Len Colby Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Dumbest Conspiracy Theory Ever? A Ron Paul supporter raves about dots on mailboxes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7kqWM2AL68 Red dots mean the foreign troops will shoot you in the head, blue ones mean you’ll be taken to FEMA camps, pink ones (or is that yellow ones?) that you’ll make a good slave for the anti-Christ. No, the dots actually indicate what days you’re supposed to get the newspaper. Why am I not surprised this guy who supports racist Ron Paul outs himself as an anti-Semite (“synagogue of Satan”)? The only bizzare thing is that Ron Paul’s folks seem to have released the opening clip (note the Campaign for Liberty caption) A few questions for this nutjob or any one who takes this seriously: What happens if people just remove their dots or change the colors? Why will the job be entrusted to foreign troops? Wouldn’t it make more sense just to give them lists? How would they distinguish among people in the same household? What would they do about people who weren’t home. What will they do about people who don’t have mailboxes? Why is he wearing a uniform if he retired a decade ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Dumbest Conspiracy Theory Ever? A Ron Paul supporter raves about dots on mailboxeshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7kqWM2AL68 Red dots mean the foreign troops will shoot you in the head, blue ones mean you’ll be taken to FEMA camps, pink ones (or is that yellow ones?) that you’ll make a good slave for the anti-Christ. No, the dots actually indicate what days you’re supposed to get the newspaper. Why am I not surprised this guy who supports racist Ron Paul outs himself as an anti-Semite (“synagogue of Satan”)? The only bizzare thing is that Ron Paul’s folks seem to have released the opening clip (note the Campaign for Liberty caption) A few questions for this nutjob or any one who takes this seriously: What happens if people just remove their dots or change the colors? Why will the job be entrusted to foreign troops? Wouldn’t it make more sense just to give them lists? How would they distinguish among people in the same household? What would they do about people who weren’t home. What will they do about people who don’t have mailboxes? Why is he wearing a uniform if he retired a decade ago? slow day out there in the jungle, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 28, 2009 Author Share Posted May 28, 2009 Shermer uses an array of deceptive methods to persuade the reader that challenges to the official story of the 9/11 attack are worthy only of ridicule and should not be scrutinized. His primary technique is to use hoaxes and unscientific ideas -- long promoted on the web and in videos -- to bracket the valid ideas that he seeks to shield the reader from. That Shermer went to such great lengths to thoroughly misrepresent the painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work of 911Research is a testament to the site's success. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.htmlSome others even go so far as to just pick nutty ideas on other issues, unrelated, to cast suspicion and doubt about anyone who sees something behind something other than the OFFICIAL [ruling elites - rich's - powerful's] VERSION of any/everything Point to where I said (or even indicated) McLamb was representative of the views of truthers, I said it was the “dumbest CT ever”. But yes the guy is a truther. http://www.truveo.com/officer-jack-mclamb-...x/id/3155729538 Now that you broached the subject his ideas aren’t that much more absurd than the space beams/TV fakery theories promoted by leading truthers such as Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and forum members Fetzer and White or the mini-nukes theory favored by AE911T members Charles Pegelow and Anders Björkman or the Holocaust denial of Eric Hufxxxx and Syd Walker among others. They’re not that much crazier that Hoffman’s exploding thermite ceiling tiles theory which you keep promoting. A “theory” beset by major mathematical errors. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=166332 Speaking of Hoffman your quote of his is representative of his over blown ego the “painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work” he refers to is his own. He also claimed that The article in Scientific American that so offended him “appears to be aimed primarily at 911Research” [his site] even though he only referred to it in a single sentence (yes he gave 4 reasons but they are unconvicing the only that stands up to scrutiny is that its title refers to a claim on the site). Slow day in the desert Dave? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...read.php?t=1131 What does it say, Peter? Since they have IP banned me, I can't read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Shermer uses an array of deceptive methods to persuade the reader that challenges to the official story of the 9/11 attack are worthy only of ridicule and should not be scrutinized. His primary technique is to use hoaxes and unscientific ideas -- long promoted on the web and in videos -- to bracket the valid ideas that he seeks to shield the reader from. That Shermer went to such great lengths to thoroughly misrepresent the painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work of 911Research is a testament to the site's success. http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/sciam/index.htmlSome others even go so far as to just pick nutty ideas on other issues, unrelated, to cast suspicion and doubt about anyone who sees something behind something other than the OFFICIAL [ruling elites - rich's - powerful's] VERSION of any/everything Point to where I said (or even indicated) McLamb was representative of the views of truthers, I said it was the “dumbest CT ever”. But yes the guy is a truther. http://www.truveo.com/officer-jack-mclamb-...x/id/3155729538 Now that you broached the subject his ideas aren’t that much more absurd than the space beams/TV fakery theories promoted by leading truthers such as Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and forum members Fetzer and White or the mini-nukes theory favored by AE911T members Charles Pegelow and Anders Björkman or the Holocaust denial of Eric Hufxxxx and Syd Walker among others. They’re not that much crazier that Hoffman’s exploding thermite ceiling tiles theory which you keep promoting. A “theory” beset by major mathematical errors. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=166332 Speaking of Hoffman your quote of his is representative of his over blown ego the “painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work” he refers to is his own. He also claimed that The article in Scientific American that so offended him “appears to be aimed primarily at 911Research” [his site] even though he only referred to it in a single sentence (yes he gave 4 reasons but they are unconvicing the only that stands up to scrutiny is that its title refers to a claim on the site). Slow day in the desert Dave? when the temp's hit 110F+ then it becomes a real sloooowwwwwww day, few more weeks till that happens. As it were, still have many Redd Foxx recordings to sift through much more interesting than pink and blue and green and red, etc stickies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 29, 2009 Author Share Posted May 29, 2009 As it were, still have many Redd Foxx recordings to sift through much more interesting than pink and blue and green and red, etc stickies... At least we can agree on that Foxx IMO was one of the funniest men who ever lived unfortunately most people only know him as Fred Sanford, try not to plagarize him again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 29, 2009 Author Share Posted May 29, 2009 http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...read.php?t=1131 What does it say, Peter? Since they have IP banned me, I can't read it. You’re not missing much – standard moaning about the “conspiracy theorist” label and their favorite retort calling those who don’t buy into their theories coincidence theorists. There was some lunacy about gun control being Naziesque. Not really sure why Mr. Lemkin thought it was relevant. There was also an interesting bit of hypocrisy from a founder/ administrator of forum which was explicetly set up to exclude people not of the founder’s liking and which blocked your IP (emphasis added) Hi Evan, Welcome back. Twice in one day, hey? Well I'm pleased you enjoy hanging out so much here during your spare time. Did you report Evan Marshall for not having the required photo? Make him invisible? Disappear his posts? Ban him until the he produces a photo you approve of? Or is it freedom of speech there? Or double standards? Say hi to the folks in Nowra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 As it were, still have many Redd Foxx recordings to sift through much more interesting than pink and blue and green and red, etc stickies... At least we can agree on that Foxx IMO was one of the funniest men who ever lived unfortunately most people only know him as Fred Sanford, try not to plagarize him again. not bad a Five Card Stud, either..... And who praytell plagarizes Redd Foxx? Why everyone of course, after all, there isn't a word in the English language (all 150 of them) old Redd could not give new pronunciation... and.... he loved those $1.50 chili dogs at the DUNES, we shared a few... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) As it were, still have many Redd Foxx recordings to sift through much more interesting than pink and blue and green and red, etc stickies... At least we can agree on that Foxx IMO was one of the funniest men who ever lived unfortunately most people only know him as Fred Sanford, try not to plagarize him again. not bad a Five Card Stud, either..... And who praytell plagarizes Redd Foxx? “Drago”, he ripped off Foxx’s “cork soakers” line*. We discussed this in another thread and I (mis)remembered it as being you. My sincerest apologies. * http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry152768 Why everyone of course, after all, there isn't a word in the English language (all 150 of them) old Redd could not give new pronunciation... and.... he loved those $1.50 chili dogs at the DUNES, we shared a few... So you hung out with him (Foxx not “Drago”)? Hoofed down chili dogs and played poker? I imagine all known photos of the two of you together were destroyed in the 1999 flood. Edited May 30, 2009 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...read.php?t=1131 What does it say, Peter? Since they have IP banned me, I can't read it. Probably just your imagination - as you told {endlessly and unkindly) Jack White.....and others. Difference is Peter, I can prove it: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=166911 Notice that when we ask Drago to provide same, he didn't... or wouldn't because he couldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 Many members sing the praises of John Judge. I don’t know enough about the JFK assassination to judge the quality of his research regarding it, but his 9/11 stuff has been pretty crappy in another thread his claim that everything with in a certain radius of the Washington Monument was part of the P-38 no fly zone was discussed but that would have included Washington National Airport. This essay is another prime example. "Conspiracy" Theories vs. "Coincidence" Theoriesby John Judge OK. You can call me a Conspiracy Theorist if you call everyone else a Coincidence Theorist. But n-o-o-o-o, only conspiracies are "theories", well. that and Evolution. Ya, right, if this is Intelligent Design, what is a BAD idea? I keep seeing all these so-called journalists barking at Conspiracy Theorists who think anything the government or the rich do could be less than benign. You might get away with criticizing the government for stupidity or incompetence, but if you even hint at intent or intelligent design on their part, you¹re ONE OF THEM -- a Conspiracy Theorist! Of course you could just take recent headlines and imagine saying them, say, even a year before they broke in the New York Times or the Washington Post, and who would have believed you then? There you are before 9/11 saying: The President is deliberately manipulating intelligence reports to sell a war with lies. The President has asked the NSA to start wiretapping citizens getting or making calls with someone suspect of being a terrorist abroad, and won¹t reveal the mechanism that allows the NSA to find such people, that's Top Secret. The President and the intelligence agencies have the names of some potential terrorists; they suspect they are "suicide hijackers". They know their method of attack is using planes as weapons and the specific terrorist targets include the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol, and they have prepared to defend themselves against just such an attack. Note the lack of any refernces. Can Lemkin or anyone else provided them for the claims in the last paragragh? The President got a clear warning about Osama bin Laden planning attacks inside the US on August 6 and they never warned us. Whether or not Bush’s response to the Aug. 6 Presidential Daily Brief was adequate is a reasonable question. But intelligence by definition is something not to be made public and the administration’s failure to act or issue a warning are not evidence or foreknowledge. Though there was mention of OBL’s desire to attack Washington, the specific threats cited in it, unconfirmed reports of planned “attacks with explosives” and a “hijack [of] U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists” had little to do with 9/11. So perhaps they should have increased security at airports and in/around Washington but the memo was mostly historic in nature and nothing in it indicated an attack was imminent. Full text of 8/6/01 PDB – http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/ Colin Powell has told all the surrounding countries that the US would invade Afghanistan that October back in July, 2001, before any terrorist attacks have happened. Actually the claim is that at a July 2001 Berlin conference for retired diplomats Tom Simmons, a former US diplomat told Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani foreign minister, to warn the Taliban that if they didn’t hand over bin-Laden and possibly comply with other demands (accounts vary) they would be attacked. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1550366.stm There are a few problems with this story: 1] Naik first started saying this a few days after 9/11 there is no confirmation of his claim. Simmons denies it. 2] The participants at the meeting were all retired 3] The story contained an implausible amount of detail including, though it would make sense to pass such an ultimatum through a friendly country mapping out your strategy to them doesn’t 4] Naik has been unreliable in the past 5] Another Pakistani diplomat said Naik was exaggerating 6] The diplomat said Naik was anti-Taliban. If true he was an unlikely conduit for such a message 7] Naik’s claim is that 9/11 was in response to the warning not that the threat was indicative of foreknowledge. 8] Simmons was US ambassador to Pakistan 1996 – 8, i.e. a Clinton appointee, and thus unlikely to have been a conduit of super secret Bush administration message. http://www.sup.org/html/book_pages/0804748...s%20Release.pdf 9] Naik was out of favor with the current Pakistani government and thus an unlikely conduit for such a message http://www.rediff.com/news/2000/nov/23naik.htm Based mostly on info from 911 Myths links to documentation for points 1 – 6: http://www.911myths.com/html/niaz_naik_and...rpet_of_bo.html I’m sure the Pentagon already had a contingency plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq but this does not equate an intention to do so. It is normal of the US to have such contingency plans for various countries. In the 1930 the US had such plans not just for Germany and Japan but for allies such as Mexico, England and Canada. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2901412_pf.html Funny, when the mainstream press reports something, then it's correctible and democracy has saved us once again. Ever hear of selective declassification? It¹s a coincidence that James Riser's story on the NSA surveillance broke the morning of the Senate vote on the Patriot Act, right? Even though he submitted it a year before? This reminds me of Judge’s error regarding the DC no fly zone. The act was passed in the months following 9/11 and was extended July 2005 and March 2006 (*,***), the Risen story “broke” December 16, 2005**. The only PA vote that day was rejection of a “Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Conference to Accompany H.R. 3199”, this was a victory for liberals Russ Feingold (the only senator to vote against the act in 2001 all the other Democrats (except 1) voted against it***. Even if some other provision was voted on that day the story would be expected to have the opposite effect and difficult reauthorization of the act. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act#Reauthorizations **http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html *** http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...&vote=00358 And it must be a coincidence that the Senate vote to restore the Patriot Act came the day after they were locked in the basement of a Senate building for three hours because of a sensor alarm indicating a chemical agent attack, right? As noted above this happen in July 2005 and March 2006. The 2nd part was introduced February 10 and passed by the Senate March 2st. The incident he is refereeing to occurred around 7 PM February 8, only eight senators (not all/most of them as Judge implied) were evacuated to a garage. Despite reports of it being underground show it with glass windows. News reports the next day described the occurrence as a “false alarm”. AP identified the evacuated Senators as Jeff Sessions, Judd Gregg JohnThune, Mike Enzi,, Richard Burr, Larry Craig, Gordon Smith, Chuck Hagel, and Christopher Dodd. The first 6 were all conservative Republicans but Craig said he wasn’t there and he was not cited by other reports. Hagel and Smith were moderate Republicans while, Hagel at that point was openly critical of Bush, Chenney, the Iraq war and Patriot Act, Smith still supported the war. None of the evacuees (senators and staffers) that spoke to Fox, AP, Reuter, CBS or CNN seemed particularly shaken by the incident, Sessions said “There was no panic, no running, no upset or anything like that." AP -http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/384801/capitol_police_nerve_agent_tests_negative/index.html Reuters – http://www.redorbit.com/news/general/38466...or_nerve_tests/ http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184289,00.html http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/08/nerve.agent/index.html http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/08/...in1299291.shtml Since: – the vote came nearly a month after the evacuation – 5 of the 8 (out of 100 total) Senators were conservative Republicans and at best 3 might have voted against the extension – No one seems to have been particularly upset by the event – another part of the Act was reauthorized by the Senate months earlier (July 19, 2005) by “unanimous consent” and the one in question 89 – 10* The evacuation had no effect on the passage of the 2nd reauthorization. * http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d1...p;#majoractions And one more coincidence that on the eve of the initial passage of the Patriot Act envelopes with anthrax arrived in the offices of the two main Senate opponents of that Act and scared the bejesus out of Congress? I went over this extensively with Nate and others, the envelopes were received by Dachsle and Leahy they were sponsors of the act who hoped it would win unanimous approval not “opponents”, earlier versions had passed by overwhelming majorities. So like the nerve gas false alarm had no effect on passage of the PA. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13372 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sh...read.php?t=1131 What does it say, Peter? Since they have IP banned me, I can't read it. Probably just your imagination - as you told {endlessly and unkindly) Jack White.....and others. Difference is Peter, I can prove it: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=166911 Notice that when we ask Drago to provide same, he didn't... or wouldn't because he couldn't. The "Drago" does have the software to make screen shots excuse is complete BS. Such capability is built into Windows and most other operating systems.All one has to do it press the "print screen", some times abreviated to something like "PRT SCRN", key and then paste the image to Paint and save it as a JPG. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 On windows it's Control (CTRL) plus Print Screen (PRNT SCRN), but you are correct. It's standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Lewis Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 On windows it's Control (CTRL) plus Print Screen (PRNT SCRN), but you are correct. It's standard. CTRL shouldn't be necessary. I've always just used the Print Screen button by itself. That copies it to the clipboard and then open paint and paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Cool. I've always used the two. I can now cut my keyboard use by 50%! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now