alex jones
- Thread starter GJ02
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It's my low tolerance for wilful ignorance and towering stupidity that drags me into these threads every time!
I'm not sure whether I admire your persistence or despair that whatever sanity you have will eventually be sucked out of you, leaving you a bitter empty husk of a man railing against the idiocy of mankind. Bonus points if you take to hiding in a cave and become totally self-sufficient.
You mean if you believe in facts that just don't exist. He is a con artist, exploiting weak minded fools to make money. Or a total nut.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,632
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Evangelion 100 v Keltik, Magick & Teki 0 (again)
Ah, the objective view of dmpoole again. Thanks for keeping score!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,632
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Oh I doubt it; I'd never debate over a subject where there is never going to be a winner. I find threads such as these amusing though.
Perhaps you could help me out here. See, the way I view it is like this;
(a) magick et al present their argument. Usually they're laughed at due to having no evidence, being conspiracy theorists, and basically swallowing all that these 'alternative' sources have to offer.
(b) Evangelion et al present their argument in much the same way. The only difference is information they have swallowed is from 'recognised' sources.
Neither side is right. Evangelion has no more evidence for his views than magick. It's just that one of them is 'accepted', while the other is not.
So, dmpoole, could you tell me why one view is wrong, and the other is right. Evangelion knows as little regarding the Bilderberg meetings as the OP. Why is Evangelion seen as the bearer of truth, and the OP as the bringer of conspiracy?
As an aside; I don't really care who is right, rather care more about the hypocrisy, and assumed correctness of those who follow the mainstream viewpoints.
To play devils advocate; where does this evidence come from..?
The difference being that one set of sources are independent and verifiable, whilst the other is a man spreading rumours on the internet.
If you want to deny the validity of good evidence in favour of hearsay and rumour then you live in a very strange world.
I don't mean those type of conspiracy theories. I think they are ridiculous.
I'm more on about the government/finance ones, like the one wrote about in the OP.
No, the only difference is that I provide objective facts which anyone can verify in their own time. I don't just provide a random source of information without any substantiation.
What?
Er, yes I do.
For example, Teki claimed that David Rockefeller is the head of the World Bank and the head of the Bilderberg group. I pointed out that the head of the world bank is actually Robert Zoellick, and the secretary of the Bilderberg Group is actually Étienne, Viscount Davignon.
Teki did not know this because he had not bothered to find out. He had simply accepted what he'd been told, without questioning the information or confirming its legitimacy. He was forced to admit that he was wrong.
Imagine if I came up to you one day and said "Neville Fotheringham is the British Prime Minister". Would I be right, or wrong? I'd be wrong, of course. And you could prove this by citing a legitimate source which demonstrates that the British Prime Minister is actually Gordon Brown.
And if I said to you "Well, neither of us is right, and you have no more evidence for your view than I do for mine!" would you accept that? Of course not; you'd be mad to accept it.
See how this works?
Oh really? How do you know what I know? That seems remarkably presumptuous.
Because I am able to prove that what I say is correct.
Please don't lump me in with these conspiracy theorists, as I don't believe in magical lizards and space penises.
'Independent' is a very strange choice of word to use. Do you think that these 'independent' sources are truly external from corruption? They may well be, or they may not. I don't think it's right to completely dismiss one version of events, when the alternative doesn't appear to be a beacon of honesty and transparency.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,632
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
At least I do go and read the links from either side of the argument - you must do neither.
Evangelion (and others) provide so much evidence against CT's that the likes of Magick & Teki go quiet.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 3,418
- Location
- North
You got to remember that the school of reporting that Alex Jones uses are very different to the type we are used to in the UK - its all very american and can seem "over the top". However, every fact he comes out with IS FACT. In the USA you can be sued for bearing fause wittness.
People on this forum who diss what he says or what facts he states are either increadiby stupid or plain brainwashed! Anyone "educated" will know he is telling the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PpMdTmVMpo
FAO Evangelion
You seem totally brainwashed by the mainstream media - eg BBC is totally controlled by UK govenment I know this as Ive Im on their books.
Lets put it this way about media..... lets say you go to a doctor about something - he/she percribes you with a drug. You have total confidence in your doctor right? But do you know you doctor was paid by the drug companys to give you that drug werther you needed it or not! Doctors get bit handouts by the drug companys. Dont you think the media is the same?
I can tell you one fact thats not reported by media - the drug valium gives people altzhimers and children Autiusm. Every Media company knows this but wont report on it... because of blocks from govenment and payments by drug companys.
People on this forum who diss what he says or what facts he states are either increadiby stupid or plain brainwashed! Anyone "educated" will know he is telling the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PpMdTmVMpo
FAO Evangelion
You seem totally brainwashed by the mainstream media - eg BBC is totally controlled by UK govenment I know this as Ive Im on their books.
Lets put it this way about media..... lets say you go to a doctor about something - he/she percribes you with a drug. You have total confidence in your doctor right? But do you know you doctor was paid by the drug companys to give you that drug werther you needed it or not! Doctors get bit handouts by the drug companys. Dont you think the media is the same?
I can tell you one fact thats not reported by media - the drug valium gives people altzhimers and children Autiusm. Every Media company knows this but wont report on it... because of blocks from govenment and payments by drug companys.
Last edited:
Ha_ha funniest thing ever and total rubbish.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were one of the crazies.
There is no
fus said:
Each claim and counter-claim is analysed on its merits. The only evidence put forward by magick, Teki et al is from the conspiracy theorists themselves. The counter claims by Evangelion for example, draw on a much wider range of sources that anyone can go an check out for themselves.