Conspiracy Theory: The Government - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Sun Tzu · 11-04-2007, 04:35 PM

I used wikipedia for the following terms for convenience only if anyone has better definitions from a source they find to be of credible nature feel free to use it.

Reality:
Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist." The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. On a much broader and more subjective level, the private experiences, curiosity, inquiry, and selectivity involved in the personal interpretation of an event shapes reality as seen by one and only one individual and hence is called phenomenological. A common colloquial usage would have "reality" mean "perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes toward reality," as in "My reality is not your reality." This is often used just as a colloquialism indicating that the parties to a conversation agree, or should agree, not to quibble over deeply different conceptions of what is real. For example, in a religious discussion between friends, one might say (attempting humor), "You might disagree, but in my reality, everyone goes to heaven."
Reality can be defined in a way that links it to worldviews or parts of them (conceptual frameworks): Reality is the totality of all things, structures (actual and conceptual), events (past and present) and phenomena, whether observable or not. It is what a worldview (whether it be based on individual or shared human experience) ultimately attempts to describe or map.
Certain ideas from physics, philosophy, sociology, literary criticism, and other fields shape various theories of reality. One such belief is that there simply and literally is no reality beyond the perceptions or beliefs we each have about reality. Such attitudes are summarized in the popular statement, "Perception is reality" or "Life is how you perceive reality" or "reality is what you can get away

Truth:
According to the less realist trends in philosophy, such as postmodernism/post-structuralism, truth is subjective. When two or more individuals agree upon the interpretation and experience of a particular event, a consensus about an event and its experience begins to be formed. This being common to a few individuals or a larger group, then becomes the 'truth' as seen and agreed upon by a certain set of people — the consensus reality. Thus one particular group may have a certain set of agreed truths, while another group might have a different set of consensual 'truths'. This lets different communities and societies have varied and extremely different notions of reality and truth of the external world. The religion and beliefs of people or communities are a fine example of this level of socially constructed 'reality'. Truth cannot simply be considered truth if one speaks and another hears because individual bias and fallibility challenge the idea that certainty or objectivity are easily grasped. For Anti-realists, the inaccessibility of any final, objective truth means that there is no truth beyond the socially-accepted consensus. (Although this means there are truths, not truth).

Fact:
A fact or factual entity is a phenomenon that is perceived as an elemental principle. It is rarely one that could be subject to personal interpretation. Instead, it is most often an observed phenomenon of the natural world. The proposition 'viewed from most places on Earth, the sun rises in the east', is a fact. It is a fact for people belonging to any group or nationality, regardless of which language they speak or which part of the hemisphere they come from.

This is the foundation of debate, and in some cases even war. When one person perceives as reality differs from another the effects are not generally positive. This could be because one feels that the reality of another casts a negative effect on themselves and those that perceive reality the same way as themselves. A simpler possibility is one experiences straight agitation because others have not subscribed to the same belief utilizing information common to all. The effects from this can range from harmless to earth shattering.

An example is the “Holy Land”. Today’s generation has to rely on historical documentation to determine what their reality of what has happened in the past. So about 70 years ago the Zionist Manifest Destiny was initiated with validation from a story written by Hebrews a few thousand years ago. That is reality to them, just as is not a reality to the Palestinians. So what is the reality? A person’s reality will depend on what source they gather enough information to create what is a substantial reality to them.
The reason for this thread is I’m curious in what criteria people today use for their perception of “what is going on”. While this could be applied to subjects such as astrology, Bigfoot, loch ness monster, ghosts, and similar I want to focus on an area, that IMO sometimes borders being in the paranoia section- the government. This subject umbrellas out into several areas, but all point to a generalized theme- the government.

The National Geographic defines a conspiracy theorist as: someone who postulates on the existence of secret agreements between two or more people or government to perform unlawful acts. It is common practice for those disagreeing with CTs to begin referencing tin foil hats and similar.

Postulates has two meanings: A mathematical statement that is accepted without proof, and when used interchangeably with the term axiom- any starting assumption from which other statements are logically derived.

Here is where the split of perception happens. An example is JFKs assassination. From the research I’ve done I don’t see how anyone could dispute a cover-up. Even with evidence such as this:

people will still maintain the Warren Commission was telling the truth. Fast forward to today. I see the same practice happening. Ultimately I’m wondering do the people that point out tin hat candidates believe everything the government tells them? Do they have the belief that there is no reason for the government to act in any way other than what it states (both parties)? Do they have the belief that since we have a relatively higher freedom than other countries we shouldn’t “rock the boat”?
What criteria do people that believe what they are told use to arrive at their perceptions? The news, historical documentation?
Using the above image as the epitome: I see the photo the grassy knoll behind JFK when he was shot, is of a man holding a rifle with a muzzle blast. The other side will call it a blemish that doesn’t prove anything.
I see Bushes behaviors such as getting caught in a straightforward lie about 911, refusing to testify under oath, and a string of other behaviors to spell it out clearly. His supporters will defend these actions as someone who was under stress.

Perhaps if I can learn the ways people arrive at the perceptions; understanding why will be possible.

Cynthetiq · 11-04-2007, 04:50 PM

I dunno it looks like early photos of nebulas and galaxies to me. Does that mean that I don't have the same reality?

Sun Tzu · 11-04-2007, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

I dunno it looks like early photos of nebulas and galaxies to me. Does that mean that I don't have the same reality?

yes it does. Not right or wrong, but yes.

Ustwo · 11-04-2007, 05:27 PM

Old Jewish looking guy.

Its a grey or a zombie.

Guy typing on a lap top.

Just once, I want my conspiracy to be in focus.

Baraka_Guru · 11-04-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Guy typing on a lap top.

I swear it looks like a Rottweiler with kaleidoscope eyes.

Sun Tzu · 11-04-2007, 06:20 PM

just so Im clear is this everyones way of stating people will see what they want to see? While to me its obviously a person holding rifle in the exact area close witnesses starting running toward after they claim hearing a gunshot and seeing smoke, to the three of you its nothing.

Its not the JFK conspiracy itself that I find astonishing its the theme of what is happening here. It still happens to 911 to this very moment.

WHat I see as very apparent lies straight in your face lies, others are going to see as "mistakes" or verbiage taken out of context.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYI7JXGqd0o&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYI7JXGqd0o&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Ustwo · 11-04-2007, 08:38 PM

I used to spend a lot of time alone in the woods.

Once you are in them you are no longer a creature of civilization, but just another creature.

There were three real dangers, three director actors. Bear, moose, and of course man. Of the three the most likely would have been a bear, though I did encounter a moose (which can be deadly in the mating season), and the nature of the land had not many men, and few you would consider dangerous to a fellow woodsman.

But whats interesting is your danger sense increases. A million years on the savanna don't just disappear from your genes. You listen more, you look more, you note things which seem out of place.

What can happen though is you get spoked. Suddenly every shadow seems ominous, every anomaly seems malicious. You jump at every bird call, you keep thinking you hear branches breaking just out of earshot.

Undoubtedly there are some real conspiracies out there. Some dark and secretive, and its good to look for those, the problem is that once someone thinks they find one, they seem to get spoked. If THAT was true, what about this one? Everywhere they look, they peer into murky shadows, ignoring whats in the light.

In the woods, when you get that spooked feeling, that feeling of dread, I like to sit still and listen. You start to hear the squirrels climbing the trees, the birds calling, and the wind blowing. It resets your danger sense, you relax a bit, you no longer feel suffocated by the trees.

I recommend the same for the conspiracist. If every dark place you look seems to contain a conspiracy then sit down and think a bit. Yes there are dangers out there, yes there are dark places you should be afraid to go, but most of it is nothing so dark, even if you don't know the entire story. Look for the bears, but don't assume the bears must be there just because you can't see to far.

Sun Tzu · 11-05-2007, 12:27 AM

Ustwo · 11-05-2007, 05:40 AM

ottopilot · 11-05-2007, 09:30 AM

It's me inside my car looking out the passenger-side window during a heavy snow saying, "look at all that snow on my passenger-side window".

... sorry, interesting topic, but the picture does remind me of if you looked really closely from the inside at thick snow partially covering a car window.

Sun Tzu · 11-05-2007, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

It's me inside my car looking out the passenger-side window during a heavy snow saying, "look at all that snow on my passenger-side window".

... sorry, interesting topic, but the picture does remind me of if you looked really closely from the inside at thick snow partially covering a car window.

Sure by itself it could be a bowl of ice cream. Its a section of a picture taken behind the president as he was shot in direction witnesses starting running to after. Laptops, galaxies, snow packed cars, whatever. The Warren Commission did its job well on some. Ill ask the same question again. What criteria are people using to arrive at their conclusions?

Cynthetiq · 11-05-2007, 11:10 AM

Please post the original picture that you this one is referencing.

Sun Tzu · 11-05-2007, 11:26 AM

Leto · 11-05-2007, 11:30 AM

Looks like a nebula to me.

Sun Tzu · 11-05-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto

Looks like a nebula to me.

Ustwo · 11-05-2007, 11:38 AM

Well I didn't need to see JFK's head blown off for the 50th time, but the rest of that video is batshit insane.

You know I wouldn't be shocked if there were a conspiracy around JFK's murder, but give me more than a single frame of fuzz. I've seen clearer images in clouds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

and he looked innocent to a jury of his peers

Ummmm enough with the inane youtubes, they do nothing for your case.

Seriously, get out of the woods.

Sun Tzu · 11-06-2007, 01:40 AM

edit

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Well I didn't need to see JFK's head blown off for the 50th time, but the rest of that video is batshit insane.

In your opinion. Just like its my opinion the Warren Commission is full of shit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

You know I wouldn't be shocked if there were a conspiracy around JFK's murder, but give me more than a single frame of fuzz. I've seen clearer images in clouds.

Oh that’s interesting, you wouldn’t? I don’t know . . . Fox hasn’t stated there was a cover up so you should really reserve yourself from going down that road. Even if you did, what could you do about it right? After all, if indeed it were a cover up, it happened years ago, it doesn’t affect you, so forget about it, things like that wont happen in this day and age, truth and justice prevail in these times- no one is above the law. As long as suburbia is intact, and “the squirrels are climbing the trees” and there are enough “moose to mate with” things are good.

It’s not just the fuzzy picture, but the information linked together with it. Someone like you probably gives absolutely no second thought to coincidences regardless of how many exist. With government conspiracies ranging from back then up to now there are always multitudes of them. Even when officials are openly caught lying- hey everybody does it right, it doesn’t prove anything . . .

Most official stories can fall apart applying this same mindset:

The common arguments
Test 1: Is the argument factually correct?
It's remarkable how many conspiracy theories are based on arguments which are simply factually incorrect. If you're presented with a conspiracy theory argument, the first thing to do is to check the surrounding facts. Many incorrect arguments are repeated in ignorance. But it's also been my unhappy experience that there are some purveyors of conspiracy theories who knowingly repeat arguments they know are incorrect.

Test 2: Is the argument relevant to the theory?
A second common problem with conspiracy theories is that they cloud the issue by attaching true, but irrelevant, arguments. Just because an argument is true doesn't mean it's relevant to the theory you're testing. This is a form of guilt by association, and gives the impression that the theory is being padded.

Test 3: If the argument is true, what implications does it have in other areas?
An argument on its own may appear to be plausible. But if we apply the argument to related fields or subjects, does it continue to make sense? Or would it require the world to be very different from how we see it?

Test 4: Is the argument consistent with other arguments used to support the theory?
There's a temptation to judge a theory simply by the number of supporting arguments, regardless of how they interact with each other. But amongst all these arguments, there's the danger that two or more of them contradict each other. This immediately means that at least one of the arguments is wrong, but in the context of conspiracy theories, it's perhaps worthwhile doubting both.

Test 5: What do relevant experts say about a particular argument?
Conspiracy theorists often tout their apparent expertise with a body of knowledge in order to bolster their arguments. But, perversely, they also often decry other experts in the field. This is often because the expert consensus in that field is contrary to the argument presented. Similarly, they often quote experts speaking inaccurately outside their field of expertise.

Test 6: Is there actually an argument in the argument, or is it just an opinion?
An argument which merely expresses an opinion, but which doesn't have any supporting evidence, adds nothing to the theory, and should be ignored.

Test 7: Does the argument offer any supporting evidence?
Some arguments are presented with weasel words such as "could have" or "maybe". Without any supporting evidence, these aren't arguments - they're just speculation. They too should be ignored.

Test 8: Is the explanation provided by an argument the only possible explanation for the evidence?
There are cases when an argument presents two alternative explanations for an event. One is the conspiracy explanation, while the other is said to be the official explanation. When the official explanation is debunked, the conspiracy explanation appears to be correct by default. Problems arise, though, when the apparently official explanation turns out to be a straw-man misrepresentation of the official explanation.

Test 9: How does the argument deal with positive arguments which contradict it?
Theories aren't built out of opposition to other theories. Instead, they're created to better explain the evidence than previous theories. Therefore, any conspiracy theory has to address evidence which contradicts it. Ignoring the evidence isn't acceptable, and should be treated as a major weakness of the theory.

Test 10: Would an experiment of your own help shed light on an argument?
Some conspiracy arguments rely on you accepting them without question, perhaps by an appeal to common sense. Sadly, common sense can lead us astray. This is where simple experiments, or even just careful observation of the world around us, can provide useful insights into the accuracy of an argument.

Conclusion: Is the conspiracy theory a coherent theory?
A problem with many conspiracy theories is that they exist only as a challenge to the official version of events. Yet if the conspiracy theory is true, a series of events must have occurred to bring the conspiracy to fruition. However, many conspiracy theorists aren't willing to spell out exactly how they think the conspiracy was achieved. This appears to be a tacit acceptance that their arguments don't add up to a coherent theory. What they often have, instead, is an ad hoc collection of arguments which, if put together, create an implausible, self-contradictory, and ad hoc narrative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Ummmm enough with the inane youtubes, they do nothing for your case.

The George bush one was inane, the second was very intentional, responsive, and pleasure to whip up in 5 minutes with imageready. The third was IMO better than posting a picture that someone else requested (origin).

It doesn’t matter to me that you didnt read the initial information posted and answer the question. The fact that you think I’m trying to “prove my case to” tells me I was obviously not clear enough in that question. It could also be clarity was irrelevant because you came into this thread to do what you think you do best, or enjoy the most.

You have your way of communicating, I have mine, unless I violate the rules I'll post in any way I feel conveys my point. Aside from your own inane contributions to this forum, your intermittent sarcasm combined with patronizing wit has become a signature style for you. I’m sure you get up from any post you make with a smile a level of satisfaction that can only be obtained with flexing your interpretation of the ways things are. The open admissions on several occasions referencing your intolerance for conspiracies, and throwing in your typical responses which you think are exceedingly clever; once again confirms why you even posted in the first place. I could care less how your motivating objectives influence the way you respond to any thread in this forum, to hear you bark orders doesn’t bother me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Seriously, get out of the woods.

Maybe you should consider pulling your head out the sand first, seriously.

ratbastid · 11-06-2007, 05:01 AM

Don't worry about Ustwo, Sun Tzu. Conspiracy talk hooks him like a big juicy nightcrawler on a #5 hook. He sees conspiracy talk even when there's nothing there to see.

Though, I gotta say... Ppulling a human form out of a bunch blobs feels a little stretchy to me. There may well have been more to JFK's assassination than was publicly told, but a blown up bunch of blobs probably isn't the smoking gun.

fastom · 11-07-2007, 04:42 PM

I've seen clearer pictures and video where i can actually make out something there at the fence. Read up on the James Files confession.

UsTwo wouldn't believe there was any conspiracy in the 9/11 deal if Bush held a news conference to announce how they did it.

Ustwo · 11-07-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

UsTwo wouldn't believe there was any conspiracy in the 9/11 deal if Bush held a news conference to announce how they did it.

But I'm suppose to believe easily debunked crap from internet crack pots.

Please brutha.

Sun Tzu · 11-10-2007, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

But I'm suppose to believe easily debunked crap from internet crack pots.

Please brutha.

Deny "internet crackpots" with information you state is easily debunked, but yet give full trust to liars. Sure.

Ustwo · 11-10-2007, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Deny "internet crackpots" with information you state is easily debunked, but yet give full trust to liars. Sure.

Eh who said anything about full trust, but please, edited youtube shouldn't be what one bases their reality off of, it makes you a sad panda.

Sun Tzu · 11-16-2007, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Eh who said anything about full trust, but please, edited youtube shouldn't be what one bases their reality off of, it makes you a sad panda.

It’s not the video, but the information in the video. This is exactly the point made at the beginning of this thread as well as the question which no one has answered.

I do agree with you, in my opinion someone shouldn’t base their whole belief system on what they might see in a video. The videos are just another tool to forward information. The same approach you are taking can be applied to any source of information- books, news, etc. I think the videos are ESPECIALLY effective when showing people caught in a lie and watching them scramble for words. You might be able to read a transcript of the footage on a site or book somewhere, but it doesn’t take ESP, astrology, or anything similar to analyze people and see when they are full of shit- and that can only be seen through video documentation.

I stand corrected referencing the statement about full trust; you have not stated anything similar DIRECTLY. Infact, once again by stating “who said anything about full trust” you insinuate (or as I’m interpreting it) that you may indeed NOT believe official stories. You intermittently make statements like you “wouldn’t be surprised if there was a conspiracy” and then defend the “official” stories by stating the conspiracy theories are bullshit.

You are obviously a very intelligent person. Without knowing you I do believe that you research or at least as far as your interest will carry you. When you say you don’t “fully” trust the government, what is your threshold? If you believe there “may be conspiracies” if even to a small degree where do you draw the line? I think you are above answering “when the information raises the bullshit flag”.

*An example being the badge man photo. The photo by itself is blurry and alone could be interpreted as an old Jewish guy standing next to a grey zombie. When that blurry photo is supplemented with the fact 58 eye witnesses (or just the ones YOU would only give credit for that ironically can be seen running on a VIDEO towards the spot where the photo was taken at the moment of the gunshot- I’m trying to understand how and why you would see that as complete bullshit. The point I’m making here is not about the photo, it’s the thought process that goes into seeing the conspiracies as bullshit. The same process happens with any conspiracy pertaining to the government. Do you believe in coincidence? If so, how many have to happen surrounding a particular event before you start to question what you’re being told.

I’ll use the JFK assassination as an example:

Coincidences
58 eye-witnesses to the assassination ignored by the Warren Commission when they said they felt shots had NOT come from the Book Depository

Most witnesses in Dealey Plaza ran up the Grassy Knoll after the shots while the authorities ran to the Book Depository

JFK’s ongoing de-escalation plans for Vietnam reversed within 48 hrs of the assassination (this theme sounds familiar)

Ten people taken into custody in Dealey Plaza were all released, some without so much as their names taken

Over 200 persons that were close eye witnesses were murdered or died VERY suspiciously (and conveniently) after 11/22/63 sometimes just hours before they were to be questioned, ALL within a 2 year period

LJ had the car (an important piece of forensic evidence cleaned and dismantled within days after the incident)

The car slows down as the shots are fired instead of speeding away

etc

etc

etc

This list could go on and on and I think you know that. Is there a point that two many stack up for you to see reasonable? Obviously not yet. For someone like myself I don’t go looking for them, I’m not trying to find shadows. On 9/11 when I heard a jet hit the Pentagon, my reaction wasn’t “Oh it’s the shadow government”. Its behavior like confiscating all the videos from the surrounding areas that had a clear view and refusing to release them that starts the questioning.

If you take the stance that you “mostly” believe the official stories (I not certain where you stand exactly), then you acknowledge that there is deception- even if it is slight. Where is your gauge on that? How much does it take to piss you off? How many examples of video footage showing politicians on both sides—lying, flat out, straight in your face lying- before you become bothered if any? Have you considered in your acknowledgment of possible corruption and conspiracies that NO level is acceptable.

The question posed at the start of this thread to you and everyone is what processes, and what sources are used to formulate your interpretation of reality, truth, and fact.

*I’m not asking that question to down you or anyone else; I would respectfully like to know. I was not my intention when creating this thread for it to turn into another place to sling sarcasm or aggression- but attempt to understand how people connect the same dots so differently.

MSD · 11-17-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Sure by itself it could be a bowl of ice cream. Its a section of a picture taken behind the president as he was shot in direction witnesses starting running to after. Laptops, galaxies, snow packed cars, whatever. The Warren Commission did its job well on some. Ill ask the same question again. What criteria are people using to arrive at their conclusions?

Unfortunately for your argument, in order for the "faces" in that picture to be to the same scale as the rest of it, the "shooter" would have to be standing approximately 30 feet above the ground, hundreds of feet back from the fence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

I've seen clearer pictures and video where i can actually make out something there at the fence. Read up on the James Files confession.

I thought investigation of phone call records placed Files in Chicago on the day of the assassination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

Over 200 persons that were close eye witnesses were murdered or died VERY suspiciously (and conveniently) after 11/22/63 sometimes just hours before they were to be questioned, ALL within a 2 year period

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO...FK/deaths.html
The list isn't particularly convincing. Take out the bullshit like "reportedly," "Ruled a suicide" and "ruled accidental" that are meant to instill doubt, and you have a couple of plane crashes killing people like politicians who flew a lot, a bunch of mobsters and mob associates being murdered, natural causes including heart attacks and cancer, and just a few that can really be called suspicious are left over.

Sun Tzu · 11-17-2007, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

Unfortunately for your argument, in order for the "faces" in that picture to be to the same scale as the rest of it, the "shooter" would have to be standing approximately 30 feet above the ground, hundreds of feet back from the fence.

Yes I have heard that before. If you are refering to the D sub i formula (1/F = 1 Di + 1/DO ) it places badge man at 3 to 6 feet above the ground and 28 feet behind the fence.

The problem with that formula is its being based in physics of a clear photo which everyone here is observing it is not. Something that small with a blur factor can mean night and day in size and distance.

Conspiracy debunkers will also add in how a shot from this angle would be blocked, never suggesting the rifle could have been adjusted slightly to right.

I do think there are some that take some information too far.

But there are also others that don't factor in other bits of information like the Secret Service finding a bench by the fence, a bench that stands at seat level approximately 3.15 feet of the ground.

I have a friend that lives in Dallas that is going to do an experiment for me. I will post the images and findings as soon as I can.; regardless of which direction it goes. Until then; I appologize for posting the badgeman image, it was a bad example for the point I was trying to make, one that I over used and detracted what i was trying to find out and turned this into more of a JFK thread. I'll take full accountability for that. So for now and the sake of the official story's argument, and standing alone in my view (you see I do have insight) Ill concede badgeman is a photographic anomoly, that in no way resembles a man wearing a police uniform with a muzzle blast in front of him.

Quote:

I thought investigation of phone call records placed Files in Chicago on the day of the assassination.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO...FK/deaths.html
The list isn't particularly convincing. Take out the bullshit like "reportedly," "Ruled a suicide" and "ruled accidental" that are meant to instill doubt, and you have a couple of plane crashes killing people like politicians who flew a lot, a bunch of mobsters and mob associates being murdered, natural causes including heart attacks and cancer, and just a few that can really be called suspicious are left over.

There is alot to say about what you have stated here, my first thought is (opinion) is your statements seem to be guilty of the very thing you are pointing out. I'll post why later, I have to go.

fastom · 11-18-2007, 01:56 AM

I thought UsTwo bases his belief in the 9/11 deal being real because he saw it on TV and video doesn't lie. Certain parties have a real aversion to truth and feel the need to edit things. I think the versions we get to see of the Zapruder film have been edited.

I challenge UsTwo to even watch half of this...

YouTube - The Zapruder Film: Truth or Deception?

There should be absolutely no question the limo almost stops for the final shot. Here it is from the other side.

YouTube - Nix film of J.F.K. Assassination

Sun Tzu · 11-18-2007, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

I thought UsTwo bases his belief in the 9/11 deal being real because he saw it on TV and video doesn't lie. Certain parties have a real aversion to truth and feel the need to edit things. I think the versions we get to see of the Zapruder film have been edited.

I challenge UsTwo to even watch half of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-rcdBNFnGs

There should be absolutely no question the limo almost stops for the final shot. Here it is from the other side.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xboWTRPEWW0

At the end of the second everyone is running in the direction of the nebulas, dam those killer instellar clouds. Debunkers will use the process they promote conspiracists use. Examples: everyone is running in that direction because ah . . . sound acoustics from the Oswalds shots reverberated over to the knoll, the cloud of smoke seen at teh time of the shots coming from the direction those witnesses are running to is actually um . . .emission smoke from a police motorcycle on the other side of the fence which can also explain the police looking nebula, as far as witness testimony that is not accepted by the Warren Commission (a panel of people that loved JFK and were only concerned with truth and justice) they were crack pots that were just looking for attention. There is absolutley no reason to think anything other than what the WC found. If there is plausibe explanations to back up what you are being told, why go looking for anything else? This will certainly lead to a happier more harmonious life.

n0nsensical · 11-18-2007, 12:33 PM

Thing about conspiracy theories, you can't disprove them. You can't prove them either. Personally think some of them might be true but I don't put much stock in it. You still have to live your life. I'm going to do the same thing whether Bush planned 9/11 or Osama. Religious leaders, politicians: same shit different name anyway, what do we care. I just wish they'd leave peaceful people out of their killing games. Wouldn't mind throwing all the politicians and religions into some godforsaken corner of the world and letting them fight it out. They kill each other off, we live happily ever after. Sadly power games and killing are human nature; after all, that's basically how we got here.

MSD · 11-18-2007, 03:00 PM

I'm interested to see what your friend comes up with in the experiment. I'm sitting in the equipment room at a film festival right now and can't watch the Youtube clips, but I will later.

The reason that I'm skeptical about multiple gunman theories is that I don't think they're necessary to explain what happened. Oswald was caught red handed with a rifle capable of producing the wounds we saw on tape, and he was a skilled marksman whose scores were alway high until shortly before his military discharge. There is no need for a second gunman to produce the results. Until evidence is provided that necessitates a second gunman, I am unlikely to be convinced that there was one. And yes, the ladder thing I was talking about is the one you posted, I remembered the numbers very incorrectly.

Sun Tzu · 01-05-2008, 10:43 PM

Well my friend did not do what I asked him to do exactly. However I had never personally been to the site. These pictures gave me a little better idea of the possibilities of badgeman.

the shots from behind the fence is the area where the "blurred image" of a speculated shooter may have been. IMO there is no doubt, I know I am alone in that conclusion within this forum, each to their own.

dksuddeth · 01-09-2008, 11:21 AM

conspiracies can be found in many things, mainly as an inherent mistrust of authority, which is not a bad thing IMO. It all is dependant upon what you choose to believe, who you choose to believe, and who you choose to trust or not trust. really simple as that.
When it becomes reality is to find inescapable and unavoidable facts to dictate the truth of whatever issue you're talking about and place it in front of people WILLING to re-examine their beliefs in the face of your evidence.

Leto · 01-09-2008, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Tzu

and your point is? You can't just post a shading of white & grey and then link reactions to it to some unrelated court decision.

Sun Tzu · 01-10-2008, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leto

and your point is? You can't just post a shading of white & grey and then link reactions to it to some unrelated court decision.

My point was even when something looks like something doesnt mean it "is". Obviously the badgeman image cam around after the warren commissions findings. Thats not to say it would have went anywhere to begin with.

It looks like a nebula, OJs gloves looked to tight. - he obvously didnt kill them.

Leto · 01-10-2008, 06:04 PM

i think that you oversimplify. There's question of the body of evidence to consider.

Sun Tzu · 01-10-2008, 11:45 PM

you have a point, however the procedures performed surrounding the whole JFK forensically speaking are just as much of a joke as the OJ situation.

Leto · 01-11-2008, 06:32 AM

heh. Maybe you have a point as well.

11-04-2007, 04:35 PM	#1 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	Conspiracy Theory: The Government I used wikipedia for the following terms for convenience only if anyone has better definitions from a source they find to be of credible nature feel free to use it. Reality: Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist." The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. On a much broader and more subjective level, the private experiences, curiosity, inquiry, and selectivity involved in the personal interpretation of an event shapes reality as seen by one and only one individual and hence is called phenomenological. A common colloquial usage would have "reality" mean "perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes toward reality," as in "My reality is not your reality." This is often used just as a colloquialism indicating that the parties to a conversation agree, or should agree, not to quibble over deeply different conceptions of what is real. For example, in a religious discussion between friends, one might say (attempting humor), "You might disagree, but in my reality, everyone goes to heaven." Reality can be defined in a way that links it to worldviews or parts of them (conceptual frameworks): Reality is the totality of all things, structures (actual and conceptual), events (past and present) and phenomena, whether observable or not. It is what a worldview (whether it be based on individual or shared human experience) ultimately attempts to describe or map. Certain ideas from physics, philosophy, sociology, literary criticism, and other fields shape various theories of reality. One such belief is that there simply and literally is no reality beyond the perceptions or beliefs we each have about reality. Such attitudes are summarized in the popular statement, "Perception is reality" or "Life is how you perceive reality" or "reality is what you can get away Truth: According to the less realist trends in philosophy, such as postmodernism/post-structuralism, truth is subjective. When two or more individuals agree upon the interpretation and experience of a particular event, a consensus about an event and its experience begins to be formed. This being common to a few individuals or a larger group, then becomes the 'truth' as seen and agreed upon by a certain set of people — the consensus reality. Thus one particular group may have a certain set of agreed truths, while another group might have a different set of consensual 'truths'. This lets different communities and societies have varied and extremely different notions of reality and truth of the external world. The religion and beliefs of people or communities are a fine example of this level of socially constructed 'reality'. Truth cannot simply be considered truth if one speaks and another hears because individual bias and fallibility challenge the idea that certainty or objectivity are easily grasped. For Anti-realists, the inaccessibility of any final, objective truth means that there is no truth beyond the socially-accepted consensus. (Although this means there are truths, not truth). Fact: A fact or factual entity is a phenomenon that is perceived as an elemental principle. It is rarely one that could be subject to personal interpretation. Instead, it is most often an observed phenomenon of the natural world. The proposition 'viewed from most places on Earth, the sun rises in the east', is a fact. It is a fact for people belonging to any group or nationality, regardless of which language they speak or which part of the hemisphere they come from. This is the foundation of debate, and in some cases even war. When one person perceives as reality differs from another the effects are not generally positive. This could be because one feels that the reality of another casts a negative effect on themselves and those that perceive reality the same way as themselves. A simpler possibility is one experiences straight agitation because others have not subscribed to the same belief utilizing information common to all. The effects from this can range from harmless to earth shattering. An example is the “Holy Land”. Today’s generation has to rely on historical documentation to determine what their reality of what has happened in the past. So about 70 years ago the Zionist Manifest Destiny was initiated with validation from a story written by Hebrews a few thousand years ago. That is reality to them, just as is not a reality to the Palestinians. So what is the reality? A person’s reality will depend on what source they gather enough information to create what is a substantial reality to them. The reason for this thread is I’m curious in what criteria people today use for their perception of “what is going on”. While this could be applied to subjects such as astrology, Bigfoot, loch ness monster, ghosts, and similar I want to focus on an area, that IMO sometimes borders being in the paranoia section- the government. This subject umbrellas out into several areas, but all point to a generalized theme- the government. The National Geographic defines a conspiracy theorist as: someone who postulates on the existence of secret agreements between two or more people or government to perform unlawful acts. It is common practice for those disagreeing with CTs to begin referencing tin foil hats and similar. Postulates has two meanings: A mathematical statement that is accepted without proof, and when used interchangeably with the term axiom- any starting assumption from which other statements are logically derived. Here is where the split of perception happens. An example is JFKs assassination. From the research I’ve done I don’t see how anyone could dispute a cover-up. Even with evidence such as this: people will still maintain the Warren Commission was telling the truth. Fast forward to today. I see the same practice happening. Ultimately I’m wondering do the people that point out tin hat candidates believe everything the government tells them? Do they have the belief that there is no reason for the government to act in any way other than what it states (both parties)? Do they have the belief that since we have a relatively higher freedom than other countries we shouldn’t “rock the boat”? What criteria do people that believe what they are told use to arrive at their perceptions? The news, historical documentation? Using the above image as the epitome: I see the photo the grassy knoll behind JFK when he was shot, is of a man holding a rifle with a muzzle blast. The other side will call it a blemish that doesn’t prove anything. I see Bushes behaviors such as getting caught in a straightforward lie about 911, refusing to testify under oath, and a string of other behaviors to spell it out clearly. His supporters will defend these actions as someone who was under stress. Perhaps if I can learn the ways people arrive at the perceptions; understanding why will be possible. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking* Last edited by Sun Tzu; 11-04-2007 at 04:39 PM..

11-04-2007, 04:50 PM	#2 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I dunno it looks like early photos of nebulas and galaxies to me. Does that mean that I don't have the same reality? __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

11-04-2007, 05:27 PM	#4 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Old Jewish looking guy. Its a grey or a zombie. Guy typing on a lap top. Just once, I want my conspiracy to be in focus. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-04-2007, 06:20 PM	#6 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	just so Im clear is this everyones way of stating people will see what they want to see? While to me its obviously a person holding rifle in the exact area close witnesses starting running toward after they claim hearing a gunshot and seeing smoke, to the three of you its nothing. Its not the JFK conspiracy itself that I find astonishing its the theme of what is happening here. It still happens to 911 to this very moment. WHat I see as very apparent lies straight in your face lies, others are going to see as "mistakes" or verbiage taken out of context. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYI7JXGqd0o&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EYI7JXGqd0o&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

11-04-2007, 08:38 PM	#7 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I used to spend a lot of time alone in the woods. Once you are in them you are no longer a creature of civilization, but just another creature. There were three real dangers, three director actors. Bear, moose, and of course man. Of the three the most likely would have been a bear, though I did encounter a moose (which can be deadly in the mating season), and the nature of the land had not many men, and few you would consider dangerous to a fellow woodsman. But whats interesting is your danger sense increases. A million years on the savanna don't just disappear from your genes. You listen more, you look more, you note things which seem out of place. What can happen though is you get spoked. Suddenly every shadow seems ominous, every anomaly seems malicious. You jump at every bird call, you keep thinking you hear branches breaking just out of earshot. Undoubtedly there are some real conspiracies out there. Some dark and secretive, and its good to look for those, the problem is that once someone thinks they find one, they seem to get spoked. If THAT was true, what about this one? Everywhere they look, they peer into murky shadows, ignoring whats in the light. In the woods, when you get that spooked feeling, that feeling of dread, I like to sit still and listen. You start to hear the squirrels climbing the trees, the birds calling, and the wind blowing. It resets your danger sense, you relax a bit, you no longer feel suffocated by the trees. I recommend the same for the conspiracist. If every dark place you look seems to contain a conspiracy then sit down and think a bit. Yes there are dangers out there, yes there are dark places you should be afraid to go, but most of it is nothing so dark, even if you don't know the entire story. Look for the bears, but don't assume the bears must be there just because you can't see to far. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-05-2007, 12:27 AM	#8 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nj_rOrlk7bs&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Nj_rOrlk7bs&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

11-05-2007, 05:40 AM	#9 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vdX_OBUeHb4&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vdX_OBUeHb4&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-05-2007, 09:30 AM	#10 (permalink)
ottopilot let me be clear Location: Waddy Peytona	It's me inside my car looking out the passenger-side window during a heavy snow saying, "look at all that snow on my passenger-side window". ... sorry, interesting topic, but the picture does remind me of if you looked really closely from the inside at thick snow partially covering a car window. Last edited by ottopilot; 11-05-2007 at 09:37 AM..

11-05-2007, 11:10 AM	#12 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Please post the original picture that you this one is referencing. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

11-05-2007, 11:26 AM	#13 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hn1-dy5-Ebs&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Hn1-dy5-Ebs&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

11-05-2007, 11:30 AM	#14 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	Looks like a nebula to me.

11-06-2007, 05:01 AM	#18 (permalink)
ratbastid Darth Papa Location: Yonder	Don't worry about Ustwo, Sun Tzu. Conspiracy talk hooks him like a big juicy nightcrawler on a #5 hook. He sees conspiracy talk even when there's nothing there to see. Though, I gotta say... Ppulling a human form out of a bunch blobs feels a little stretchy to me. There may well have been more to JFK's assassination than was publicly told, but a blown up bunch of blobs probably isn't the smoking gun.

11-07-2007, 04:42 PM	#19 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	I've seen clearer pictures and video where i can actually make out something there at the fence. Read up on the James Files confession. UsTwo wouldn't believe there was any conspiracy in the 9/11 deal if Bush held a news conference to announce how they did it.

11-18-2007, 12:33 PM	#28 (permalink)
n0nsensical Junkie Location: San Francisco	Thing about conspiracy theories, you can't disprove them. You can't prove them either. Personally think some of them might be true but I don't put much stock in it. You still have to live your life. I'm going to do the same thing whether Bush planned 9/11 or Osama. Religious leaders, politicians: same shit different name anyway, what do we care. I just wish they'd leave peaceful people out of their killing games. Wouldn't mind throwing all the politicians and religions into some godforsaken corner of the world and letting them fight it out. They kill each other off, we live happily ever after. Sadly power games and killing are human nature; after all, that's basically how we got here.

11-18-2007, 03:00 PM	#29 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I'm interested to see what your friend comes up with in the experiment. I'm sitting in the equipment room at a film festival right now and can't watch the Youtube clips, but I will later. The reason that I'm skeptical about multiple gunman theories is that I don't think they're necessary to explain what happened. Oswald was caught red handed with a rifle capable of producing the wounds we saw on tape, and he was a skilled marksman whose scores were alway high until shortly before his military discharge. There is no need for a second gunman to produce the results. Until evidence is provided that necessitates a second gunman, I am unlikely to be convinced that there was one. And yes, the ladder thing I was talking about is the one you posted, I remembered the numbers very incorrectly.

01-05-2008, 10:43 PM	#30 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	Well my friend did not do what I asked him to do exactly. However I had never personally been to the site. These pictures gave me a little better idea of the possibilities of badgeman. the shots from behind the fence is the area where the "blurred image" of a speculated shooter may have been. IMO there is no doubt, I know I am alone in that conclusion within this forum, each to their own. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

01-09-2008, 11:21 AM	#31 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	conspiracies can be found in many things, mainly as an inherent mistrust of authority, which is not a bad thing IMO. It all is dependant upon what you choose to believe, who you choose to believe, and who you choose to trust or not trust. really simple as that. When it becomes reality is to find inescapable and unavoidable facts to dictate the truth of whatever issue you're talking about and place it in front of people WILLING to re-examine their beliefs in the face of your evidence. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

01-10-2008, 06:04 PM	#34 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	i think that you oversimplify. There's question of the body of evidence to consider.

01-10-2008, 11:45 PM	#35 (permalink)
Sun Tzu Conspiracy Realist Location: The Event Horizon	you have a point, however the procedures performed surrounding the whole JFK forensically speaking are just as much of a joke as the OJ situation. __________________ *To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking*

01-11-2008, 06:32 AM	#36 (permalink)
Leto Junkie Location: The Danforth	heh. Maybe you have a point as well.