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

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

The issue is, we don’t know how the building was brought down, the mechanics of it, unless we subscribe to the planes and jet fuel being enough.

The 'planes and jet fuel' explanation seems to be accepted by a large majority of the relevant experts. As I pointed out earlier, the rational non-expert is obliged to reflect the balance of expert opinion in matters that require technical expertise.

Quote

It looks like a controlled demolition, but, we’re also not privy to the tech that the Pentagon has in its repertoire.

What it looks like to a non-expert doesn't mean much. See my previous remark.

Quote

Just touching on the SBD and Ozzie, the public were still left thinking; why didn’t he take the much easier shot as JFK was coming at him, basically unmissable.

Indeed. Stand back from the window so your face won't be seen, take the easy shot, and dash down the stairs before anyone works out where the shot came from. Not that Oswald is likely to have been on the sixth floor at the time.

Quote

Regarding the plausibility, there are multiple witnesses who claimed hearing a series of explosions

Maybe they did, but you'd think plenty of people in the World Trade Center during the days leading up to the attack would have noticed piles of explosives or people cutting into steel joists. Two towers, each around 90 storeys high: that's a lot of joists that need to be weakened.

Note to Paul Bacon: I'm sure I read somewhere (from a pro- or anti-truther source, I can't remember which) that some or most or all of the joists must have been weakened by partial cutting, in order for the explosives to bring the buildings down. This sounds like another question for experts to decide.

Quote

The lack of whistleblowers or experts speaking out is the easiest thing to explain. ... social and possibly career suicide ... the consequence to you and family for speaking out.

There must be an awful lot of qualified architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, and other people with the professional skills to evaluate the collapse of the towers. The vast majority of them have failed to go public with doubts about the official explanation. I suppose it's possible that tens or hundreds of thousands of people were threatened with career suicide or worse, but it isn't very likely, is it?

Quote

some guy in Saudi Arabia whose photo and name was attached, went to lawyers to protect himself and claim mistaken identity. ... Regarding the hijackers, what W.N said is true, as far as I can verify it.

So you agree with W. Niederhut that the hijackers, or at least some of them, did actually live on after the attacks? Presumably you also agree with his suggestion that the planes were piloted remotely?

The notion of an inside job that involved actual hijackers actually hijacking the planes and actually flying them into the buildings, actually killing themselves in the process, but doing so on behalf of shadowy US government entities, sounds possible, if unlikely. But the notion of an inside job that involved fake hijackers and remote-controlled planes sounds very unlikely indeed, at least to me. It seems like the 9/11 equivalent of Lifton's body-alteration speculation, or the 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger speculation.

I'm genuinely interested in seeing what the evidence is for W. Niederhut's claim. I suspect it's nowhere near as conclusive as he thinks it is, which would cast doubt on at least some of his other claims. But I'm open to persuasion. What is the evidence, W. Niederhut?

Quote

Regarding Ozzie on the steps, they would have switched plans.

Only if the plan was to have Oswald on the sixth floor during the shooting. But the lone-nut scenario appears to have been a post facto device to contain public dissatisfaction with political institutions, rather than a part of any original plan. Not every incongruous fact need be incorporated, square-peg-like, into a conspiracy theory. That applies to 9/11 just as much as to the JFK assassination.

Sorry to interject with so much JFK stuff on a JFK forum, but the possibility that clear images might exist of Oswald somewhere other than on the sixth floor and with no rifle in sight, represents the best current possibility of a breakthrough in the case. The figure in the images we have may well turn out not to be Oswald, of course, but given that the figure does look somewhat like him, and that his own account ("went outside to watch the p. parade") is consistent with what we see, getting hold of good quality versions of the Darnell and Wiegman films is worth doing. And it's a lot more worthwhile than speculating about all the photographs and home movies being faked, which some people waste their time doing. Anyway, rant over.

Quote

I think, well where have we seen this coincidence before? Oh yeh, on 7/7 when London was bombed, the British government had anti-terror people carrying out drills in some of the very stations that were bombed, a minister batted it off as coincidence.

I'd imagine that most people would claim it was a coincidence, since anti-terror drills aren't especially rare occurrences.

Do you really think the bombings in London were an inside job? If so, what evidence is there apart from an anti-terror drill possibly happening on the same day?

Quote

3.3 trillion dollars missing from the Pentagon budget ... ton of insider trading on 9/11, before and during the attacks ... a passport in the rubble ... Not one bit of footage of the hijackers in the airports ... it only takes on of these things to debunk the 9/11 commission.

You get plenty of this sort of vaguely suspicious activity in the JFK assassination story too. The three tramps in Dealey Plaza, for example. They might be gunmen! They might be generals or senior CIA officers! Alternatively, they might just be tramps.

The thing is, all of this sort of stuff can be discarded from the JFK assassination and you'd still be able to make a plausible case that the event involved more than one gunman. But with 9/11, if you discard the vaguely suspicious stuff, there doesn't seem to be anything solid left.

Edited August 1, 2021 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Corrected a typo

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Denny Zartman writes:

Quote

I have also heard anti-vaxxers claim vaccines cause Autism. I don't necessarily automatically believe everything I hear from anti-vaxxers. In fact, the virulence of their opposition to vaccines combined with their lack of medical/scientific expertise on the subject causes me to be skeptical of them more often than not.

Chris Barnard replies:

Quote

The argument of those alleging some vaccine or a vaccine is causing autism is very simple. All they are asking is that the government releases the data ... They say, show us the date and it either kills or vindicates our argument. ... And it puts the situation to bed. But, the government will not release the data.

As far as the original claim goes that the MMR vaccine caused autism, the data has been available for more than a decade. The data shows no link at all.

Mr (formerly Dr, but he got struck off) Andrew Wakefield, who conducted the original 'research', comes across as an unscrupulous money-grubber. His 'research' was described by the British Medical Journal as "an elaborate fraud" that involved "falsification of data". It makes Luis Alvarez's melon-shooting experiment look respectable.

The British Medical Journal provides readable accounts of this scandal here:

• https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
• https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347

One advantage the 9/11 truthers have over the anti-vaxxers is that at least they aren't responsible for the spread of preventable diseases or for thousands of avoidable deaths.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As far as the original claim goes that the MMR vaccine caused autism, the data has been available for more than a decade. The data shows no link at all.

That’s actually false. A very well meaning Dr has tried to put this through congress twice and its been rejected. I mean having unvaxxed vs vaxxed study groups to determine causality. 
The data produced regarding that claim regarding MMR, and autism didn’t prove the vaccine doesn’t cause autism but, it was used as deflection. I think it focussed on Thimericol or somethijt similarly named which is mercury based. The CDC website says in bold lettering, vaccines do not cause autism. But the disclaimer pamphlet with the vaccine lists autism as a potential side effect. The reason that is in there is so that the company making the shot can’t be sued. 
Why would they need to pop that in the disclaimer? 

31 minutes ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

One advantage the 9/11 truthers have over the anti-vaxxers is that at least they aren't responsible for the spread of preventable diseases or for thousands of avoidable deaths.

It’s almost like you are completely unaware that people who have had both shots are catching the virus, spreading the virus and are dying of the virus. If the stuff coming out this week regarding Pfizer is 100% accurate, people are more susceptible to the virus as the vaccines effectiveness is waning. It lasts 6 months. I’d imagine this reply is a bit of an eye opener. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The 'planes and jet fuel' explanation seems to be accepted by a large majority of the relevant experts. As I pointed out earlier, the rational non-expert is obliged to reflect the balance of expert opinion in matters that require technical expertise.

So, you believe they melted the steel and thats how it collapsed?! Ok cool. How did those passports avoid damage? 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

What it looks like to a non-expert doesn't mean much. See my previous remark.

No but, you disregarded my comment about technology. You usually have to wait 10-15 years to hear what the Pentagon has come up with. Neither of us know how, there are plenty of ways to skin a cat. 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Indeed. Stand back from the window so your face won't be seen, take the easy shot, and dash down the stairs before anyone works out where the shot came from. Not that Oswald is likely to have been on the sixth floor at the time.

Ozzie could have got further back in the room and still found an angle for an easy shot, Day of the Jackal style. Like you, I don't believe he fired a shot. 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Maybe they did, but you'd think plenty of people in the World Trade Center during the days leading up to the attack would have noticed piles of explosives or people cutting into steel joists. Two towers, each around 90 storeys high: that's a lot of joists that need to be weakened.

Where did I mentioned steel joists being cut? 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

There must be an awful lot of qualified architects, civil engineers, structural engineers, and other people with the professional skills to evaluate the collapse of the towers. The vast majority of them have failed to go public with doubts about the official explanation. I suppose it's possible that tens or hundreds of thousands of people were threatened with career suicide or worse, but it isn't very likely, is it?

What about the very qualified people who say 'inside job' ? How do you decide which qualified people to listen to? Do you do it on volume? Have a count up? 

I thought I addressed this above but, i'll go again. Where is the incentive? What is your motivation for speaking up? Truth? Some very truthful people have but, the majority of people would have had the sense and self preservation not to challenge the government on this, not to commit social suicide in their friendship circle, and not to jeopardise their future opportunity of work. Imagine your name blasted across the papers and internet, attached to being a conspiracy theorist. Would you speak up? Or would you say, i'll just keep my views to myself? The answer is obvious, unless you are very courageous and probably an idealist. Thats a very tiny percentile of the population. 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

So you agree with W. Niederhut that the hijackers, or at least some of them, did actually live on after the attacks? Presumably you also agree with his suggestion that the planes were piloted remotely?

The notion of an inside job that involved actual hijackers actually hijacking the planes and actually flying them into the buildings, actually killing themselves in the process, but doing so on behalf of shadowy US government entities, sounds possible, if unlikely. But the notion of an inside job that involved fake hijackers and remote-controlled planes sounds very unlikely indeed, at least to me. It seems like the 9/11 equivalent of Lifton's body-alteration speculation, or the 'Harvey and Lee' doppelganger speculation.

I'm genuinely interested in seeing what the evidence is for W. Niederhut's claim. I suspect it's nowhere near as conclusive as he thinks it is, which would cast doubt on at least some of his other claims. But I'm open to persuasion. What is the evidence, W. Niederhut?

I don't know what W's views are but, it's funny the way you phrase that. The guy in Saudi who claimed his identity was used was never involved. 

I don't know if they were remotely piloted, I know the tech was newly available. I am open minded. 

You like that word 'unlikely' but, the notion that the government, the CIA or FBI were involved in a plot to kill JFK sounds very unlikely if you've just read a few news articles and listened to Walter Cronkite on TV, you'd find it very acceptable that Ozzie did it. Right? 

I have never spoken to @W. Niederhut about 9/11, i should imagine he'll reply if he indeed sees any merit.

 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Only if the plan was to have Oswald on the sixth floor during the shooting. But the lone-nut scenario appears to have been a post facto device to contain public dissatisfaction with political institutions, rather than a part of any original plan. Not every incongruous fact need be incorporated, square-peg-like, into a conspiracy theory. That applies to 9/11 just as much as to the JFK assassination.

Sorry to interject with so much JFK stuff on a JFK forum, but the possibility that clear images might exist of Oswald somewhere other than on the sixth floor and with no rifle in sight, represents the best current possibility of a breakthrough in the case. The figure in the images we have may well turn out not to be Oswald, of course, but given that the figure does look somewhat like him, and that his own account ("went outside to watch the p. parade") is consistent with what we see, getting hold of good quality versions of the Darnell and Wiegman films is worth doing. And it's a lot more worthwhile than speculating about all the photographs and home movies being faked, which some people waste their time doing. Anyway, rant over.

It's the same with this, only one needs proving to collapse the 9/11 commission, the whole thing doesn't need explaining. You seem not to have addressed some of my points, like Flight 77 and the Pentagon and the cellular phone calls. Would you care to in the spirit of this back and forth? 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'd imagine that most people would claim it was a coincidence, since anti-terror drills aren't especially rare occurrences.

Do you really think the bombings in London were an inside job? If so, what evidence is there apart from an anti-terror drill possibly happening on the same day?

The trouble with consciences is that we have mathematics and probability. If they keep happening, you know something is up. Unless you're the kind of guy that goes in the strip club and thinks the stripper fancies you?! 🙂
It's like the 100 or so people in Belzer's book that died in the aftermath of the JFKA. We could say pure coincidences but, what were the odds? 133 trillion to one or something crazy. The biggest attack on US soil since Pear Harbour and the busiest day in US aviation history due to the air force being up in terror drills, simulating hijackings. Seems a bit fishy. 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

You get plenty of this sort of vaguely suspicious activity in the JFK assassination story too. The three tramps in Dealey Plaza, for example. They might be gunmen! They might be generals or senior CIA officers! Alternatively, they might just be tramps.

The thing is, all of this sort of stuff can be discarded from the JFK assassination and you'd still be able to make a plausible case that the event involved more than one gunman. But with 9/11, if you discard the vaguely suspicious stuff, there doesn't seem to be anything solid left.

I am sure there are some bits and bobs in this that can be disregarded. I think there are some that can't. There are some magic bullets. I can certainly get digging into this, I last looked in 2016 or 17. It's every bit as fascinating as the JFKA. 

[Dennis Berube]

22 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

So I should have turned it down because I wasn't charged for it? I should only accept and trust vaccines that I'm personally charged for? That doesn't make any sense.

And I didn't say that, only made note that the notion that this "vaccine" is free, is incorrect. The rest is your assumptions.

 

22 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

. If the vaccine actually helps me not get deathly ill and/or helps me not pass along the virus to others and also costs me nothing out of pocket, I'd consider that a bargain.

The CDC/Big Pharma never said it would stop transmission and they are now saying vaccinated carry and spread as much virus as non-vaccinated. See Michael Rappoport's recent IG post where he is fuming mad about this very point.

 

22 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

If you know about these other treatments and somehow trust the word of those who say they had been proven safe, effective, cheap, and widely available, what is stopping you or anyone else from using those treatments?

What are these treatments that are cheap and widely available that are now no longer cheap and widely available now because of the CDC's actions?

There are several that have shown a great success, Ivermectin being one of the more prominent ones. It has been around for roughly 40 years and has a very good safety profile. Unfortunately, if the CDC acknowledged ANY treatment, the "vaccines" would never have received EUA approval. Get it? Allowing Ivermectin = no vaccine. There are several other treatments in this category. Even adequate Vitamin D was shown to reduce hospitalizations from COVID by something like 60%. Most Americans have a deficiency.

 

22 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

How many experts are warning against vaccines during pandemics, and how many experts are recommending vaccines during pandemics?

I don't know and don't really care. A better question is, "Is there an objective debate about science and data from all angles happening in the MSM or at health agenices?" My answer to that is obviously no. When one of the co-creators of mRNA tech is censored and basically erased from history for voicing his concerns, that isn't good. Other top level doctors have been censored and ignored repeatedly. That is not science.

 

I am not a scientist. I strongly urge you not to take me at my word (I'm sure you don't anyway) and look for yourself. As I mentioned before, a good starting place would be the Highwire. They cover science objectively for 2 hours a week and send you the science in email form of everything they talked about so you can read for yourself.

22 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

If that were true, no one on the planet would ever get the flu more than once in their lives.

There are many types of flu. 15% of all "flu" cases in years prior were actually coronaviruses. The point though is that natural immunity to a particular virus is very solid almost every time, even variants within that virus, which have always been more transmissible and less deadly than the earlier versions. There was a study that found people who had Sars-cov-1 still have b cell antibodies (memory cells that identify the virus and begin a response) that reacted to Sars-cov-2 many years later. You could get a different virus that causes the flu that you never had before and thus have no immunity to.

 

Btw, Denny, if you want "official" numbers, VAERS currently lists over 11,000 deaths under the covid 19 vaccines. Unfortunately, the CDC admits a huge backlog while simultaneously refusing to do any real investigation. HHS did a study about VAERS 10 years ago or so and came to the conclusion that less than 1% of vaccine adverse reactions get recorded in the database.  One of the first autopsies of a vaccinated man showed spike protein in every organ of the body. This is a very bad sign as the injection tells the body to create the spike protein meaning the effects 2-3 years from now could be absolutely devastating. Why has the CDC failed to address the bio-distribution study from Pfizer out of Japan? Hopefully, you get the point. The MSM/CDC/WHO is neglecting science. To me, as objectively I can see, this looks like a depopulation agenda. Scary, wild, but evident.

 

https://brandnewtube.com/v/q2lxz7

 

Another censorship story merely for reporting clinical data...

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/twitter-suspends-science-writer-after-he-posts-results-pfizer-clinical-test

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

And I didn't say that, only made note that the notion that this "vaccine" is free, is incorrect. The rest is your assumptions.

I said I wasn't charged for it. You replied that someone paid for it, as if that was proof it was all big financial scam. So if I was charged for it, I should assume it was a big financial scam to bilk me out of my money, and if I wasn't charged for it, I should also assume it was a big financial scam to bilk me out of my money.

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

I don't know and don't really care. A better question is, "Is there an objective debate about science and data from all angles happening in the MSM or at health agenices?" My answer to that is obviously no. When one of the co-creators of mRNA tech is censored and basically erased from history for voicing his concerns, that isn't good. Other top level doctors have been censored and ignored repeatedly. That is not science.

You just don't get the point. You don't know and don't care how many scientists and doctors say do get the vaccine, but you want us to listen to the scientists and doctors that say do NOT get the vaccine, even though they (for all you know and care) may be vastly outnumbered by the scientists and doctors that say do get the vaccine.

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

See Michael Rappoport's recent IG post where he is fuming mad about this very point.

Michael Rapaport is an actor, not a scientist or a doctor.

1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

As I mentioned before, a good starting place would be the Highwire. They cover science objectively for 2 hours a week and send you the science in email form of everything they talked about so you can read for yourself.

Del Bigtree is a tv and film producer, not a scientist or a doctor. Bigtree is also anything but objective. Wikipedia calls him "one of the most prominent voices in the anti-vaccination movement." How can you call him objective, much less qualified to speak with any authority on science or medicine?

Why do you put actors and tv producers scientific and medical opinions over those of actual scientists and doctors?

Most of all, what does your own family physician say about the vaccine?

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Dennis Berube said:

The MSM/CDC/WHO is neglecting science.

Maybe they should consult some actors and tv producers instead?

[Paul Brancato]

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Maybe they should consult some actors and tv producers instead?

Good one. I see you’re carrying the ball alone, and doing a fine job of it. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Maybe they should consult some actors and tv producers instead?

Actors speak out promoting taking an experimental treatment that isn’t solving the problem. We share and clap our heroes. ✅
Actors speak out against taking an experimental treatment. They’re not credible, we silence them. ❌
 

Virologists, epidemiologists, Dr’s, Scientists speak in favour of taking an experimental treatment for safety reasons, they’re credible. ✅
Virologists, epidemiologists, Dr’s, Scientists speak out against taking an experimental treatment for safety reasons, they’re not credible, we silence them. ❌

 

Fantastic use of logic guys. 
 

FYI confirmation bias is a two way street. It’s always a lot easier to con someone than it is to convince someone they have been conned. 

[Guest]

Do we really even need freedom? What could possibly go wrong without it?!

A compelling monologue about where we are right now. One for you @Paul Brancato

“But now I see that merely to live is not enough, not nearly. A caged bird is alive, but without the freedom to fly in the limitless sky it is denied everything that makes it a bird in the first place. To be alive is not enough. What matters is to live in freedom. A bird is such a fragile creature. It is really all and only about movement. Take away a bird’s movement and it is a handful of feathers and air.Freedom is not negotiable. You are either free, or you are not. Freedom is not even safe. Those who have been imprisoned are often terrified of freedom – all those choices, all of that personal responsibility. This is why ex-cons often re-offend, so they can go back behind bars where it feels safer, out of harm’s way.”

Edited August 1, 2021 by Chris Barnard

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Chris Barnard writes:

Quote

That’s actually false. A very well meaning Dr has tried to put this through congress twice and its been rejected. I mean having unvaxxed vs vaxxed study groups to determine causality.

Do you mean that a doctor suggested that a controlled study be carried out, and his suggestion was refused? If that's what you're getting at, I'm not sure what the significance is. Would it by any chance have something to do with a deep-state conspiracy, run by Bill Gates from a pizza joint in Washington, to hide the awful truth about vaccines?

Quote

The data produced regarding that claim regarding MMR, and autism didn’t prove the vaccine doesn’t cause autism but, it was used as deflection.

The data that Wakefield came up with was intended to prove  the opposite: that the MMR vaccine caused autism. As it turns out, the data was so poor that it didn't prove anything except that Wakefield was a fraud. The data shows that the original claim was unfounded.

Quote

It’s almost like you are completely unaware that people who have had both shots are catching the virus, spreading the virus and are dying of the virus.

It's common knowledge that the Covid vaccines aren't 100% effective. Some vaccinated people will still catch the virus, spread it, and die from it. The point is explained here:

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/jun/27/why-most-people-who-now-die-with-covid-have-been-vaccinated

That article suggests that for every vaccinated person who dies, around 20 unvaccinated people with identical risk factors (the main one being age) will die. The moral of the story: if you've got any sense, get yourself vaccinated, for your own sake and the sake of others.

Admittedly, the authors of the article are only professional statisticians, not know-nothing actors or know-nothing TV producers. With luck, the article will be peer-reviewed by a learned committee of know-nothing bus drivers, know-nothing advertising executives, and know-nothing burger-flippers. Then perhaps the message may get through to the anti-vaxxer idiots who endanger themselves and the rest of us.

Regarding 9/11, Chris writes:

Quote

What about the very qualified people who say 'inside job' ? How do you decide which qualified people to listen to? Do you do it on volume? Have a count up?

As I've pointed out, you have to reflect the balance of expert opinion, if you are not an expert yourself. It's irrational to pick and choose which experts to believe according to whether or not they reflect your personal view of the world.

Only a small proportion of the relevant experts have claimed that the towers could not have collapsed merely because the planes hit them. I don't know the figures, but I'd guess that the proportion of medical professionals who think mass vaccination is a dangerous plot is, if anything, even smaller. When, as in these cases, expert opinion is heavily weighted in one direction, it's irrational for a non-expert to prefer the small minority. Even if the minority's views are endorsed by know-nothing actors and TV producers.

I really can't take seriously the idea that a large number of professionally qualified people would be afraid to speak out on either 9/11 or vaccination, if the evidence against the official positions really is as strong as you make it out to be.

Quote

only one needs proving to collapse the 9/11 commission

Hence the quantity-over-quality list of regurgitated one-sentence truther talking points.

How many of them have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt? W. Niederhut's claim that some of the hijackers were still alive and well after the attacks, for example, would indeed be devastating to the official account. Has that one been proved beyond doubt? From W. Niederhut's lack of a response, I'd guess not.

How many other truther talking points fall into the "well, maybe, but maybe not" category? Any complex collection of evidence is likely to contain incongruous, anomalous items. The JFK assassination is a good example of this, and people have tried the same fruitless quantity-over-quality approach here too.

Quote

You seem not to have addressed some of my points, like Flight 77 and the Pentagon and the cellular phone calls. Would you care to in the spirit of this back and forth?

Those are two items in your list of one-sentence truther talking points. From the information you've provided, there's very little to discuss. In each case, what is the evidence, exactly? How reliable is the source? What is the conspiratorial explanation of the evidence? Is there an alternative explanation? If so, what does it say, and what does it get wrong? If the conspiratorial argument in each case leaves any room for doubt, why should we believe it?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Do you mean that a doctor suggested that a controlled study be carried out, and his suggestion was refused? If that's what you're getting at, I'm not sure what the significance is. Would it by any chance have something to do with a deep-state conspiracy, run by Bill Gates from a pizza joint in Washington, to hide the awful truth about vaccines?

It was a ‘she’ and yes the Dr tried to get it passed through congress on two separate occasions, the most recent being 2008. It was in interests of vaccine safety and it proposed a direct comparison of data between two groups, those without vaccine and those with. The latter part of your message has got a bit ridiculous. Is it your intention to degrade the conversation because I am not in agreement with you? If so, it might be best to leave it.

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The data that Wakefield came up with was intended to prove  the opposite: that the MMR vaccine caused autism. As it turns out, the data was so poor that it didn't prove anything except that Wakefield was a fraud. The data shows that the original claim was unfounded.

Here is a question for you; how might you go about proving that to be the case and what parameters would you put in place to ensure its fair study?

The way you would prove it was by taking a very large group of unvaccinated and comparing them to vaccinated people. That way you can ensure a fair result. I see you’ve ignored me mentioned the CDC listing autism as a side effect. Was that inconvenient for you? If we’re going to have an honest conversation on this, then you need to respond to me, not just pick and choose what suits your case. I was under the impression we were having an open dialogue, not trying to score points. You can do better than this. 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It's common knowledge that the Covid vaccines aren't 100% effective. Some vaccinated people will still catch the virus, spread it, and die from it. The point is explained here:

https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/jun/27/why-most-people-who-now-die-with-covid-have-been-vaccinated

That article suggests that for every vaccinated person who dies, around 20 unvaccinated people with identical risk factors (the main one being age) will die. The moral of the story: if you've got any sense, get yourself vaccinated, for your own sake and the sake of others.

Admittedly, the authors of the article are only professional statisticians, not know-nothing actors or know-nothing TV producers. With luck, the article will be peer-reviewed by a learned committee of know-nothing bus drivers, know-nothing advertising executives, and know-nothing burger-flippers. Then perhaps the message may get through to the anti-vaxxer idiots who endanger themselves and the rest of us.

I actually read that article when it first was published. It was remarkable the way the Guardian had changed their stance, preceding that we’d got the messaging that it was perfectly safe, now they always knew it was imperfect. 
The MSM have been suggesting a lot since March 2020. Please show me the empirical data that proves transmission and fatalities are reduced in the vaccinated individuals? I’ll save you looking around, that data doesn’t exist. 
So, perhaps if you’ve got any sense, you might want to have read the earlier part of the thread first, or have checked for the data instead of trusting suggestion in the Guardian. Right?! 
It sounds like you don’t believe in the Nuremburg code and the individuals right to body autonomy. That was put in place to protect citizens in the aftermath of the Third Reichs despicable experimentation on Jews and Gyspies in WW2. 
What I am noticing is that your tone is changing and you are getting irate, slinging round accusations. Could you just calm down and maintain some civility, Jeremy? If you can’t the dialogue breaks down. 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

As I've pointed out, you have to reflect the balance of expert opinion, if you are not an expert yourself. It's irrational to pick and choose which experts to believe according to whether or not they reflect your personal view of the world.

Only a small proportion of the relevant experts have claimed that the towers could not have collapsed merely because the planes hit them. I don't know the figures, but I'd guess that the proportion of medical professionals who think mass vaccination is a dangerous plot is, if anything, even smaller. When, as in these cases, expert opinion is heavily weighted in one direction, it's irrational for a non-expert to prefer the small minority. Even if the minority's views are endorsed by know-nothing actors and TV producers.

I really can't take seriously the idea that a large number of professionally qualified people would be afraid to speak out on either 9/11 or vaccination, if the evidence against the official positions really is as strong as you make it out to be.

If there is institutional corruption, which is being alleged here, and I think you can understand that the MSM is only running one side of it, then you’ll only hear one side of it. Do you understand? 
 

I think anybody would agree that a mass vaccination program in an emergency is dangerous when you have no mid or long term testing results. Thats very logical. Animal testing was skipped which usually tells us a lot. I’ve amply explained why there are more experts supporting the 9/11 commission, thats very logical also. If you can’t accept it, that’s ok. FYI the majority views are supported by know nothing actors and celebrities too, right? 
 

If you can’t take the concept seriously, or see the pressures involved, I can’t make you see them, Jeremy. I can tell you that they are there and that human beings have instincts of self preservation, that actually comes from the subconscious. The smarter the person, the more aware they will be of things that can harm them. You have to be able to put yourself in their shoes and envisage how you’d react. 
Would you have spoken out? Who would you have spoken to if you’d seen foul play? I’m genuinely interested. 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Hence the quantity-over-quality list of regurgitated one-sentence truther talking points.

How many of them have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt? W. Niederhut's claim that some of the hijackers were still alive and well after the attacks, for example, would indeed be devastating to the official account. Has that one been proved beyond doubt? From W. Niederhut's lack of a response, I'd guess not.

How many other truther talking points fall into the "well, maybe, but maybe not" category? Any complex collection of evidence is likely to contain incongruous, anomalous items. The JFK assassination is a good example of this, and people have tried the same fruitless quantity-over-quality approach here too.

I don’t think W wants to talk about it. That might be because of the SEO on the site and google search listings, I have no idea. Where would you expect this Saudi guys situation to be corrected or rectified? I am really interested in that answer also. 
 

No, none of it is devastating to the official government account. Because of the voices of its critics are not heard. That’s where we are at, Jeremy. 
 

That’s undoubtably a scenario that comes about in any investigation. You have blind alleys and some that take you to credible evidence. 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Those are two items in your list of one-sentence truther talking points. From the information you've provided, there's very little to discuss. In each case, what is the evidence, exactly? How reliable is the source? What is the conspiratorial explanation of the evidence? Is there an alternative explanation? If so, what does it say, and what does it get wrong? If the conspiratorial argument in each case leaves any room for doubt, why should we believe it?

Let me ask you, do you think passports of the hijackers could be found in the top surface of the rubble, in tact? I would like a yes or a no. If that’s alright? 
Even after the plane fuel was hot enough to melt heavy steel in a second or two. 
 

Do you think, as the record states, a plane traveling at 536mph (Boeing 757) could make a last minute right angle turn at ground level before striking the east wing of the Pentagon? Yes or a no, please, or can say you don’t know. 
 

I look forward to your response. 
 

Thanks

Chris

Edited August 2, 2021 by Chris Barnard

[Dennis Berube]

On 8/1/2021 at 10:51 AM, Denny Zartman said:

You replied that someone paid for it, as if that was proof it was all big financial scam. So if I was charged for it, I should assume it was a big financial scam to bilk me out of my money, and if I wasn't charged for it, I should also assume it was a big financial scam to bilk me out of my money.

Wow, I guess I touched a nerve. Everything after "as if" is all your creation Denny.

Who do you think Del has on his show? It's doctors, scientists, activists, etc.... The key being none of them are getting paid to say what they say and all of them are brave enough to say the truth as they see it. That is not what you will get from the NIH agencies. So yes, I would absolutely start my research with them over what many times boils down to Fauci, who should have been fired many years ago and is allowed to brazenly lie to Congress apparently.

 

Chris, it is clear that many on this forum have simply not researched vaccines very well. Unfortunately, there has been so much propaganda around this topic, I think many do not realize that it is another labyrinth of disinformation, much like the JFK case. It is confusing for people to hear that there has never been an official NIH study of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids through adulthood. The few times that it has been done by certain doctors with big enough practices to do so, the unvaccinated kids are always healthier. The vaccine "safety" trials almost never use a saline placebo, instead they will use an adjuvant (poision) as the control group which is horrendous science. The covid vaccine trials started with a saline placebo only because of Del Bigtree and a few others urging them to do so. Unfortunately, they have already destroyed that group because they started vaccinating them almost immediately after the EUA, leaving the public with no data on vaccinated vs unvaccinated that is reliable. If you listen to the recent CDC whistleblower referenced in one of the links I posted above, we are at least 45,000 deaths from within 3 days of vaccination. Most keen observers  will tell you that number is between 5 and 10 times under the real number due to numerous reporting issues (including Harvard Pilgrims own 2010ish study which said less than 1% of vaccine injuries are reported). The number one issue btw, is that doctors do not even know VAERS exists, hopefully that has changed. The swine flu vaccine was halted after 53 deaths, this is a massive crime taking place. There many tricks used but the point is, anyone who brings these things up is immediately ostracized, again not science. 

 

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Then perhaps the message may get through to the anti-vaxxer idiots who endanger themselves and the rest of us.

I mean, if this is what we are dealing with.... He posts a very brief Guardian article and pairs it with the comment above. This is how freedom ends, allowing this mentality to win the day. People who have never been sick, who simply want to have medical freedom are now endangering society and must be locked up. It has nothing to do with how deadly lockdowns are and how many people that needlessly killed, or how the spike protein is actually the pathogen causing health issues and people are now telling their bodies to produce it via mRNA injection, which has already been shown to spread to every organ in the body and cause micro bloodclotting in 60% of those studied, which could potentially lead to a massive de-population 2-3 years from now. It's the healthy people. Bio-passports? Do you really not see how that will end the very concept of freedom? Good God. It is tough to watch your common man build the prison around humanity willingly and not realize what it means for the future. The World Economic Forum and Pilgrim Society thanks you for your efforts. I'll gladly be an idiot on this one.