Jump to content
The Education Forum

Conspiracy Theories & The Media: JFK & Beyond ....


Chris Barnard
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

If people have suspicions about the true purpose of vaccines, then let's hear it out. 

Agreed. Unfortunately, there is a lot of money and influence being used to prevent that. Dr Robert Malone who was on the team that invented mRNA technology voiced serious concerns about the injection and was then told he was being targeted for assassination. Whether a real threat or not isn’t the point. The point is there is unprecedented propaganda for “vaccines” and massive scrubbing of VAERS data and anyone who talks about it is removed from public discourse.
 

Pfizer has applied for early authorization. If (probably when) the FDA approves it sometime this September, mandates will start raining down. The entire goal of the injection phase of this is to jab everyone or make their life unlivable without it. Fortunately, many scientists now realize the injection is a horror show and has a strong possibility of killing many people. The “variants” are simply about fear and getting more jabs. Organic viruses do not get more virulent naturally and immunity from one covers the other unless you destroy your immune response via an injection. Science is dying in the name of the democratic party, anyone who questions it is a “trumper”. 
 

Chris,

I don’t want to sound arrogant, but as much as I would like to be wrong, the evidence is overwhelming at this point and democrats almost categorically refuse to look at anything that challenges their little echo chamber while they breathe carbon dioxide at unhealthy levels in a mask and support fukishma waste water dumped into the ocean while screaming about too much carbon dioxide overall. I wish a normal debate could take place on this topic but no headway will ever be made if we rely on paid corporate propaganda for sources which will call everyone who doesn’t believe in central banker rule a kook. We are quickly moving past the time for “debate”. This is a crossroads situation that does not have too many historical parallels imo due to the technology we are dealing with. Hopefully the Nuremberg Code and the US constitution will win the day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 416
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

32 minutes ago, Dennis Berube said:

Agreed. Unfortunately, there is a lot of money and influence being used to prevent that. Dr Robert Malone who was on the team that invented mRNA technology voiced serious concerns about the injection and was then told he was being targeted for assassination. Whether a real threat or not isn’t the point. The point is there is unprecedented propaganda for “vaccines” and massive scrubbing of VAERS data and anyone who talks about it is removed from public discourse.
 

Pfizer has applied for early authorization. If (probably when) the FDA approves it sometime this September, mandates will start raining down. The entire goal of the injection phase of this is to jab everyone or make their life unlivable without it. Fortunately, many scientists now realize the injection is a horror show and has a strong possibility of killing many people. The “variants” are simply about fear and getting more jabs. Organic viruses do not get more virulent naturally and immunity from one covers the other unless you destroy your immune response via an injection. Science is dying in the name of the democratic party, anyone who questions it is a “trumper”. 
 

Chris,

I don’t want to sound arrogant, but as much as I would like to be wrong, the evidence is overwhelming at this point and democrats almost categorically refuse to look at anything that challenges their little echo chamber while they breathe carbon dioxide at unhealthy levels in a mask and support fukishma waste water dumped into the ocean while screaming about too much carbon dioxide overall. I wish a normal debate could take place on this topic but no headway will ever be made if we rely on paid corporate propaganda for sources which will call everyone who doesn’t believe in central banker rule a kook. We are quickly moving past the time for “debate”. This is a crossroads situation that does not have too many historical parallels imo due to the technology we are dealing with. Hopefully the Nuremberg Code and the US constitution will win the day. 

I don’t think you are sounding arrogant, I am just conscious we are both aligned on this. Like you, it would be great to be wrong on this particular thing. The implications of being right are so dire. 😞 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Censorship?

Just remember, the way you feel about Fox...is the way the next guy feels about CNN.

By their very nature, censors are perched on the very pinnacles of righteousness. They think. 

And that's how many censors felt about the JFKA research community in the years after 1963. The JFKA research community was presented as jackals trying to make money from the nation's misery....

Oh, and how about corporate social-media, and corporate-media shutting down the "debunked Wuhan Lab virus leak" stories in 2020? 

Censorship is always a bad idea, with a few exceptions in bona fide wartime. I am talking WWII. 

The real question is: Youtube, Twitter, Google et al have become to de facto national town squares.

The big question: How can we stop censorship? It is here already, through de-platforming, and especially search algorithms. 

One guy I follow on Youtube, actually has an a-political show. One day his viewership cut in half. Overnight. An algorithm was changed, and he was shunted lower in the search totem pole.  That was by happenstance. Imagine what can happen with a little nudge.

 

Let me bring up another example of an issue where I believe some degree of "censorship" may be necessary and ethical in the U.S. -- in the public interest.

I have already mentioned false advertising, stochastic terrorism, sedition, and public health matters.

What about disinformation denying climate change?

Fossil fuel industry moguls (Exxon, Koch Industries, Marathon et.al.) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars during the past 20 years on U.S. propaganda denying climate change.

It's the main reason that many Americans still deny the scientific consensus about climate change and the role of fossil fuels in accelerating the catastrophe.

In a sense, it's false advertising writ large, and should be censored, in the public interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Let me bring up another example of an issue where I believe some degree of "censorship" may be necessary and ethical in the U.S. -- in the public interest.

I have already mentioned false advertising, stochastic terrorism, sedition, and public health matters.

What about disinformation denying climate change?

Fossil fuel industry moguls (Exxon, Koch Industries, Marathon et.al.) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars during the past 20 years on U.S. propaganda denying climate change.

It's the main reason that many Americans still deny the scientific consensus about climate change and the role of fossil fuels in accelerating the catastrophe.

In a sense, it's false advertising writ large, and should be censored, in the public interest.

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...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

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...

Those are no brainers, Mark.

The bona fide JFKA and 9/11 Truth research is predicated on science-- as in the case of the thousands of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, whose research has been completely blacklisted in the mainstream U.S. media.

Conversely, the oil industry propaganda denying climate change is based on the denial of science.

I agree with you about the difficulty regarding who the censors are.

But, wouldn't you agree that false advertising, in general, needs to be censored?

If industry propaganda leads to the destruction of the planet, and the human race, should it not be regulated by sensible laws?

Anyone who still believes that unregulated, laissez faire capitalism invariably optimizes the public good has simply not studied history.

There is no "invisible hand" protecting the public from unscrupulous profiteers, including media moguls like Rupert Murdoch.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hundreds of years ago the Church censored scientists who turned out to be right. Because of that we are rightfully wary of censorship. Today’s religion is the one pushing climate science denial. So shall we censor today’s ‘church’? As much as I agree with Mr. Niederhut, I don’t think censoring the voices of climate deniers will change anything. However, the lack of concerted action here and globally in the face of incontrovertible evidence is a disgrace and a global catastrophe. Are those that argue against censorship here also in doubt that climate change is human caused? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Hundreds of years ago the Church censored scientists who turned out to be right. Because of that we are rightfully wary of censorship. Today’s religion is the one pushing climate science denial. So shall we censor today’s ‘church’? As much as I agree with Mr. Niederhut, I don’t think censoring the voices of climate deniers will change anything. However, the lack of concerted action here and globally in the face of incontrovertible evidence is a disgrace and a global catastrophe. Are those that argue against censorship here also in doubt that climate change is human caused? 

Hi Paul, I understand where you and William are coming from, it's very much compassion based and your intentions are great. Destroying the habitat we have to live in is about as bad as it gets. I do feel the corruption is systemic, relates to education in school, a political system that is defunct or not run as intended and a higher strata of society who are morally corrupt and where the dollar and earning potential comes first. Censoring it would only lead to further opportunism and things that need an open public discussion also being censored. We're seeing this in many degrees in the public domain now. There is this capacity to silence almost anything, as long as the subject matter can be attached to something the public finds distasteful or unpalatable and its exceedingly easy to see things in a polarised way, when they are often much more complex. 

To me, a lot of this corruption stems from the political donor system and how politicians and parties are funded, as well as quid pro quo's. How often do we see people prosecuted or recusing/resigning for conflicts of interest? How often do we see forensic accounting of the finances of people in politics or other positions of state or national/international power? We need the political class, the judicial class, people representing science or medicine to be holy and for everything to be transparent, very strict rules on how they can conduct their affairs. Sure, we have the problem listed above by Mark, as in who is chosen to arbitrate that. Would a start be that tax payer funds are used to fund political parties, and evenly distributed amongst the number of parties/candidates? Anything unused will be returned to the state. This reduces the flagrant bribery that goes on. There has to be punishment for political crime and abuses of power. If you stop holding people responsible, you open the flood gates of corruption and your whole system is useless or impotent. To me, when you watch the Showtime series, Billions, with Damian Lewis and Paul Giamati, you get a taste of the innumerable ways corruption can happen. If you have people in positions of state power that are also desperately trying to further their own net worth, you have foxes in the hen house, two contradictory positions. To me, that has to be eliminated or the Machiavellian traits of human beings suffocate that domain. It's not a new struggle, it infuses modern and ancient history. Collectivism and the 'greater good' led us into the darkest era of human history, it'll take us there again, humans are susceptible to it.

Cheers

Chris
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Let me bring up another example of an issue where I believe some degree of "censorship" may be necessary and ethical in the U.S. -- in the public interest.

I have already mentioned false advertising, stochastic terrorism, sedition, and public health matters.

What about disinformation denying climate change?

Fossil fuel industry moguls (Exxon, Koch Industries, Marathon et.al.) have spent hundreds of millions of dollars during the past 20 years on U.S. propaganda denying climate change.

It's the main reason that many Americans still deny the scientific consensus about climate change and the role of fossil fuels in accelerating the catastrophe.

In a sense, it's false advertising writ large, and should be censored, in the public interest.

W.--

I respectfully disagree. 

Besides, nations and governments are moving forward on reducing CO2 emissions, even though there are still earnest, credentialed people who think CO2 is not the trigger most think it is. 

For whatever reason, plenty of powerful interests thought the Wuhan lab leak story should be censored. You could cite reasons for censoring that story. 

1. The Wuhan lab leak was and is not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Such a truth would damage relations between two nuclear superpowers, always risky.

3. The US government funded the research (money is a fungible commodity anyway), so the truth would damage the public's respect for the national government, leading to less social fabric, more social anomie and possibly anarchy.  

4. The truth would damage the standing of scientists involved in viral research, possibly lead to closure of bsl-4 labs and related research. 

5. The truth played to the benefit of the existing US President (in many circles, this was the reason for censorship). 

6. The truth might destabilize China's President, with uncertain results. 

7. Full disclosure of the Wuhan lab leak, and connections to the PLA and the CCP, would harm the business interests of WalMart, Apple, Disney, the NBA, GM, tesland and BlackRock, and other business that employ hundreds of thousand of American and invest billions and even trillions in dollars of capital. 

Ergo, censoring the truth about the Wuhan lab leak was justified. 

Censorship is a slippery slope...or icy precipice? 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Benjamin Cole
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

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...

Slippery slope? I would say an "icy precipice."

Egads, once censorship is in vogue...which it is becoming....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

W.--

I respectfully disagree. 

Besides, nations and governments are moving forward on reducing CO2 emissions, even though there are still earnest, credentialed people who think CO2 is not the trigger most think it is. 

For whatever reason, plenty of powerful interests thought the Wuhan lab leak story should be censored. You could cite reasons for censoring that story. 

1. The Wuhan lab leak was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Such a truth would damage relations between two nuclear superpowers, always risky.

3. The US government funded the research (money is a fungible commodity anyway), so the truth would damage the public's respect for the national government, leading to less social fabric, more social anomie and possibly anarchy.  

4. The truth would damage the standing of scientists involved in viral research, possibly lead to closure of bsl-4 labs and related research. 

5. The truth played to the benefit of the existing US President (in many circles, this was the reason for censorship). 

6. The truth might destabilize China's President, with uncertain results. 

Slippery slope...or icy precipice?

 

Benjamin,

       IMO, there is no credible dissent from the scientific consensus on climate change, but there is an overwhelming amount of industry-funded disinformation on the subject (Heartland Institute, Fox News, etc.) and has been for the past 20 years. 

       The climate change denial propaganda has been motivated entirely by the quest for fossil fuel industry profits, at the expense of the health and survival of the planet and the human race.  How can that possibly be ethical?

       Formally, censoring this kind of destructive oil industry propaganda is analogous to prohibitions against false advertising.

       The concept is to protect the public from unscrupulous, harmful profiteers.

       Shouldn't the same ethical principles apply to protecting the citizenry from stochastic terrorism -- e.g., demagoguery that incites violence against minorities and immigrants?

       And how about disinformation that directly endangers the public health?  Should it be permitted?

      

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Benjamin,

       IMO, there is no credible dissent from the scientific consensus on climate change, but there is an overwhelming amount of industry-funded disinformation on the subject (Heartland Institute, Fox News, etc.) and has been for the past 20 years. 

       The climate change denial propaganda has been motivated entirely by the quest for fossil fuel industry profits, at the expense of the health and survival of the planet and the human race.  How can that possibly be ethical?

       Formally, censoring this kind of destructive oil industry propaganda is analogous to prohibitions against false advertising.

       The concept is to protect the public from unscrupulous, harmful profiteers.

       Shouldn't the same ethical principles apply to protecting the citizenry from stochastic terrorism -- e.g., demagoguery that incites violence against minorities and immigrants?

       And how about disinformation that directly endangers the public health?  Should it be permitted?

      

     

Well, I guess we have to disagree on this one.

Not on global warming--though an amateur, I am concerned. Hey, I grew up in L.A, when it was a poison gas chamber, and the smog obscured objects a half-mile away.  Long ago, I concluded no one has the right to poison air other people breath. Or the water. 

BTW, looks like solid-state batteries are on the cusp. This a major improvement, and should usher an end to the ICE. I hope it does, and most of Europe is banning new ICE sales in a just a few years. 

I was hoping to see Biden at least test-balloon the idea of an ICE ban, but nothing yet. A big X-prize for the first outfit to commercialize solid-state batteries is another idea. I mean big. 

Meanwhile, plant a lot of trees. Mulberry bushes and trees are very hardy. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Those are no brainers, Mark.

The bona fide JFKA and 9/11 Truth research is predicated on science-- as in the case of the thousands of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, whose research has been completely blacklisted in the mainstream U.S. media.

Conversely, the oil industry propaganda denying climate change is based on the denial of science.

I agree with you about the difficulty regarding who the censors are.

But, wouldn't you agree that false advertising, in general, needs to be censored?

If industry propaganda leads to the destruction of the planet, and the human race, should it not be regulated by sensible laws?

Anyone who still believes that unregulated, laissez faire capitalism invariably optimizes the public good has simply not studied history.

There is no "invisible hand" protecting the public from unscrupulous profiteers, including media moguls like Rupert Murdoch.

 

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:

Quote

Several of the parameters of the present mathematical model have a large range of uncertainty. However, the solution exhibits small sensitivity to some of them, and the values of others can be fixed on the basis of observations or physical analysis. One and the same mathematical model, with one and the same set of parameters, is shown capable of matching all of the observations, including: (1) the video records of the first few seconds of motion of both towers, (2) the seismic records for both towers, (3) the mass and size distributions of the comminuted particles of concrete, (4) the energy requirement for the comminution that occurred, (5) the wide spread of the fine dust around the tower, (6) the loud booms heard during collapse, (7) the fast expansion of dust clouds during collapse, and (8) the dust content of cloud implied by its size. At the same time, the alternative allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of parameter uncertainties is considered.

These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects of fire.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00 WTC Collapse - What Did & Did Not Cause It.pdf

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.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

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.)

Mark, this is pseudo-scientific bunk.

If you know anything about Newtonian physics, you will recognize that steel skyscrapers cannot collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration unless the resistance to gravitational acceleration is zero.

So what abruptly eliminated the resistance to free fall collapse of the steel skyscrapers -- i.e., what abruptly demolished the lower steel substructures?

The steel substructures of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were expertly demolished by pre-planted explosives on 9/11.

In fact, we can clearly see (and hear) the serial explosions on the video and audio recordings of 9/11.

This is one of the few subjects where I actually agree with Donald Trump-- and it's a subject that Donald Trump understands very well, because of his experience as a New York real estate developer.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

Mark, this is pseudo-scientific bunk.

If you know anything about Newtonian physics, you will recognize that steel skyscrapers cannot collapse to the ground at near free fall acceleration unless the resistance to gravitational acceleration is zero.

So what abruptly eliminated the resistance to free fall collapse of the steel skyscrapers -- i.e., what abruptly demolished the lower steel substructures?

The steel substructures of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 were expertly demolished by pre-planted explosives on 9/11.

In fact, we can clearly see (and hear) the serial explosions on the video and audio recordings of 9/11.

This is one of the few subjects where I actually agree with Donald Trump-- and it's a subject that Donald Trump understands very well, because of his experience as a New York real estate developer.

[video removed from reply]

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One question I have is; should we consider ‘science’ as corrupted, the way in which media & politics are? 
 

 

Aldous Huxley, Bertrand Russell and others with their views on scientific dictatorship and mind control...

In my opinion Huxley’s prophecy looks more correct every day. 
 

 

Edited by Chris Barnard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...