punctuation
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Mar 21, 2007 14:40:55 GMT -4
I haven't answered this question because I don't have enough information about the subject to make an informed choice.
It's an absolute statement: "Has the UK and the US ever..." (emphasis mine). Which means chances are that the answer is, in some sense, true. I.e., it's unlikely that something like what the question describes has never happened.
But in what sense is the question true? Another problem with the poll is that the question is somewhat ambiguous. Is the question whether these two governments conspired with the media? Or is the question whether these two governments have conspired with each other to use the media as an uwitting tool?
Also, what does the clause "... namely, the BBC" mean, in this context? Is the question whether these two governments conspired with (or to use) any media outlet--the BBC, for example? Or is the question whether these two governments have conspired with (or to use) the BBC specifically?
Personally, I consider it highly likely that these two governments, both singly and together, have in the past conspired to use media outlets as unwitting channels for all sorts of propaganda and counter-intelligence dissemination, including in support of conspiracies or open plans to overthrow democratically-elected governments (e.g., during World War 2).
I also consider it a known fact that these two governments have conspired, both singly and together, with media outlets to disseminate propaganda and counter-intelligence, notably during World War 2.
I also consider it a known fact that these two governments have openly planned and carried out such activities, as a separate case from their conspiracies to do so.
I also consider it a known fact that these two governments, both singly and together, have conspired to overthrow democratically-elected governments.
And, of course, I consider it a known fact that these two govenrments, both singly and together, have openly planned and carried out the overthrow of democratically-elected governments, notably during World War 2.
Finally, I consider the poll question to be too absolutist, too ambiguous, and too poorly-worded overall, to be worth answering as is. Given the context in which it is asked (this board and its recent thread topics), it also strikes me as simplistic and loaded. I would very much like to know 3onthetree's reasoning behind formulating the question the way he did, what information he expects to gain from the responses, and what interpretation he puts on that information.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 28, 2007 1:45:57 GMT -4
Liars claim to be making honest mistakes because honest mistake are made all the time by honest people.
When someone claims to have made an honest mistake, they could be a liar, trying to look honest, or they could be an honest person, actually being honest.
How can you tell which it is? The claim itself can't tell you, because the claim itself supports either interpretation.
Now, since we know that sometimes the media lies, and sometimes the media makes honest mistakes, and sometimes the media both lies and makes honest mistakes, and sometimes the media neither lies nor makes honest mistakes, the media's past behavior also can't tell you whether or not it's a lie or an honest mistake in this case. Again, the evidence supports either interpretation.
Now, all the expert testimony supports the mainstream interpretation. All the physical evidence supports the mainstream interpretation. Much of what we consider to be true about "human nature"--that clever conspiracists would not involve more people than necessary, that with as many people involved as the CT requires would very likely lead to whistleblowing on a grand scale, that honest mistakes do in fact happen in times of stress and confusion--supports the mainstream interpretation.
Against this mainstream interpretation, what have we seen? Anything even remotely realistic or convincing, on any level?
Don't get me wrong: human nature being what it is, I'm sure that there are people in positions of power in the world today, who would have done exactly what the CTs claim happened on 9/11--if such a thing were physically possible, technically feasible, and practially useful. Indeed, history is full of people who have done precisely this sort of thing whenever they could. Nixon, for example, arranged for the burglary of the Watergate hotel. That, and the Iran-Contra scandal I consider the state of the conspiratorial art in American governance.
The CTs in this thread are talking about epic-level alien space ray mind control hologram invasions.
And even that doesn't explain why they'd bring the BBC in on it.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 12, 2007 13:43:40 GMT -4
Please state exactly what your position on American imperialism is.
What does that have to do with anything?
Why not state our positions on principles of physics, the scientific method, and rules of evidence, and proceed on that basis?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 5, 2007 20:14:50 GMT -4
Clearly, this question needs third-party mediation.
David/Rocky won't accept any of our tests of objectivity, and we won't accept any of his tests of objectivity.
I wonder if there is some third, neutral test of objectivity we can all agree on ?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 17, 2007 12:38:08 GMT -4
At this point in a thread, I usually start wondering what the HB does for a living, and what reasoning techniques they use on the job, or with their families, and how well those techniques actually work.
I mean, I'm a systems administrator: I babysit a bunch of servers, and maintain them at the OS and hardware level.
In my daily life, when I'm confronted with a problem at work, I generally assume that the more evidence there is for a particular root cause, the more likely it is that that particular root cause is the real root cause.
I wonder if this is how David conducts his business in real life, or if he's having a lot of success with the "more evidence means less likely" approach at work and at home.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 5, 2007 14:45:41 GMT -4
I'm pretty sure that "lying to get the interrogator off your back" is a tactic well known to interrogators, and for which they have several counters.
This is just speculation, but....
If I were an interrogator, my first goal would be to get the subject to start talking. It's important to begin by breaking the subject's will to keep silent. Once he starts saying things, his statements can be subjected to various tests. Also, once he starts talking, the stresses of a skilled interrogation will make it difficult for him to produce consistent, coherent lies. The more you force him to talk, the less able he'll be to filter and change the truth in his head into innocuous but subtle falsehoods.
Anyway, about the "various tests" one easy one is cross-refernecing: Interrogate two subjects separately but simultaneously. Keep putting pressure on each subject until their stories start matching. The torture stops when the subject's claims are corroborated by the other subect.
Another kind of cross-referencing would be against external reality. The torture stops when the subject's claims are verified in the real world.
Thus, torture is best suited to situations where the key claims can be quickly corroborated by other sources of information: a second subject, satellite data, observers on the ground, investigators at the scene, etc.
Also, once the process of separating truth from lies begins, an experienced and skilled interrogator can begin to form an idea of what behavior patterns the subject exhibits during interrogation when telling the truth versus when simply lying to make it stop. The interrogation techniques could then be adjusted to draw out these behavior patterns and force decisive confrontations between truth, lies, torture, and release from torture, under the watchful eye of the interrogator.
Torture is not by itself a source of truth, and it's as much an art as it is a science, but that doesn't mean it has no utility, nor that it can never be used to gain good intel. Indeed, I imagine in some cases it's the best--or even only--way to get good intel.
Edited to add: of course, this analysis ignores the very real and very serious moral questions about torture.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 19, 2007 12:40:29 GMT -4
Also, what does this have to do with Jonestown? There's a whole board set aside here for Apollo hoax theories.
David, have you considered discussing a single issue at a time? When you bring up multiple subjects like this, it gives the impression that you don't have good answers to questions about your original subject, and are trying to distract everyone by bringing up a new subject.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 19, 2007 12:39:10 GMT -4
Have you considered the possibility that the picture isn't overexposed at all, but rather exposed enough to clearly show details of the astronaut's suit and equipment, while somewhat exaggerating the image of the sun reflectied in his visor?
After all, the suit is a less efficient reflector than the visor, so adequate light reflecting off the suit is probably going to be excessive light reflecting off the visor.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 5, 2007 14:57:34 GMT -4
A lot of people seem to think it's worth investigating. As far as I can tell from the materials you've linked to, all they've got so far is some interesting coincidences and a lot of supposition and guesswork.
I think it will require significant new evidence--declassified/leaked CIA documents, first-hand testimony of people involved, etc.--to seriously question the current mainstream narrative about Jim Jones and Jonestown.
While we're waiting for you to uncover that evidence, here's an amusing list of things I would do, if I were the CIA, and some legislator sponsored a bill requiring me to disclose all my covert operations in advance to Congress (in order, from first to last):
1. Laugh heartily at the naivite, ignorance, and hubris of politicians. 2. Briefly consider having one or two of my pet Senators kill the bill in debate, and cut the foolish legislator out of the Washington political game entirely as punishment for daring to mess with me. 3. Decide it's really not worth the trouble of wasting a favor, since the bill is really so stupid that no effort on my part is necessary; the legislature will handily defeat the bill without my interference. 4. Show the news item of the congressman's horrible death to my co-workers, with one eyebrow raised as if to say "ironic, isn't it". 5. Give a fake laugh when my co-worker jokes, "we should have thought of that!" 6. Say, "yeah, but who wants a nutjob cult leader on our payroll?" 7. Go home, get a good night's sleep.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 4, 2007 15:33:13 GMT -4
David, do you have a claim to make? A theory? A conclusion, based on evidence, that explains all the evidence available? A story that makes more sense than the currently-accepted story of what happened? Anything at all?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Dec 15, 2006 18:42:55 GMT -4
Clinton was impreached on less evidence
Ironically, Clinton was impeached on less evidence than we have for the Apollo program, and yet Clinton actually did the things he was accused of. By this standard, Apollo must have happened for sure!
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Jan 19, 2007 14:17:54 GMT -4
What happens when conspiracy theories are ignored because of conditioning?
What happens then is that conditioning causes conspiracy theories to be ignored. Are you claiming that's what's going on here?
What if the term conspiracy theory is used as a weapon to control dissent by governments and the media?
If the term is being used as a weapon to control dissent by some entities, then dissent is being controlled by some entities using this weapon.
Are you claiming that is what is going on here?
When events are leading to a conclusion that has been openly pointed out by dissenting people who are subsequently dismissed as conspiracy nuts, who are the conspirators then?
If the people making the conclusions are dismissed as conspiracy nuts, the conspirators could then be anybody or nobody.
Are you claiming that there's a conspiracy to dismiss dissenters as conspiracy nuts?
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Feb 10, 2007 23:24:29 GMT -4
Hi there, 911.
I'm a lurker (a chatty lurker, but a lurker nonetheless).
What wakes me up is discussion. Detailed analysis of things really opens my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Nov 28, 2006 19:29:00 GMT -4
When it comes to defining intelligence, I start with the assumption that it's a critical mass of discrete "signs of intelligence": tool use, time-awareness, self-awareness, etc.; but not requiring every single discrete sign.
And I end with the "powerful space alien" thought experiment. Take "tool use", for example. Taken discretely, one could argue that certain gorillas, with their twigs that yoink ants out of anthills, are also tool users, and therefore should get some credit as "intelligent" by human standards.
But what about powerful space aliens with a bias in favor of tool use as a sign of intelligence? Would they come to our planet, see a species with ant-yoinking twigs and another species with skyscrapers, supersonic jets, microminiaturized transistor arrays, lasers, etc., and be seriously unsure which species represented the significant intelligence on the planet? Would they even rank the two species in the same category, for diplomatic and trade purposes?
Now, if we were visited by powerful space aliens with an art-bias instead of a technology-bias, we might fare a little worse; unless they take a liking to the Brandenburg Concertos, we'd probably find our planet remade as a salon for whales.
|
|