This is for topical issues effecting our fair world... you can quit snickering anytime. Note: It is the desire of the leadership of SFDebris Conglomerate that all posters maintain a civil and polite bearing in this forum, regardless of how you feel about any particular issue. Violators will be turned over to Captain Janeway for experimentation.
J!! wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:41 pm
Problem is that if there is some shadow-government secretly ruling the world, they are clearly terrible at their jobs.
Bilderberg meetings started in the 50s, they showed up at page 6 of the Ny Times once on the 80s.
Before that, no MSM mention of them.
Ah, yes, the Bilderberg meetings, where the ''Illuminati'' meet up to dictate how the world should be run.
Or maybe... its exactly what they say it is. A meeting of leaders away from the media (and now assholes on the internet) sticking their noses in. I would bet actual money that if you could actually go to one of these meetings you would be bored out of your mind as a room of mostly old men talk about tax disputes.
This also speaks to one of the biggest problems with grand conspiracies: the more people that know about something, the more likely it is that someone will eventually leak it either by accident or on purpose. If as you say these meetings started in the 1950s, that is 70 years of absolutely none of these men coming out and saying what really goes on, even the ones who have no reason to keep the secret any more such as the dying. This is extremely unlikely.
And the fact they never showed up in papers earlier is not surprising as the press was hardly free to say what they wanted back then. As much as America is proud of the First Amendment (and with good reason I am not mocking it) there have been many moments throughout history where it has been unofficially blocked. The right bribe here, the right moral panic there, the right McCarthy coming along and telling you that you shouldn't be saying what you want to say lest your life be ruined etc.
It was not just Americans attending...
That is a very long time interval...
Also, bribes, what stops them from taking it and publishing it anyways?
Why would it be unlikely?
Its not just Americans attending: so? No one's media was all that free back then.
That is a long time interval?: 20 years when the primary way anyone found out about things was radio and newspapers? Not really. Most people didn't even have a TV back then.
70 years with thousands upon thousands of people knowing about a secret is a secret that will not be kept, especially in the last three decades where the ability to share information is now trivial. You are assuming aspects of human nature that just are not true.
Its not just Americans attending: so? No one's media was all that free back then.
Care to elaborate?
There were a fuckton of big newspapers and tv stations all across the world...
J!! wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:41 pm
Problem is that if there is some shadow-government secretly ruling the world, they are clearly terrible at their jobs.
Bilderberg meetings started in the 50s, they showed up at page 6 of the Ny Times once on the 80s.
Before that, no MSM mention of them.
Ah, yes, the Bilderberg meetings, where the ''Illuminati'' meet up to dictate how the world should be run.
Or maybe... its exactly what they say it is. A meeting of leaders away from the media (and now assholes on the internet) sticking their noses in. I would bet actual money that if you could actually go to one of these meetings you would be bored out of your mind as a room of mostly old men talk about tax disputes.
This also speaks to one of the biggest problems with grand conspiracies: the more people that know about something, the more likely it is that someone will eventually leak it either by accident or on purpose. If as you say these meetings started in the 1950s, that is 70 years of absolutely none of these men coming out and saying what really goes on, even the ones who have no reason to keep the secret any more such as the dying. This is extremely unlikely.
And the fact they never showed up in papers earlier is not surprising as the press was hardly free to say what they wanted back then. As much as America is proud of the First Amendment (and with good reason I am not mocking it) there have been many moments throughout history where it has been unofficially blocked. The right bribe here, the right moral panic there, the right McCarthy coming along and telling you that you shouldn't be saying what you want to say lest your life be ruined etc.
It was not just Americans attending...
That is a very long time interval...
Also, bribes, what stops them from taking it and publishing it anyways?
Why would it be unlikely?
Its not just Americans attending: so? No one's media was all that free back then.
That is a long time interval?: 20 years when the primary way anyone found out about things was radio and newspapers? Not really. Most people didn't even have a TV back then.
70 years with thousands upon thousands of people knowing about a secret is a secret that will not be kept, especially in the last three decades where the ability to share information is now trivial. You are assuming aspects of human nature that just are not true.
Its not just Americans attending: so? No one's media was all that free back then.
Care to elaborate?
There were a fuckton of big newspapers and tv stations all across the world...
Ok, I'll bite: what is your definition of free? Because I guarantee that whatever definition you have did not apply to the 1950s. The era of McCartyism, the Soviet Union, the British Empire, post war Europe, US occupied Japan, the Korean war and rapidly approaching communism China.
J!! wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:41 pm
Problem is that if there is some shadow-government secretly ruling the world, they are clearly terrible at their jobs.
Bilderberg meetings started in the 50s, they showed up at page 6 of the Ny Times once on the 80s.
Before that, no MSM mention of them.
Ah, yes, the Bilderberg meetings, where the ''Illuminati'' meet up to dictate how the world should be run.
Or maybe... its exactly what they say it is. A meeting of leaders away from the media (and now assholes on the internet) sticking their noses in. I would bet actual money that if you could actually go to one of these meetings you would be bored out of your mind as a room of mostly old men talk about tax disputes.
This also speaks to one of the biggest problems with grand conspiracies: the more people that know about something, the more likely it is that someone will eventually leak it either by accident or on purpose. If as you say these meetings started in the 1950s, that is 70 years of absolutely none of these men coming out and saying what really goes on, even the ones who have no reason to keep the secret any more such as the dying. This is extremely unlikely.
And the fact they never showed up in papers earlier is not surprising as the press was hardly free to say what they wanted back then. As much as America is proud of the First Amendment (and with good reason I am not mocking it) there have been many moments throughout history where it has been unofficially blocked. The right bribe here, the right moral panic there, the right McCarthy coming along and telling you that you shouldn't be saying what you want to say lest your life be ruined etc.
It was not just Americans attending...
That is a very long time interval...
Also, bribes, what stops them from taking it and publishing it anyways?
Why would it be unlikely?
Its not just Americans attending: so? No one's media was all that free back then.
That is a long time interval?: 20 years when the primary way anyone found out about things was radio and newspapers? Not really. Most people didn't even have a TV back then.
70 years with thousands upon thousands of people knowing about a secret is a secret that will not be kept, especially in the last three decades where the ability to share information is now trivial. You are assuming aspects of human nature that just are not true.
Its not just Americans attending: so? No one's media was all that free back then.
Care to elaborate?
There were a fuckton of big newspapers and tv stations all across the world...
Ok, I'll bite: what is your definition of free? Because I guarantee that whatever definition you have did not apply to the 1950s. The era of McCartyism, the Soviet Union, the British Empire, post war Europe, US occupied Japan, the Korean war and rapidly approaching communism China.
J!! wrote: ↑Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:41 pm
Problem is that if there is some shadow-government secretly ruling the world, they are clearly terrible at their jobs.
Bilderberg meetings started in the 50s, they showed up at page 6 of the Ny Times once on the 80s.
Before that, no MSM mention of them.
Ah, yes, the Bilderberg meetings, where the ''Illuminati'' meet up to dictate how the world should be run.
Or maybe... its exactly what they say it is. A meeting of leaders away from the media (and now assholes on the internet) sticking their noses in. I would bet actual money that if you could actually go to one of these meetings you would be bored out of your mind as a room of mostly old men talk about tax disputes.
This also speaks to one of the biggest problems with grand conspiracies: the more people that know about something, the more likely it is that someone will eventually leak it either by accident or on purpose. If as you say these meetings started in the 1950s, that is 70 years of absolutely none of these men coming out and saying what really goes on, even the ones who have no reason to keep the secret any more such as the dying. This is extremely unlikely.
And the fact they never showed up in papers earlier is not surprising as the press was hardly free to say what they wanted back then. As much as America is proud of the First Amendment (and with good reason I am not mocking it) there have been many moments throughout history where it has been unofficially blocked. The right bribe here, the right moral panic there, the right McCarthy coming along and telling you that you shouldn't be saying what you want to say lest your life be ruined etc.
It was not just Americans attending...
That is a very long time interval...
Also, bribes, what stops them from taking it and publishing it anyways?
Why would it be unlikely?
Its not just Americans attending: so? No one's media was all that free back then.
That is a long time interval?: 20 years when the primary way anyone found out about things was radio and newspapers? Not really. Most people didn't even have a TV back then.
70 years with thousands upon thousands of people knowing about a secret is a secret that will not be kept, especially in the last three decades where the ability to share information is now trivial. You are assuming aspects of human nature that just are not true.
Its not just Americans attending: so? No one's media was all that free back then.
Care to elaborate?
There were a fuckton of big newspapers and tv stations all across the world...
Ok, I'll bite: what is your definition of free? Because I guarantee that whatever definition you have did not apply to the 1950s. The era of McCartyism, the Soviet Union, the British Empire, post war Europe, US occupied Japan, the Korean war and rapidly approaching communism China.
Mine is that it doesn't cost anything.
lol, that is a good one but it still does not apply.
Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but don't you guys think the timing of this death is a little peculiar considering who the person is and how much he possibly knows being implicative in certain high level affairs?
BridgeConsoleMasher wrote: ↑Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:47 pm
Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but don't you guys think the timing of this death is a little peculiar considering who the person is and how much he possibly knows being implicative in certain high level affairs?
It is peculiar, but that doesn't mean it isn't what it appears to be. We may never know for certain. My inclination is to suspect foul play due to the narrative surrounding him, but I can also see him being the sort of man to take this way out of facing the music.
It's good to consider alternatives, but less good to believe them without proof.
Considering several bones are broken in his neck which are more consistent with throttling than self-strangulation by leaning into a sheet tied around his neck (which is how they're saying he killed himself) and that there was a strange, new guard involved in watching him, I'm kind of skeptical.
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
