Mark Stevens

It's really not though. If somewhere around 99% of scientists, architects, and engineers agree on the science which says the WTC fell according to the official story, then it's whatever is said by the other 1% that is actually considered "pseudo-scientific bunk." If somewhere around 99% of scientists agree on climate change, whatever is said by the other 1% is what is actually considered "pseudo-scientific bunk." At least on this subject, due to scientific consensus, you are the one spreading propaganda, you are the one spreading lies and false advertising. You are in exactly the same camp as climate change deniers. There's really no way around it. Science is not on the side of climate change deniers and science is not on the side of 9/11 truthers. But, your beef isn't with me....it's with the scientific community. I'm pretty removed from 9/11 debate, and it would take me some time to refamiliarize myself with these topics if I am going to speak intelligently about them (at least in providing my own opinions). I'm just saying what the scientific community says and what science as a whole says. If the science is wrong, then prove it. Saying things like "c'mon that's just now how it works" isn't really physics, and doesn't do much to negate what the science they are using to back their points says.

It's just not that simple though. If it were predicated on science, at least science which is accepted by the scientific community at large, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, we'd be discussing the hangings for treason that we seen over the last few years. The fact is that peer reviewed and scientific community accepted science says that there is nothing to what Gage and A&E have to say. One example being: Based on this acceptance by the scientific community, or lackthereof, the arguments put forth by Gage and the like would not be considered bonafide science, but instead pseudoscience worthy of scorn, ridicule, and censorship. It would seem like 9/11 truth is built on the denial of science, much like you say climate change denial is. How would they both not be equally censored? Comparing 9/11 truth to climate change...for every scientist that states climate change is nothing, there are 1000 who say they are wrong and climate change is a real concern brought on by all the things claimed to bring it on. Similarly, for every scientist (or architect or engineer) who states the WTC was brought down by a CD, there are 1000 others saying it wasn't and it was a natural occurence of being struck by a plane and burning. If the logic says that based on scientific consensus we should censor climate change denial, then based on scientific consensus we should ban and censor 9/11 truth. (disclaimer: While I do not generally adhere to the claims of Gage or A&E 9/11 movement, I do believe 9/11 was part of a larger conspiracy.)

Here is a snippet of a related article I have... Another...

I couldn't disagree more. Censorship is a very slippery slope, especially with vague "in the public interest" rationality. Why wouldn't censoring 9/11 and JFK conspiracy theories be in the public interest? For many people, especially based on a "scientific consensus," those conspiracy theorists are spreading lies, false advertising, and eroded trust in government based on outlandish and thorougly debunked claims. How is it not in the public interest to stop that? What exactly is the definition of "public interest?" Who decides what that definition is? Who makes up the "public?" Who decides that population? In the end, if we start censoring one idea it sets precedent that can be built upon which allows other ideas to be censored. Before long, if you speak against a party, a politician, a government program, you are a criminal. There are literally hundreds of government programs either live, or only on paper that we all have some kind of interest in and in which we speak out against, when is that speech censored? When is this forum shut down? So much more I want to say, but I'll leave it at...slippery slope indeed...

The irony of whining about ad hominem attacks while basically attacking others isn't missed on me. That aside, you seem to suffer from an association fallacy. "Bush (allegedly) lied about his whereabouts on 11/22/63, therefore this grainy picture of a guy with a marginal resemblence is absolutely Bush." Bush's alibi can be bogus, and that can not be him in the photo. The two items are not mutually exclusive. You seem to draw correlations and associations that don't actually exist except in your mind. You also seem to forget that at least a few of the names you have mentioned do infact think Bush's alibi deserves scrutiny and have hardly "refused to comment" on the topic. It actually doesn't though. Considering the Hoover "Bush" memo hasn't actually been "proven" to be directed to this Bush. Again, don't get me wrong...I do believe it is likely this Bush who the memo is referring to, but again it has not been proven. The difference between your Oswald comparison is that a person who can be atleast marginally identified as Oswald was not photographed in the window multiple times standing next to multiple people. Your comparison isn't apples and oranges, it's apples and "c'mon man really, that's the best you got?" I'm not aware of any photo which shows any one in the window, much less one with features that in any way resemble Oswald. I'm not aware of any photo which shows anyone standing around with a person who resembles Oswald. So again, your comparison, while a good shot a "haha Mark I zinged you," sems to have missed the mark. This "Bush" person on the other hand is photographed multiple times standing next to multiple people, where are they at now? Where are the "I saw Bush in DP" stories? Probably right next to the "I saw Roselli take a shot from the storm drain" stories. I haven't seen anyone "deny GHWB's history with the Company." I have seen people deny this grainy photo is him, I didn't realize that by doing one you were doing the other. If you deny the photo, you deny association to the CIA, check. Joe, we probably agree on most basic aspects. I do agree that the Bush family is a "weird and heavy hodge podge of secrets." I though am not sold on "involvement" in the JFKA but I can believe he soon knew who was responsible, as I believe most did most in that circle. I don't for one second believe he was in DP on 11/22 nor is he the person photographed.

I think you touched on one aspect these guys just continue to gloss over, hundreds of witnesses would have seen Bush in Dealey Plaza and would be able to attest to his identity, yet not a single witness has come forward (I guess they were got to). In this and the other purported Bush photo, he is clearly standing around and seemingly engaging with others. Not just those who appear to be officers or detectives, but witnesses and "looky-loos" as well. The reason no one has come forward and stated that "yes that is Bush in the photo because they saw him there," is that it wasn't Bush. That doesn't matter though to these guys, the grainy photo looks something like him. So even though he is verfied at another location, and not a single person who engaged with "Bush" has verified his identity...the grainy photo just proves it's him. Don't get me wrong, I follow the general logic and subscribe to the idea that Bush has been involved with the CIA since pre-BoP. That doesn't mean this is him though and mentioning this so called "fact", or the Hoover "Bush" memo doesn't strengthen the argument but shows how many straws you all are willing to grasp at in a feeble attempt to make your point.

Wait, so yall are telling me the guy below isn't the shooter? Everything matches from the back... It's not going to be easy explaining this away, it's obviously him from the back... Bob Hoskins obviously shot Oswald, anyone can see its the same person.

Might be of some help... https://books.google.com/books?id=tywEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA73#v=onepage&q&f=false https://houstonhistorymagazine.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/8F-HH-1.2-optimized.pdf

Yes it has, and always has been. What site can I download the file that shows me what candidate Robert Wheeler voted for in every election? You keep dodging all my questions while trying to make zingers that don't stick. Maybe you could address the points instead of constantly deflecting.

Sorry for the massive multi-quote... I'm not sure what your beef with Caddy or with whatever he posts is, but maybe you should take that up with him. In the meantime, it might help you to be familiar with what you're posting. For instance from your link... So this isn't some shakeup of the establishment, this is a Congressionally ordered mandate which he...followed. Ah man, he zung it to the Deep State by following their wishes..hyuck..he shore did. Could you share with any of us where we can get classified voter information to "sift" through? The absolute irony of not knowing who Powell is, then saying I don't know who she is.... I'm quite familiar with who she is. What I'm not familiar with is what puts her in a position to actually have any of the knowledge or information to make the claims she has. She doesn't is the point, she's just making crap up and saying whatever and you don't care because it fits your views, regardless of validity, truth, or reason. She joined the "team" after the election and came on immediately saying fraud, theft, blah blah blah. She never had time to gather information or conduct any legitimate investigation. She came on spouting her preconcieved conspiracy theories and you lot sucked it up without question because....Apparently the inept Democrats pulled off the greatest caper in history... The evidence is all right here....

Well first...lmao. Who is this person to "confirm" anything? How would she ever have verifiable first hand knowledge? Second, what the person said was she "heard" servers were confiscated. Hardly a "confirmation." Considering the company has no servers in Germany and the fact the Army has said it is bullshit is just....the reach of the Deep State? You thinking Biden will ever give a concession speech or will not be the 46th President is fairly textbook... https://www.webmd.com/schizophrenia/guide/delusional-disorder#1 I might stare at my feet, but it will be to watch them move forward, progress, and move on. You'll continue to run in place and throw your tantrums and tell us we are the losers who can't get over it.

Why do you keep saying this? Wyman Howard is the commander. I guess this is probably stupid of me because you never post evidence for any of your other paranoid delusions, but do you have anything to back this up?

I don't really disagree. I do believe though that in this instance he really is doing it for "the sake of others." Not so much for them, but at the end of the day Trump is tied to his base. If they give up on him, he's done. He has to do actions like this which on the surface are "for the sake of others" but are really cons meant to bolster his own stature. By fighting "for them" it raises his stature in their eyes. It also drives home the stolen election idea (Trump's stabbed in the back myth) and allows him to cultivate this crop of lunacy for eventual harvest in 2024. Just like chants of "build the wall" (do you think Trump gave 2 xxxxs about a wall?), which his followers very much cared about and believed in. He championed that idea, and they championed him. If he champions this idea and "fights for them" then they very much will continue to champion him and fight for him. At the end of the day it's not for them, it's truly for him but the guise has to exist. We're basically saying the same thing, he's manipulating others for his benefit. The others have to believe the manipulation though, they have to believe he is fighting for them (and they do).

I read an article earlier, no link sorry, but it stated Trump knows he lost and will not be re-elected, but is putting up the fight for the sake of his supporters. I think this ties well into what I stated earlier and with Stewart's observations. Unlike most politicians, Trump listens to his base and gives them what they want. ETA: I believe this tactic will work quite well from Trump and allow him to run again in 2024 and use this as a rallying point for his supporters. It will be his own "poopoo stabbed in the back myth." Additional ETA: lmao @ "poopoo" Seriously, we can't abbreviate National Socialists German Workers Party without censorship? I can understand not wanting to call people a name, but not even being allowed to say it in proper context?

I'm honestly a little more disturbed that people just don't seem to get it or see it until afterwards. Just like the first election when a good portion of people sat around scratching their heads wondering how this could have happened when all the polls said something different....When general sentiment said something different...When logic, common sense and the basic human decency we all expect most others to have said something different...America still elected Donald Trump as President. While, without the exception of some extraordinary events, he will not go on to be President again, the same head scratching and general confusion over his support still exists this time around. I'm surprised that he lost. I expected him to win again and while I did think it would be closer than the last election I did expect him to win. I've mentioned it before, but I work in a large manufacturing plant and I live in the South (maybe being in the South creates a different perspective). On a daily basis I come into contact with literally hundreds of Trump supporters. I have heard literally every last one of these talking points and I literally hear at least one of your quoted items below mentioned on a daily basis. (I'm only emphasizing these words to drive home the point that I am not exaggerating or embellishing.) The Trump supporters I've encountered truly believe Trump is sent by god to save America from ____(fill in the blank with one/all of your items above). Anything said about Trump by the godless left is just a product of the Deep State sent to attack Trump because he is shaking up their institutions, draining the swamp, and saving our children. Again, the above is not just some putdown, or colloquial talking point, this is literally what these people believe. They aren't explaining why they supported a sexual abuser to their children because he didn't do it, it's all lies invented by the left and the Deep State. Look at Trump's wives, look at his money. Do you really think he'd have to assault women for it? Jon Stewart best summarized why Trump was elected years ago and the exact sentiment holds true today... While I waited to get the text from Stewart above, I saw an article titled "White People Will Believe Anything...Except Facts." It had a few nuggets... https://www.theroot.com/white-people-will-believe-anything-except-facts-1845635274

I said who's gonna tell the youth about the drugs about the drugs, mugs, bugs, and the police thugs about the rotten stinkin' rackets and the fantasies around the nation, around the nations....

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/commissioner-of-the-food-and-drug-administration-who-is-scott-gottlieb-170424?news=860154

So you're saying the below is not true then, the Aspen person does exist, does live in Switzerland and did work for the firm which was claimed. That firm is lying, as is Christopher Balding?

Thanks! I was exposed to a co-worker. He flew down and could have gotten on the flight, or in the hotel he was staying in. We were both pretty diligent about mask wearing and only removed them when we went out to lunch. I'm not sure what his diligence was like after-hours though. He worked closely with me and two others, neither of those have developed any symptoms. One had a test last week and was negative.

You definitely don't owe me an apology, but appreciated nonetheless. I do believe that with Prouty many have indeed put him on a pedestal (I actually wrote that in an earlier reply and deleted it) and as such do not question his statements as thoroughly as they have others. My sentiments regarding Prouty are best summarized by the ARRB and his position is best described by them... (any emphasis is mine) I agree with Prouty on many things, but we diverge on the details. For instance I also believe in a high level cabal, but unlike Prouty I do not believe it is controlled or ran by Israel or "jews."

In other coronavirus news... I had a positive test today. I have had mild symptoms at best, but I lost my taste and smell and felt that was something to check on. So far I haven't felt bad other than a headache. Here's to hoping the next 10 days pass without any real excitement.

If his accurate claims are so innumerable, you should have no problem listing at least a few. Again, I'm aware of the claims Prouty has made and I'm aware of the claims in this book. I'm asking again for you to explain what JFKA specific claims he has made which were in fact truthful? You've asked me a lot of questions and I have faithfully answered all of them (whether you agree with them or not). Could you answer this one for me? I don't feel like I'm asking much. It shouldn't be hard for you to state what you feel he has stated that was accurate or otherwise factual.

Well, could either of you tell me which JFKA specific claims Prouty made which were in fact true?

Did Prouty state this? If I understand it all correctly, the orders would have come from Rear Adm. James Reedy.

This is an impossible question to answer. I can't tell you why he lied, but the fact that he did lie, or at the best mislead through his statements is evident. Why did Files lie? Why did Rachel Dolezal pretend to be black? Why do people tell all the lies they do? There is no answer for those questions (actually their often are...money..mental illness..etc) but just because we can't fathom the "why" someone would do something doesn't mean they actually didn't do it. Maybe the psychiatrist can help us understand what motivates a person to lie or to embellish stories with facts that aren't....factual. I'm surprised that more people do not view Prouty with suspicion and question his motivations for speaking to Garrison (as well as his subsequent claims) and why many don't wonder if he was part of an elaborate scheme to disinform. I have read one Prouty book, but it was some time ago and I can't recall which it was. I think it was Secret Team. Reading a book he wrote in 1992 doesn't change the fact the he erased this book with his ARRB testimony. Why do you keep referencing this book as if it is the end all be all? The value of the book is negated by his subsequent statements. What are you not understanding about this? As far as being targeted by the CIA, I guess it depends on how you look at it, which could be at least two different ways. Scenario 1...he is being truthful...He would likely want to conceal his identity because he was still actively employed by the U.S. Government. I believe almost the second he retired he began speaking out against the CIA, Vietnam, JFK and other issues. I don't know off hand when he first made the "JFK" claims, but he did not wait 30 years to do so. He almost immediately began making the statements he made throughout his life as soon as he retired. Scenario 2...he is part of a disinfo op...Him hiding his identity and being all "cloak and dagger" with Garrison...doesn't that make it all sweeter? The mystery? The flair? The danger? The bullxxxx? Like I've said and shown to be true, he was not in fear of being targeted by the CIA for his statements because he immediately started saying those things when he retired. He repeated those claims in print and in tv and radio until 1996 when he backtracked, downplayed, and pretended he didn't understand why people like you were making "much ado about nothing." Anyone who believes in Garrison believes he was sabotaged and infiltrated from the start. How would this not fit right into that? How much of Garrison's focus became tied to the claims of Prout...I mean Col. "X"?