Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, he hasn't admitted he was wrong about Japan being destroyed in 06. He left for a while and hoped no one would remember.
Please provide a link..I'm grudgingly curious.
I also await Nuclear's response to Evil Dead's post with great anticipation...and Parker's two sense with great dread.
I can see the thread starters point, the facts are hidden in a "research web."
The problem is that people read books or articles by other people, these writers may have researched someone else's books in compiling their work also, and so it goes on and we forget who the actual expert is who discovered the facts in the first place.
Its the same with the news or documentary´s where they too often use the phrase "according to top scientists or according to experts" etc. without naming the experts.
Anyone can get a PHD or some other title on any subject in the USA and other countries or online. Are these experts?
In fact are historians, & so called experts any better, after all they are taught by someone using books written by someone, these were also taught by someone using books etc..
The big question is "is everything we are taught right"
Look how many Theories are taught as fact in schools for example, Evolutions, relativity etc. We are taught and told what they want us to know, thats the problem and here we come full circle to another conspiracy🙂
I think Kharma's point is that if you are told not to believe the news media, and that everyone's lying, why do you so suductively believe conspiracy theories? It's ironic.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
Please provide a link..I'm grudgingly curious.I also await Nuclear's response to Evil Dead's post with great anticipation...and Parker's two sense with great dread.
A few anecdotes that strengthen Kharma's points:
- James Randi, the world's foremost expert on Nostradamus, has shown extensive evidence that his writings were intended to discuss things in his own time and area of the world, not predictions about the end of the world and current political events. Apologists for ND attempts to skew his words and prophecies to continue to milk money out of the credulous public.
- The media is quick to jump on any bandwagon if it is a negative. Case in point: global warming and/or second-hand smoke laws.
First, global warming. We hear about the impending disaster, without realizing that there is a counter-argument and that everything might be fine. Now, I believe that there are environmental concerns linked to global warming, but the dissenters are stifled because the "crisis" sells better, and belief in an impending crisis has turned into a multi-billion dollar industry, from oil companies to political lobbyists and many in betweem. We are led to believe that the scientific debate is over when they never allowed it to begin in the first place. I saw an enlightening BBC documentary that exposes many of the tactics used by environmental groups to strong-arm the media and politicians into their agenda, and also how scienctific debate has been completely squelched by accusations of legitimate scientists being "in the pocket of the oil companies" if they disagree on scientific grounds. Sad.
As for second-hand smoke, I again realize I tread on sensitive ground because we've been led to believe in the horros of secondhand smoke. Smoking is bad for you. Very bad. Secondhand smoke can have affects as well. But it isn't nearly as harmful as is popularly believed, and to expose the truth would be a blow to the anti-tobacco lobbyists who are on the verge of criminalizing smoking in many places (see also: California). I'm speaking primarily to Sidney Zion's article in a recent issue of Skeptic magazine where he systematically shows how each prominent study in the last 30 years was either funded by anti-tobacco groups in order to push an agenda, or the results are selectively interpreted to make the correlation between secondhand smoke intake and health risks seem more alarming than they actually are. The ones that showed otherwise were accused of being biased, usually because tobacco companies were the only ones willing to publish them (even though they weren't funded by tobacco companies and were independently run).
Ever heard the phrase "a bartender smokes half a pack a night in secondhand smoke"? Probably a few of you have. But it's more like 6 cigarettes a year for an average bartending worker, because the chemical composition of secondhand smoke is far different than normal intake, and less dangerous. I'm guessing no one's ever heard that estimate, which is backed by an actual measure of carcinogenic intake, not heresay...and it's because studies that produce such findings never see the light of day.
....
These aren't conspiracies. They're documented tragedies that stifle true inquiry. And is case in point why we need to be skeptical of historical documents that are used to fuel a conspiracy as well as the media's coverage of controversial topics.