Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mark Stevens

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mark Stevens

  1. I'm not exactly sure how the two are related. I also don't have any "recently professed abhorrence" of censorship in the U.S., I've always professed abhorrence to such practices and often to those that are for them. Censoring the discussion of thoughts and ideas is an entirely different thing than staying within the guidelines of copyright law as to ensure our/your/their work on this site is not lost. Post whatever topic you want, talk about whatever you want (that conversation is up to the moderators), but in doing so please do not open this forum to litigation or other forms of legal action. You really do put who you are on full display, not matter what huh. Even in a situation such as this, you can't refrain from in some way making the issue about the person making the post instead of the message contained within the post. In any event, what I said is a real and legitimate risk and if something isn't done to contain and control this then it won't be a matter of if, but when. No good deed, eh?
  2. I'm not a moderator, so maybe I shouldn't be even mentioning this, but... This site has a huge problem with copyright infringement and there are quite literally thousands of instances of copyright infringement on this forum. There are between 10-100 just on the first page alone. On internet forums, a poster is not allowed to post an entire article which they did not write, or they do not hold the copyright to, even if they link back to the source or otherwise "credit" the source. In these instances, the only thing allowed under Fair Use is an excerpt of the article with a link to the article (not just saying "you can find it on YouTube"). Moderators have to step up and not only disallow this behavior, but efforts have to be taken to clean up posts that exist on this site with copyrighted material in them. If not, this entire forum is at risk and the entire forum could either be shut down through legal action, or offending posts would be taken down. If either of these happens then a great wealth of information and research will be lost forever. Please, all members, stop posting entire articles, blog posts, or other websites to the forum. Only post small snippets of the information and then link back to the complete material. Moderators, please start policing this before all the work and effort which has went into this site is lost. It won't take but 1 disgruntled current or former member to get all of this blown up. We all know there is no shortage of disgruntled ex-members of this forum. Any author or even "lone nutter" could use this to have the website shut down or severely "damaged" by post removal. For more information check out these links, or do your own searches... Fair Use for Forums (and How to Explain to Your Members That They Can’t Quote Entire Articles) Be Proactive in Preventing Content Theft and Copyright Infringement
  3. I read an interesting story about the Rambler many years ago. I'm at work without access to my links, but here is a forum post on the article. I don't believe this is new to most of you.
  4. Dude, I started by asking a question that you never answered. In the spirit of fairness, being that I asked first and then you changed the subject, shouldn't you actually be answering my questions? Read back a few pages if you need to see who asked who first and who was ignored first. I actually answered yours, this was never a 9/11 debate until you made it about 9/11. It was a question about our ability to even have a 9/11 debate. You didn't want to answer that because you know I'm right, so instead you intellectually condescend to me while deflecting and changing the subject. You know 9/11 debate would be censored right along with JFKA debates, climate change debates, and a list of others which would be deemed harmful to the public interest. I've never changed the subject, each of my posts has been on the topic of the original question I asked. The irony of all of this is so astounding. I ask you a question. You ignore the question, change the topic and then ask me a list of questions. I refer back to my original question. You ignore that, and ask more questions on a different topic. I refer back to my original question. You tell me to answer your questions (even though this began with me asking you a question that you'll get around to answering after I kowtow to you and your intellectual superiority) and to stop deflecting (which is what you have done and are projecting onto me). You know your field well, don't you? Wow. Just.... Wow.... But, in any even, I've more than proven my point. 9/11 debate is no different that climate change debate, no different than JFKA debate, no different than COVID debates, no different that QANON debate. No different than "insert conspiratorial debate here." An "authority" has decided the official story in each of these. Speaking out against that "authority" rejects the basic tenets of "accepted science." If you want to ban any of these because the "authority" has spoken (which is what W. Niederhut wants to do with climate change debate) then a precedent is set which opens the door for all others to be equally censored on the same grounds. It doesn't really matter what Mark Stevens, or W. Niederhut believes. Those people do not make the rules, the "authority" does and W. Niederhut would like that "authority" to save us from the "crazies." This is a horrible idea and would make us all criminals just for having conversations or having ideas. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.
  5. The irony of all of this... The reason I am having this conversation to begin with is because you want to censor climate change denial. You want to censor climate change denial based on the evidence and scientific consensus which supports the facts of climate change and the dangers climate change poses. I can't believe you don't realize this, but your argument is a...you guessed it...argument from authority. Science says climate change is real, therefore climate change deniers must be silenced. If your argument is not this, please correct me. Then there is some group, just like A&E, who believes the data is not real, who believes the science is pseudo-science, who believes the media is an echo chamber repeating the lies that hold up the entire hoax. They post links showing how the science which is accepted by the scientific community is wrong and therefore...debunked. But, they are actually wrong...right? According to you, to scientific consensus, to the general public, and to the federal government, their science is the pseudo-science, their claims are the ones which have no merit, which have been...debunked. That is the...authority...right? If I'm wrong in anything above, please correct me. Sure, I've answered it here... And here... And again... And again... Again, this conversation was not about my beliefs on 9/11 or whether or not WT7 was brought down by a CD. This conversation was about our ability to even have this conversation. It was started based on your ironic appeal to authority. Will you please now answer the original question which I have asked repeatedly in which you have not answered, but have continued to deflect from by questioning my 9/11 beliefs. I will clarify the question... Do you believe climate change denial should be censored? Do you believe it should be censored because the government and science (aka the authority) has spoken on the issue? If that is true, how does that differ from 9/11 debate, and our ability to have this conversation? If the authority (aka the government and the NIST report) says 9/11 was not brought down by a CD, but by the "official story" would we be censored? Could me and you have this conversation? My position, again, is no. The situations are one and the same. The same "authority" which says climate change science is real, says the NIST report is real. If that authority says climate change denial is censored, 9/11 debate would be equally censored. How am I wrong? (please for the love of John O'Neill do not just again question the validity of the NIST report, let's just assume it's as wrong as eating through your ass, it doesn't change the fact that the government recognizes it as the authority and it would be that authority making censorship decisions)
  6. Again, you are playing some semantics game while trying to beat around my point. I'm not trying to get you to abandon your position, or to even speak favorably of the NIST report. I'm trying to get you to acknowledge reality. Being in the profession you are in (or were in), I'd think this to be an easy task. You don't have to defend your views to me, or the views of A&E, or even try to prove to me why the NIST report is wrong. This isn't about that. This isn't even about the NIST report being right or wrong. It's about it being accepted by the scientific community at large, and we both know that it is. The scientific community, in an overwhelming fashion, accept the information in the report, as well as the calculations and science which are used to make the conclusions. Again, the NIST report has not been 'thoroughly debunked." Please provide one scientific, peer reviewed journal or publication which supports your statement. A report published in the echo chamber of "A&E" does not debunk anything anymore than the book "Harvey and Lee" debunks the Warren Commission. Until then.... The NIST report is accepted by the scientific community at large. The consensus between scientists agrees with the report. The NIST report is accepted by the general public as the official story. The NIST report is accepted by the federal government as the official story. For all intents and purposes, history recognizes the NIST report as the official "bona-fide" story and as the real evidence. At this point you are doing the same thing climate change deniers do. They say the scientific consensus has been "debunked" and their science which is not accepted by anyone but them is the real science, the "bona-fide" truth if you will. You have said the scientific consensus has been "debunked" (without providing anything to support your claim, and when you do it will just be the views of A&E, which doesn't actually debunk anything). You have said that the science that is not accepted by anyone outside of A&E is the real science. How are you any different from a climate change denier, how does your argument not deserve censorship based on your own criteria? Again, I'm not even saying I agree with the NIST report. I'm just saying its the recognized, scientific, "truth." My agreement with that "truth" isn't going to change the simple that fact. I don't have to recognize it, you don't either. The same as climate change deniers do not have to recognize the scientific consensus. Does it change the fact that the consensus exists? Has it been "debunked?" Maybe in your eyes, yes it has been debunked. In the eyes of science, the simple truth is again, no, it has not been debunked. So we can keep playing semantic games around "debunked," "scientific consensus," and whichever other words you want to play games with, but you know what I'm saying and you know what you're doing when you play those games, probably better than most people here do.
  7. Best review I could find... https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/oleg-maximovich-nechiporenko/passport-to-assassination/
  8. You're again making this about me and what I think when I haven't offered any opinions. You continue to beat around my point. You again prove my point by saying the "fringe" research is the "bona-fide" scientific evidence when again, that is just not the case. If that evidence was the bona-fide evidence, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the NIST report. What I'm saying is the report and the information contained within it is the accepted science, that is the bona-fide evidence. You know what I am saying. You don't have to accept that report, that is fine. But, in refusing to accept that science you become a climate change denier. You dismiss accepted science and instead say your science is the real science. You know what I'm saying. This isn't about my 9/11 beliefs or whether I believe the NIST report. I'm simply saying, the NIST report is the accepted science. Climate change science and whatever report/study is the accepted science. If you dismiss either of these items you are dismissing what is considered by the general public to be the "bona-fide evidence." Your evidence is the "fringe" evidence, your science is the "pseudoscience" until it becomes the accepted science, even if it is actually the truth. Until it is accepted as the truth, it's not. Again, this is not about my personal beliefs on 9/11 or even climate change.
  9. You're speaking directly to my point though. Much like a climate change denier says "there are thousands of scientists who reject the [insert organization or report here]" you say the same, but with the WTC. This puts you on the opposite side of mainstream, peer reviewed, community accepted, public protecting science. The thousands of scientists and engineers you speak of are still only in the 2%. The other 98% says you're wrong and right or wrong that is the voice that is listened to, that is the voice of "reason." Nothing you say or post will change that. The question I'm trying to get you to answer, is does that then make it suitable to censor your argument? Both situations fit your criteria for censorship. If you are for banning climate change dissent based on scientific concensus, you have to logically be for banning 9/11 truth discussion based on the same scientific consensus. They are one and the same. Your agreement with the consensus/research or lackthereof doesn't change the scientific agreement that exists in both areas. At the end of the day the criteria you have laid out for censorship includes your WTC 9/11 truth arguments. If censorship as you want it were put into effect, you would be equally censored. I get that you think you are right about 9/11 and you think climate change deniers are wrong, but that doesn't change where science sits on those two issues. On one you are on the same side as science, on another you are not. This isn't meant to be a 9/11 debate so there really isn't a point in trying to convince me one way or the other. I'm just pointing out what science says about the issue and how that relates to your ideas of censorship.
  10. A couple of others I have which are related. I have some others related to SS agent shot at DP but I can't find them right now.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.)
  13. Here is a snippet of a related article I have... Another...
  14. 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...
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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.
  20. 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....
  21. 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.
  22. 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?
  23. 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).
  24. 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?
  25. 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
  • Create New...