DisInfoWars with Tom Secker- Are Conspiracy Theories a Good Thing?

In the opening episode of this new show Tom explores the question of conspiracy theories and the roles they can play and effects they can have, both good and bad.  He offers the case study of a documentary about a teenager who tried to incite his own murder through an internet chatroom, and draws out some parallels between that story and how people engage with conspiracy theories.  He also explains a little about what to expect from the show as it progresses, and asks for your opinions and answers to this question.

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here:

*This is our introductory episode for Tom’s coming weekly podcast show. The coming episodes will be here at Boiling Frogs Post on Tuesdays, and will be available to BFP activist members. You can subscribe and join our community here.

SUBSCRIBE

Sources

Kill Me if You Can (2005 documentary)

Negative Capability

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. albatross0612 says:

    Good show, hopefully it sparks some good ideas to cut through the bullshit because it is quite easy to get lost in the world of the speculative unknown.
    How can one make any emperical conclusions with the amount of disinformation and always conflicting accounts poised to leave you confused? Most people dont care, for the few who do it takes work to dig deep enough to even conceptualize a conspiracy, let alone understand it. The one word that sticks out form your story was “Patterns” patterns emerge, and this is true in real life events that form conspiracies. Some of the events you mention (Sandy Hook, Boston Marathon) are more tangible to me, i live in Connecticut, i visited that very somber sceen in New Town the following day as a mourner, out of solidarity and respect. I also was into firearms and myself and the State in general has greatly been affected by that event. Now i am not equating my firearm rights tonthat tradgedy, the point inwould like to make is that public perception is in effect greater then the event itself. Now as for Boston, Boston has so many angles to it itss not even funny, now through a visit with a friend (2005-ish i had met a young man who like myself at the time wanted to be a police officer typical conversation over dinner good guy never met him before never spoke with him again, apperently went on to be an outstanding police officer involved in the community, particularly with the inner city youth. Now life can place you in unknown circumstances everyone knows this, this particular young man was one of the first responders in Watertown on that infamous night and was injured during the shootout to the extent i do not know, but he survived and was all set to recieve an award from President Obama for Valor, just a few weeks before he is set to recive this award, he drops dead leaving the Gym. Fate/Pattern i do not have that answer, but one certainty is lives are being lost, rights are being taken away and we dont know what tomorrow brings.

    As for internet conspiracies or social engenering its not going to go away, but there is a reason those of us follow Boiling Frogs Post, its a little to complex for your average tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist. I find the people on here have integrity and have been paying attention.

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/…/4Cg93lvhdmzcwTy…/story.html

    • I think in most domestic events that either must have been or probably were covert operations that the perception of the event is much more important than the event itself. Only 9/11 reached truly horrific proportions, physically speaking. Not that killing dozens of children isn’t horrific – it certainly is – but I mean in terms of comparing our physical suffering to that visited on others by our military. If you compare the violence our states dish out to other countries and the violence they dish out to us, we get off lightly.

      • Matthew Raymer says:

        Well said Tom. People in the West really have no clue what Western intelligence has enabled “developing” nations to do to their own people via the various “training” given — not to mention gifts of military hardware.

  2. firehorse says:

    the poor kid sounds gullible enough for a Nigerian prince letter or the umpteen scams out there. a single typo makes for an unbelievable chain of logic though.

    my issue with Sandy Hook was the chosen Patsy and the clueless ME. The story stank but where the truth melded with a tissue if lies, I don’t really know. I know autistic adults are sensory-defensive and if he had never experienced the sound of a firearm, he would be unlikely to function well let alone gun down people. and even a marginally competent ME would know how many adults vs children and how many males vs females were in his morgue as a result of an event he was being interviewed over.

  3. Nice one. Good stuff! Definitely looking forward to this podcast 🙂
    It’s perfect also, because I just recently had a conversation/disagreement with another BFP member on the subject at hand. He was discussing the crisis actor theory regarding the Boston Marathon bombing and in my initial comment I expressed why I found the crisis actors argument problematic. In response, he criticized what he felt was a ‘ridiculous and foolish comment’ on my part, but obviously I disagree and here’s an excerpt from my followup comment:

    @chris: I’m not saying that it doesn’t matter that this was a staged attack. Of course it does! My point is that there are so many other aspects of the entire episode, such as the absurd allegations of the MIT shooting you mentioned, that are so easy to point to if you want to demonstrate that this was a fabricated false flag event. If your concern is exposing this to people, why would you focus on pressing the most controversial, difficult to prove element, that’s going to legitimately offend people to the extent that they’re no longer going to be willing to listen to what you have to say.

    That’s all I’m going to leave here, but if you’re interested in the full conversation you can find it here: http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2015/04/17/probable-cause-with-sibel-edmonds-when-one-for-all-all-for-one-works-power-in-numbers/comment-page-1/#comment-18335

    It’s an interesting question as to whether the term “conspiracy theory” itself is problematic. Often what might be labeled as “conspiracy theory” is not merely theory but “conspiracy” period; or perhaps “conspiracy fact”. Where this can get tricky is when we can prove with absolute scientific certainty that the “official narrative” is BS, yet we don’t have the empirical evidence to prove an alternative theory, even if we can get pretty damn close.

    Personally, what I’ve tried to stress is the fact that it’s important to be extremely clear about presenting any tangible evidence, such as official documents and, as I commented that I’d appreciated in one of Sibel’s recent podcasts, is outlining when the information is being presented ‘verbatim’. It’s fine to speculate and present conspiracy theories in conversations, such as those we participate in here. However, I have a major problem when I see people such as Alex Jones for example, who’s one of the most visible and well known amongst conspiracy theorists and the truth movement, present speculation without clearly designating it as such. I don’t want to take up too much space trash talking Alex Jones, because I don’t feel he’s all bad and is often in many instances very well informed. But reference him frequently because I think, as I said, he’s one of the most visible players, and when he goes off the deep end without clearly designating what he’s presenting as speculation, he does harm to those who really care about exposing what’s going on to the public, which I genuinely believe is the case with Jones (although that’s obviously just my opinion or speculation ;-).

    @Tom: Thanks! This is a great inaugural episode and based on prior experience with your work I expect only good things to come. =]

    If I were to give one critique, it would be that the documentary segment, although it was a useful example for illustrating your point, was a bit on the long side. I got the gist of where it was going within relatively short order, but I spent a certain amount of the remainder of the time trying to figure out whether the piece was meant to be satirical or not (as it seems that it wasn’t, that’s pretty awful).

    At any rate, just thought I’d throw that in the mix for feedback. Again though, great stuff. I always appreciate your perspective and I’m looking forward to some intelligent conversations in the near future. =]

    • He Benny,

      Regarding your criticism – I agree, this was the problem I had with this episode myself. I thought about doing it other ways, decided against it, maybe I made the wrong decision. I will certainly take that on board.

      The term ‘conspiracy theory’ is enormously problematic – I try to use it as neutrally as possible. I mean a theory about a conspiracy. Not a real conspiracy that is proven. In the sense I use the term, conspiracy theories are everywhere. They are in political speeches and TV dramas and courtrooms and everywhere. I see no reason to be in denial about that, and while I didn’t explore it fully in this show, I am intrigued by the entire range. I am particularly fascinated by how conspiracy themes and ideas are increasingly prominent in popular culture, and I have a pair of episodes, probably video episodes, that will get into some of that. Lots of ideas for this show, as you can imagine. 🙂

    • Andrei Tudor says:

      Benny,

      I agree with you, conspiracy theories that are not clearly labelled as informed speculation, but presented as certainties, generally have negative consequences. But these consequences are not attributable to the theories themselves, as products of our speculative abilities, but simply to their mislabeling. I would then rephrase the question (I think this is how Tom intended it all along), are properly labelled conspiracy theories good or bad? I cannot see any downsides to a conspiracy theory as long as it is received as what it is, solely a theory. It will stand or fall on its own merits. But the reality is that it is not always received that way. The distinction between “a possible explanation” and “the explanation” is blurred to different degrees, in different people, for different events. Even the most honest effort at properly labeling a theory will fail sometimes, and some people will be led astray.

      Myself, I don’t have a clear cut answer to this question. It depends a lot on the circumstances. On some topics, with some people, I feel I can engage in speculation without going off the deep end, and come out at the other end of the conversation with fresh ideas, or a more clear understanding of the topic. In other cases, the slope seems very slippery and I try to tread very carefully, and stick to what I think are the bare facts. Like many other of our “talents”, our speculative ability can be a gift or a curse.

  4. chris bagg says:

    Please forgive me, Tom, for skipping over your internet chat room drama “object lesson”. I found it hard to listen to, (unpleasant actually) and totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Boston Bombing or the Sandy Hook Massacre were real events or staged hoaxes.

    But perhaps my mind is not subtle enough to follow your argument. Was it something about the unreality of digital images on a screen allowing us to contrive timid and improbable theories that we would never be bold enough to assert had we experienced the event in real life? Am I following you here? So, had we actually experienced, say, the Boston Bombing, first hand, and not merely seen pictures of it, we would not have questioned why Jeff Bauman was able to remain conscious for over ten minutes in spite of the fact that both his legs had apparently been blown off? Are you suggesting that we would not have wondered why Karen Brassard could have walked around for minutes with a quarter inch piece of pipe protruding from her leg, with no evident damage to her clothing? Why her daughter Krystara could be seen running on her dislocated ankle, after being “peppered from head to toe” with shrapnel? Or why husband Ron had not a drop of blood on his shoe in spite of his wife’s claim that he left a puddle of blood with every step he took? Why should we dismiss the incongruities between the photographic record of this event and the well publicized claims made by its “victims”? Could you humor me Tom, and watch this video, then clarify exactly what it is that you are trying to say?

    • Yes, I am saying that if you’d experienced the event for real then you wouldn’t be asking such questions. Perhaps you should talk to people who have experienced such events, or paramedics and doctors and nurses who treat people with such injuries and ask them whether these things are possible. Indeed, if you genuinely believe in this line of research then why haven’t you done that?

      • Empathy says:

        As a resident of Boston, I _actually know people_ who were maimed in the Boston Marathon bombing, which occurred less than 9 miles away from where I lived at the time. Full stop.

        As far as questioning the official narrative regarding who was responsible, their motives, and background, connections, etc… I, of course, am all for it. James Corbett and Sibel have done some particularly good work with this line of inquiry, specifically regarding the Tsarnaev brothers’ ties to the CIA, and the larger context of Gladio B.

        However, claiming the entire event didn’t happen, or that it was all staged, simply flies in the face of real, tangible evidence. Seriously, stop it.

        • chris bagg says:

          Empathy- I have just presented tangible evidence that directly contradicts the official story. Furthermore, the glaring discrepancies between the photographic record and the claims of injuries made by the Brassards are just the tip of the iceberg. Virtually all of the people at the site of the first “blast” can be shown to have lied about what happened to them. Jeff Bauman, Christian Williams, the Brannoks, the Corcorans, the Gregorys, the Valverdes, the Downes, are all demonstrably lying. I have focused on a few specific cases in deference to the legal principle that when fraud is proven in some part of a claim, the whole is legitimately subject to doubt. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. By the same token, it is highly unlikely that we would find actors faking their injuries with help from “first responders” and “medical professionals” right alongside people who were actually injured by this so called “bomb”. Since we can prove that most of the publicly named victims have lied about what happened, the claim that a person knows some unnamed victim who really was maimed does not hold much weight. Please address the evidence at hand.

          • Ronald Orovitz says:

            Chris, I warned you this would happen -somebody who knows somebody would throw your claims in your face.

            And as for “I have focused on a few specific cases in deference to the legal principle that when fraud is proven in some part of a claim, the whole is legitimately subject to doubt.” Doubt is one thing, but stating conclusively that “no one died” is quite another. Proving that one or more injuries are faked does not prove there were no injuries!

          • I’d say (with personal direct experience, and certainty) that particular category of ‘conspiracy theorists’ have done far more damage to my own case (and so many other legit whistleblowers’ case) than the deep state, MSM, etc. So much good has been undone and de-legitimized by those.

          • BennyB says:

            @chris: As I’ve stated elsewhere. Yes, getting to the bottom of any issue; to the truth, in all circumstances is important. But Empathy just previously stated:

            As a resident of Boston, I _actually know people_ who were maimed in the Boston Marathon bombing, which occurred less than 9 miles away from where I lived at the time. Full stop.

            I can’t speak for Empathy, but I find your comment extremely disrespectful. You’re essentially calling them a liar; literally adding insult to injury. Let’s just say for argument’s sake that you’re right; that this was staged and nobody was injured or even that crisis actors were involved while others were injured. You’ve essentially just alienated at least two people, amongst this group right here that, outside of those who are supporting your theory, would probably be the most sympathetic or willing to entertain your theory. This group is among a fraction, perhaps in the single digits, who would be willing to do so out of the general public. Is proving that you’re right about this aspect of the attack worth having the vast majority of the people you encounter not only think that you’re a complete nutter, but that you’re an insensitive jerk? I tend to avoid this kind of personal attack, but I think it’s necessary to try to convey in relatively mild but honest terms how you come off, chris.

            Let’s continue on the premise you’re correct: how does this evidence advance the cause of exposing the fact that this was a false flag attack, which deserves critical scrutiny on numerous fronts? If you were at a bank which was being robbed and one of the robbers shot someone in front of your face for no apparent reason, covering you in blood, just to show you that they meant business. If after this happened, as the police were securing the area and the paramedics were taking out the body, someone starts yelling; “hey look, this was all staged, the guy they just took was a crisis actor!”, what do you think your immediate response, along with the other witnesses would be?

            Taking this a step further: let’s say afterwards it turns out that the people who orchestrated the robbery actually owned the bank and there was substantial evidence to prove that the crime had been pinned on somebody else. Not only that; your bank account along with others that were on the scene with you at the time, had your accounts temporarily frozen, leaving you in a position where you had to scramble to find money to pay for immediate expenses like food and transportation to work. And here; once again, there’s news coverage were the individual who was pointing out the crisis actor theory is on television saying only that the incident was staged and that nobody got killed. Again, your feelings towards that person?

            Let’s continue: shortly after the news dies down and a very small group of people begin to ask questions about the activities of the bank owners involved in the staged robbery, suggesting a larger cover up and a potential falsely accused patsy awaiting serious charges, even the death penalty. When the vast majority have dismissed the event and charges against the owners of the bank as slanderous conspiracy theory, does the role of the crisis actor conspiracy theorist and those who subscribe to this view help the accused bankers dismiss the allegations of the former group as slanderous conspiracy theories, regardless of the strength of the evidence supporting their claims? Does publicizing the role of the crisis actor conspiracy theorist damage that individual’s credibility in future instances involving cover ups, even if the merits of this individual’s research and evidence go above and beyond passing a reasonable doubt?

            Similar to what Andrei stated, I don’t have a definitive answer as to whether conspiracy theories are bad. I believe in getting down to the matter of truth in all instances of conspiracy and foul play. But I would say that some sort of self reflection is necessary from time to time to determine whether your interest in the matter is only serving a sort of intellectually masterbatory function. Knowing the extent of the obstacles that stand in the way of getting people to actually recognize that truth in general and the ways their ignorance to it continues to have disastrous consequences for all of us, I make an effort to stop and think frequently about what out of the research I’ve done and learned from others, will have the greatest impact on opening up people’s eyes to what’s going on. All the evidence matters, but as I said in a previous comment; if you’re a lawyer and you want to convince a jury that a crime’s taken place, you do the greatest service to your client by focusing on the most compelling evidence that you can to support your claim. Figuring out some sort of minute detail which required a great deal of expertise to solve may impress the judge and the other lawyer, but if you chose to start with this instead of the strongest evidence you have, you’ve already prejudiced the opinion of the jury and may have done irreparable damage to your prospects of winning the case.

            What’s drawn me to conspiracies and conspiracy theories over the years has predominantly been the level of outrage I feel towards the underlying conduct these conspiracies manage to obfuscate. All of us who take on this pursuit face uphill battles against the propaganda and apathy that perpetuates this sad state of affairs, but the expertise we gain in this pursuit is our best asset to counteract the time tested marginalization techniques the deep state has perfected… to the extent where people are still willing to believe the fact that JFK was assassinated by a “lone gunman” while unquestionably accepting each iteration of the made for TV Bin Laden storyline. I’m satisfied when from time to time my knowledge of various coverups and false flag events helps convince the skeptics that not all conspiracy theorists are crackpot lunar rovers who live in their mother’s basement and argue with their counterparts about whether or not Kissinger is a reptilian secret agent working for the Vatican.

            I’m not putting the crisis actor on par with the afore mentioned, however I’m trying to raise the point that, as I’ve stated elsewhere, some conspiracy theories are in fact counterproductive as they provide detractors with all the tools they need to marginalize conspiracy theories, even those that aren’t merely theories but conspiracies period. As Tom mentioned, I’m also quite intrigued by the recent popularization of conspiracy theories by the deep state/establishment themselves and I have plenty to say about the topic, but I’m going to leave it here for now. I just had to get that off my chest.

          • Benny,

            After 14 years I have decided not to waste a single word, breath, minute, offering responses to this certain category. Mark my word: I will not let BFP fall victim to that kind of ludicrous side and attack. They have 10000000s of websites/forums to go to and air out fantasies. This site ain’t one of those- and it will never be. Period.

          • BennyB says:

            “After 14 years I have decided not to waste a single word, breath, minute, offering responses to this certain category.” – Point taken…
            “Mark my word: I will not let BFP fall victim to that kind of ludicrous side and attack.” – Amen 😉
            “They have 10000000s of websites/forums to go to and air out fantasies. This site ain’t one of those- and it will never be. Period.” – That’s why I’m here 🙂

          • Won-a-pa-lei says:

            Does that mean that chris has been blocked? If so, please block me also, as I have been coming to this site for about a year in search of something of substance, to no avail. Please put me out of my misery.

            ps…I agree with everything chris stated in his post, including the unpleasantness of this podcast. I actually tried twice. Quite torturous.

            There is overwhelming evidence that the Boston Bombing and Sandy Hook were staged events. Period.

          • CuChulainn says:

            well, unlike Won-a-pa-lei i have found a lot of substance and interest here, and i have not had time to follow this debate or the issues involved, but the first part of Benny and Tom’s response–basically, “don’t insult the victims”– rivals the most invertebrate defense of official truths
            if Chris has been blocked for expressing his views then we have fallen into the narcissism typical of spectacular society, which cannot abide real dialogue

          • @CuChulainn:
            If you haven’t read my comment here in its entirety please do so. There and in my previous comment which I posted the link to, I feel that I’ve articulated my points in a way which doesn’t fall into the traps you appear to be suggesting I’ve fallen into. While I haven’t come down as harshly or dismissively on the crisis actor theory as either Tom or Sibel have, I recognize the logic behind Sibel’s resignation towards engaging on a peer to peer basis when trying to illustrate the problematic nature of certain types of conspiracy theories, based on the brick wall I’ve encountered in my attempts here with chris. I appreciate your perspective, CuChulainn and if, after having read what I’ve already said, you want to challenge the merits of my arguments, I invite you to do so. chris’ responses thus far both to me and to Empathy have demonstrated an apparent lack of willingness to listen, or in Empathy’s case, show a minimal degree of respect.

          • CuChu,

            Currently no one has been blocked. In fact, in the past 6 years we have had only 3 such cases. This is why my podcast series only meant for this community. And, I want to keep it this way. As I said in that comment: there are 10000s of sites where people gather to exchange a particular type of conspiracies. That is fine. But it does not fit within our model here. It takes away from objectives shared by the majority here. Let me give you a good example: Let’s say I want to eat BBQ ribs, and I go to this Italian restaurant, and I don’t see it in their menu. Then I go and rant and raise hell with the owner/manager saying ‘How dare you not serve Texas style BBQ ribs??!!’ What would be the logical response? ‘Mam, then go to a BBQ joint. We are a Northern Italian restaurant- serving particular food items for particular demand.’ It is as simple as that. No business, no forum, no public establishment, no website … can operate under the notion of we serve everything for every one and everyone’s demand … we can be everything to everyone. And this site is no different.

          • Sibel,

            I was about to come back to tease you for appropriating my food metaphor, but look at the time stamp! So, I’ll have to do you one better 😉

            It’s like running a Kosher Chinese Food Restaurant and having someone come in and saying they want Crab Rangoon.

            Customer: “I don’t see Crab Rangoon on the menu and I want Crab Rangoon.”
            Owner: “I’m sorry, we’re a Kosher Chinese Food Restaurant and crabs are not kosher.”
            Customer: “But everybody knows Crab Rangoon isn’t actually made with real crab meat.”
            Owner: “Perhaps, but most people don’t even believe there’s such a thing as a “Kosher Chinese Restaurant” to begin with, so serving Crab Rangoon doesn’t exactly do us any favors in earning people’s trust. Besides, there are countless other restaurants where you can find Crab Rangoon.”
            Customer: “I can prove for a fact that there’s not one documented instance of Crab Rangoon which uses real crab meat.”
            Owner: “Maybe so, but unless I can tell our customers with absolute certainty this is true, I’m not willing to put my reputation on the line. Now if you can’t find anything you’d like, could you step aside and let someone else order.”

          • @Won-a-pa-lei: “Excuse me waitress, I want you to tell the chef that this burger is so horrible I couldn’t even finish it. It’s even worse than the chicken sandwich I ordered last week!”

        • CuChulainn says:

          thank you Sibel.
          in the society of the spectacle everything that happens in “public” is staged to some degree or another

      • chris bagg says:

        Tom- At least one medical professional has gone on record asserting that what was depicted in photos and in testimony by the “victims” of the BMB is downright impossible. Here are the observations of Lorraine Day, M.D., and orthopedic trauma surgeon with 25 years of experience and former chief of orthopedic surgery at San Francisco General Hospital:
        http://winteractionables.com/?p=20660

        As for the question of why the perpetrators of a false flag event like the BMB or the Sandy Hook Shooting would prefer to stage it with actors rather than just committing a real act of terrorism using real bombs and real guns, this is a question which has been brought up in comment sections a number of times, usually asked by shills or trolls. The answer is obvious. You don’t have a large number of angry victims when they are all well paid crisis actors. There aren’t any lawsuits to deal with, nor victims or victim’s families digging for the truth. Also, it would be difficult to get the necessary parties to participate if real people were going to be injured or killed during the planned event.

        Speaking of which, have you seen this document, prepared by Obama’s FEMA director, formerly chief of Boston’s EMT service?
        https://memorygapdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/course_18_-_tale_of_two_cities_and_the_running_of_a_planned_mass_casualty_event_-_serino_richard.pdf
        Richard Serino outlined a drill scenario when he worked in Boston that perfectly parallels what happened at the Boston Marathon Bombing a few years later. Just a coincidence do you suppose?

        • Ronald Orovitz says:

          Yes, and there were all kinds of drills happening on or around 9/11, including those that mimicked the actual attack, and there were crisis actors (e.g. “Harley dude” who basically gave us a summary of the NIST report in advance), but do we say there was no actual attack? Likewise London 7/7. Real events are timed with simulated events in order to confuse the participants in the simulation. But also, as I suspect in the case of Boston, simulations are staged (and shabbily staged) in order to confuse independent investigators in the aftermath.

          Nothing is as it seems in this business. You have to think about these things on a meta level… Why is this appearing as such? What is the motivation behind it? What are its designers trying to lead me to think? -And by “me” I mean you and me and all of us who are skeptics of official narratives, aka “conspiracy theorists”. Never mind the dumb masses – that is an easy beast to manipulate. I swear, CNN could report tomorrow that “scientists say the moon is made of green cheese after all!” and most of these idiots would believe it, because “scientists say”! -I do appreciate Cu Chulain bringing the Debordian perspective into this. I have read Society of the Spectacle years ago, but it is a book I should revisit.

          • CuChulainn says:

            nothing is as it seems–to recognize this is already to break with the spectacle, which “says nothing more than ‘that which appears is good, that which is good appears.’ The attitude which it demands in principle is passive acceptance which in fact it already obtained by its manner of appearing without reply, by its monopoly of appearance… Where the real world changes into simple images, the simple images become real beings and effective motivations of hypnotic behavior. The spectacle, as a tendency to make one see the world by means of various specialized mediations (it can no longer be grasped directly), naturally finds vision to be the privileged human sense which the sense of touch was for other epochs; the most abstract, the most mystifiable sense corresponds to the generalized abstraction of present-day society. But the spectacle is not identifiable with mere gazing, even combined with hearing. It is that which escapes the activity of men, that which escapes reconsideration and correction by their work. It is the opposite of dialogue.”
            https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm

          • But also, as I suspect in the case of Boston, simulations are staged (and shabbily staged) in order to confuse independent investigators in the aftermath.

            Ronald, this is an excellent observation, which encapsulates both what I would be willing to entertain as the basis for a plausible argument for the existence of crisis actors and why; whether or not the evidence supports this theory, to quote a previous statement Sibel made on this matter:

            Distraction, misdirection, de-legitimization, waste, and so much damage … They make the deep state’s wet dreams come true.

          • After reading under some other pod casts tonight I have to ask. How do you know this info you presented isn’t just disinfo?

            We always gripe about how we have this and that and some other stuff, but none of it is ever enough. Why don’t we direct the conversation to HOW we can make sure info is reliable? I can’t recall if I am still on the disinfo podcast as I should be asleep now. But ime going to start off with the following proposals for gathering info. They’ll probably suck but here goes.

            1) A surveillance society. We need more Lou’s.

            2) An AI. A real one, not a VI. Only way to sift through all the garbage.

    • Ronald Orovitz says:

      I would agree that the anomalies you bring up cannot be dismissed out of hand and “psychologized” away as Tom attempts to do. My issue is with what we can conclude from these anomalies. There are multiple possibilities that could explain them; in particular, that they are either planted disinfo, fed into the internet grinder of “conspiracy theory” networks, for the purpose of diverting and discrediting those who end up coming to outlandish conclusions based on them (i.e. no one died), or we can take them as a crisis drill that was presented to the world as the real thing, as you argue. I tend to the former because, as Dave McGowan noted himself in the video you linked in the previous thread, the marathon crisis actors were quite obvious and amateurish in comparison to footage of professional crisis drills. If the intention was to present a drill to the world as the real thing, wouldn’t they have used their best producers and actors, and not given us the B grade production that we see? Indeed the images of Jeff Bauman with the cowboy dude wheeling him around looks like something from a Troma film.

      • Ronald,

        “If the intention was to present a drill to the world as the real thing, wouldn’t they have used their best producers and actors, and not given us the B grade production that we see?”- This same exact question applies to the so-called Bin Laden assassination. We covered that in one of our ‘Probable Cause’ episodes. Sometimes the ‘murky’ and ‘contradictory’ elements are by design. In OBL assassination example: what was the end result/conclusion? Who did the ambiguity served, ultimately? I am not saying I have answers to these questions, but I think they need to be taken into consideration.

      • Olivier says:

        Talking about patterns, here’s a pattern:
        1. no-planers
        2. no-bombers
        If I were to operate False Flag Inc, I’d probably by now package my services for free with the no-XXX videos from 3 different angles. Did you notice how fast after the MH17 crash they already had mails doing the rounds that long-dead-bodies were falling out of the sky? That story was such an obvious trip-wire that you could actually smell the perpetrators’ hand having written it..

  5. CuChulainn says:

    thanks for this stimulating discussion. may i suggest a book for discussion, perhaps Lance deHaven-Smith would be a suitable guest?
    http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Theory-America-Discovering/dp/0292757697

  6. stevan topping says:

    Thank you for the podcast. I found myself thinking about skepticism – searching, refining and tweaking what i believe. True skepticism; never debunking or agreeing (now that’s not so easy to accomplish), being open, investigating, the grey area in between the yes/no in a Classical sense. At the same time, feeling the likes of – “within your heart of hearts you know.” Does it go against the former, they live side by side. My current state. It’s the human condition. Recognising a trend – repeating patterns of growing anomalies is the paradigm changer. They nearly always come from the fringes inspired by the mainstream. Why is Boston, Sandy Hook not on a par with 9/11? Muddy water indeed. Lets keep searching, being skeptical in the classical Greek sense. Within your heart of hearts you know.

    • Stevan,

      You summed up my position on this- and did it so well. I couldn’t agree more.

    • Stevan,

      Indeed. We will pick up on this in the followup episode but for now, your comment nailed it.

    • Stevan:
      “True skeptics; never debunking or agreeing”—You hit the jackpot! This is at the heart of the most profound and respected great scientific thinkers. And, yes, not an easy task!
      As a skeptic, I’m not so sure about “Heart of hearts”–yet I certainly see your point. Sometimes, all we have is a deep hunch. Einstein had such things. And, of course, healthy skepticism can be used by anyone.

  7. otabenga says:

    It’s difficult, if not impossible for us out here in internet land to discern the truth or falsehood of any of the important staged events.
    One pattern I find helpful is the placing of a patsy package – an ID or other identifying/incriminating material placed by someone near the crime. This was used for Oswald, James Ray, 9/11 ‘hijackers’…both in NYC and Pennsylvania, Charlie Hebdo, Boston.
    Another is prior, extended contact by the alleged perpetrators with State agents (FBI, CIA, MI5, etc). Also the inexplicable disappearance/malfunctioning of surveillance equipment (Pentagon, OK City.)
    And for every crime the first question has to be – qui bono? Who benefits?
    By far the hardest hurdle to overcome for me and those I try to expose to this thinking is the mass of disinformation which in volume overwhelms the nuggets of truth serious investigators like Mr Secker unearth. (thanks Cass Sunstein)
    The bad guys have been studying population control for a century now. They’re smart and they learn from their mistakes. Most of the people swallow the stories and move on. Instilling skepticism, curiosity in the face of ridicule is a formidable task.

  8. Gary Binmore says:

    Like your work, Tom.
    This demented Greek tragedy has strong echoes of Milgram’s experiment and the erotic-sadism in it reminds me of that German cannibal who ate a very willing victim, who I think he picked up through the Internet.

    The sense of unreality generated by the Internet changes everything – reduces everything to a kind of game. The Internet also provides evidence of sorts for any crackpot theory, further loosening the connection to reality, as well as encouraging a general airheadedness – don’t write a well-researched essay, just type whatever comes into your head. At every turn, the drift towards fantasizing crowds out thought. Don’t think, dream!

    Believing the intelligence services, shadow government etc are omnipotent can only end up a self-fulfilling prophecy. Mock your rulers, laugh at them. Contrary to what Brzezinski and co. think, it wasn’t Afghanistan that killed the Soviet Union, but when a critical mass of the citizenry realized the system and its perpetrators were a fraud and a joke. The truth movement, authentic journalism, whatever you want to call it, needs more levity and sarcasm. Why show any respect to Hilary, Holder, Cameron, Yellen, Sunstein, Zellikow etc? Read how Soros made his fortune then watch the sycophants on the financial stations drool over him – it’s just funny. Read about MKULTRA and Acoustic Kitty. The previous director of the NSA had a Star Trek-like bridge built to ponce around in – why fear these people?

    As for the term “conspiracy theory”, it’s been hijacked so often for political reasons it’s almost lost its literal meaning. Why not speak in terms of ‘facts”, “hypotheses” and “fantasies”? The official explanation for the 7/7 bombings is a hypothesis refuted by several facts, hence it is a fantasy. Leave “conspiracy theories” out of it; just accuse those in charge of fantasising.

    As for the Moon being destroyed, I think that would be terrible because then there’ll be no werewolves so the Illuminati will come out of their castles and semaphore down UFOs from outer space and a bunch of aliens who look like Henry Kissinger with antennae will team up with ISIS and we’ll all be doomed /sarc.

    • Gary,

      Such a well-reasoned and beautifully-articulated response. I agree-100%.

      • Gary Binmore says:

        Thanks Sibel
        I’ve just read Seymour Hersh’s scoop on what really happened in that compound in Abbottabad and can’t have a word of it. It reads just like a “limited hangout” piece secretly prepared by the State Department. Hersh and Chomsky . . . what happened to these guys? Maybe it’s just their aging brains. I hope so.

        . There even bigger obstacles to truth o whom they appear to have been co-optedwhose objectives they’ve . It’s very unfortunate that

    • Gary,

      I recognise and agree with what you’re saying about the term conspiracy becoming so loaded and twisted as to be almost meaningless. But then part of me wears that badge with pride, with all it’s messed up connotations. I am more than happy to talk in terms of facts and evidence and hypotheses and interpretations. For this first episode I had an idea and ran with it – you will see as this series progresses that this show will vary quite a lot.

      I completely agree about laughing at all these tinpot megalomaniacs. It’s amazing how such utter failures of human beings can attain such positions of power. It’s the same with the high ranks of the Nazis – they hardly embodied the principles of the superman they espoused. Perhaps that’s the secret – truly sub standard people feel they have something to prove and therefore become very effective at climbing the greasy pole. Whereas I’m so arrogant I don’t even recognise that the greasy pole exists.

      You tell me. It’s late, and I’m getting distracted by election coverage (this is almost as good as a World Cup final if you ask me).

      • Gary Binmore says:

        Thanks for the reply, Tom,

        I suspect “conspiracy theorist” carries some kind of connotation suggesting elevated and sophisticated thought, perhaps from the complexity inherent in most conspiracies and its word association with terms like “theoretical physicist”. Just remember David Icke is a “conspiracy theorist” and so was that comedian who thought all of WWII was played out by crisis actors.

        The Nazi Party hierarchy is the example par excellence of utter jokes attaining great power. In group photos, Hitler, Hess, Goring, Himmler, Goebbels, Streicher and co look about as scary as a cast of Disney characters, but much funnier. Leaving aside all the factors that facilitated the rise of Nazism in Germany, how in the world did this bunch rise above millions of others in the party? Clearly they had something to prove, but why were they allowed to prove it? No doubt they possessed enormous guile; nonetheless they could only have risen in a culture that overvalues obedience and respect – one where there is a big greasy sky-filling pole regardless of whether people like you and me consider it a totally fraudulent construct.

        That election . . . Labor needs to bring back Tony Blair. What do you reckon?/sarc.

        Is it possible for you to edit out the last two lines of my reply to Sibel? They’re just gibberish I neglected to delete.

        • I agree with everything you say, including that the Labour party needs a new Blair-type figure – a bastard, in essence. The polls in this country got it wrong because people were being asked the question when nothing was at stake. In the voting booth, with all their fears running around in their head, they voted for the best bastard available. The politics of fear will always win, these days, in the UK and similar countries at least. People will thus vote for authoritarians – not nice Jewish boys who mean well but don’t really have a clue like Milipede.

          I can’t edit comments, I don’t know if anyone can, but no worries, I don’t think anyone paid any attention to the gibberish.

          • Gary Binmore says:

            Yes, the propagandists have won. Succumb to fear! To me, though, it’s a superficial kind of fear, an obedience to groupthink. Are people really more scared than they were twenty years ago? Are more weapons being carried around, more locks put on doors? I don’t know anyone who thinks they’re at great risk from terrorism, but plenty who are becoming increasingly wary of government. There might be hope.

      • Tom:
        Seriously, do you actually believe that this years batch of puppets is in any significant way different than last year’s batch? We/I gave up on politicians in about 1964. They are errand people for those who call the shots–“deep state” non-elected, but heavily connected. Ike gave us a hint in his farewell speech, 1960–but now its multi-global players. Never -ending war is a cash cow, fiat currency forever, wildly laughing banksters, more nuke reactors on a radioactive planet,etc., etc. And none of these psychopathic types care about the consequences. And these sick SOBs are not politicians.
        I get a little intense at times, Tom. ‘Seen too much for way too long. This is not an ad hominem.

        • Ron,

          I believe that anything but a Tory majority government would be an improvement, and yet that is what we’ve got. I predict some serious riots in the next 12-18 months, no doubt with the usual MI5 provocateurs in amongst the crowd.

          But no, I don’t think it makes a lot of difference. Besides which, the system in the UK is a joke. About 1 in 6 people in this country and less than a quarter of the eligible voting population actually voted for this government. So I treat the whole thing as a kind of absurd theatre, like a major sports event or the climactic final show in a TV series. Of course, they are a bunch of preening careerists who deserve to be ridiculed if not prosecuted.

          • dancingbrave says:

            Tom, as you brought up the General Election do you have any thoughts on SNP getting 56 seats (but only 3.1% of the overall vote) and a lot of good media coverage during their campaign?

            My thoughts are it can’t only be explained away by Scotland having a lower population than England so needing fewer votes because they got no seats in the last election. It is a meteoric rise which coincides with them having a lot of good publicity (especially Nicola Sturgeon) in the media which is very unusual as they barely got a mention in the English media in previous campaigns, my guess is it must be the same with the Scottish media this time also. So my question is why the media attention this time around? I am bemused.

            ON the other hand Ukip only got the one seat but they rose up 9% to 12% of the overall vote and this with poor publicity, for example whenever Nigel Farage mentions an Australian type points system to control immigration he will get asked about racism. With equal good media attention I think UKIP would have to go very close.

    • CuChulainn says:

      mock your rulers, laugh at them–in France a comedian has emerged as the most dangerous critic of a corrupt government, here is a video with subtitles– http://quenelplus.com/a-la-une/dieudonne-je-me-sens-laurent-alegre.html
      as for Hersh, if you read Doug Valentine it’s clear that he has always been working for the dark side–what was My Lai but a limited hangout to conceal Operation Phoenix?

      • Gary Binmore says:

        Good point about My Lai. I’d forgot about that. That seemed almost too effective a limited hangout to be a limited hangout. Other attempts that come to mind like Snowden are amateurish in comparison.

      • CuChu,

        Right on: that is one of the most effective forms of resistance. Corbett had a very good brief video on how Italians took over twitters with mocking responses to ISIL threat issued by their gov. Did you get to see it?

        Hersh: Agreed. Think about it ‘NewYorker’?! Another agreement he made: go away for 8 years after Bush- No book, less than a handful articles (all fluff). In their divide & conquer (partisanship) game he is their players for the pseudo ‘other’ side.

        • Gary Binmore says:

          Stupidly, I find it hard to completely condemn guys like Hersh because they offer a bridge. They only take you half way and leave you to drown, but if you’re smart enough to study how guys like Peter Dale Scott swim you end up okay. Unless you have direct experience of extreme government hypocrisy and corruption (like you), you simply can’t go from mainstream news to deep politics – it’s just too jarring and strange and uncomfortable. That’s one of the biggest problems “truthers” have – the narrative we have to tell is incomprehensibly strange to people fed the mainstream, so strange that there’s almost no way to connect with them.

          Of course, the treachery and hypocrisy of the likes of Hersh should make them more contemptible than mainstream hacks. Chomsky is the colossus here. Should you be thankful to him for opening your eyes a little when you were young and naïve, or hate him for his hypocrisy? Does he cast more light or darkness? I don’t know, but I’m probably just being too kind to him.

          • Gary,

            “…you simply can’t go from mainstream news to deep politics – it’s just too jarring and strange and uncomfortable. That’s one of the biggest problems “truthers” have – the narrative we have to tell is incomprehensibly strange to people fed the mainstream, so strange that there’s almost no way to connect with them.”

            Dead on. Glad you’re here.

      • Although, in all honesty I was initially mislead by the exploitation of the language gap by his detractors, I’d have to say, with the help of translations, including those provided by a fellow BFP member, Dieudonné has presented one of the most effective models of comedic dissidence I’ve seen. He’s excellent at taking advantage of the hubris and ugliness of those who go after him in a way where they further expose themselves as an accurate caricature of what he’s criticizing them for to begin with.

  9. Empathy says:

    I enjoyed your first episode, Tom! Welcome. I look forward to future installments.

  10. Tom:
    Assuming that there is such a phenomenon as normal everyday discourse, “conspiracy” or “conspiracy theorist” seems to now have a pejorative quality. It also appears to be a post 9/11 term. I’m an old guy– was part of the anti-war and ant-establishment movement(s) in 60s,70s. The word “conspiracy” was not a “hot” term as it is now.
    When I snapped out of my own COGNITIVE DISONNANCE and easily concluded that fires on a few floors of BLG 7 , 9/11 could never do what a controlled internal demolition would, in fact, accomplish; I was called a “conspiracy guy”. So, I changed my tactic and would simply ask friends 2 questions: “Did you know of or see Bldg 7 on any 9/11 footage?” I would guess 90% said “no”. My next question: “Take a look at it on youtube, and ask your self how it collapsed into it’s own footprint.” I had some results-but very limited.

    As I recall, “conspiracy theorists” became a loaded term around the time the film “Loose Change” came out and triggered a rash of step by step conspiracy theories about EVERTHING that happened that day. I understand that there are now on-going debates among the theories.
    For me, I avoid the term unless the discussion is not about 9/11. Remember the term “hanging chads” from the Gore-Bush election? I suspect “conspiracy’ will take a bit longer to fade; given that the globe is now covered by them. And if someone asks me about conspiracies (as a bait question), I usually ask them how many conspiracies are happening this very instant worldwide? Thanks for your great work!

    • You are absolutely right that the connotations of ‘conspiracy’ are a more recent phenomenon. I think it grew in the 1990s, with things like the X-Files promoting populist versions of conspiracy and meeting with the reaction of ‘you’re all a bunch of kooks’. Then 9/11, and the stakes got much higher, and the dialogue around ‘conspiracy’ became much more hostile and difficult to negotiate.

      • You guys are either very young or have short memories! Trust me, the ‘conspiracy theorist’ pejorative has been used quite vigorously against JFK assassination researchers since 1963.

        • John:
          I’m 74 and was an activist in the 60s, 70s after JFK’s death. Our focus was anti- war and anti-establishment and pro equal rights, etc. I will stand by what I said and nod to Tom.
          . You are using an ad hominem, BTW. That’s a logical fallacy. Where you on the planet in 1964(Gulf of Tonkin)?

          • typo–Were

          • Hi Ron. Yep, I was alive in 1964 all right, but at four years old not terribly politically active. Not sure where you’re seeing an ad hominem attack in my friendly jibe about people being young. All I’m saying is the usage of the term ‘conspiracy theorist’ as a pejorative is most definitely not a new phenomenon. In fact it was pretty much invented to disparage the JFK assassination researchers. Disagree?

        • Can you show me evidence that the term was used against JFK researchers? I have no come across it in the literature. This seems to be a claim people make retroactively, with reference to that CIA document that may or may not be real (please correct me if you have a copy of it and can show me where you got it).

          • One of the happy developments of the ‘truth movement’ — born and energized by the 9/11-anthrax attack — is the entry of more and more academics into the fight. The academics bring a widely read, disciplined approach to the subject. Here’s NYU media professor Mark Crispin Miller addressing your question (starts speaking at 1-minute mark for about 6 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkbPSn68oGc

          • CuChulainn says:

            hi Tom, and thank you again for this podcast and for your very interesting series on Hollywood & CIA. as for evidence for john’s point, see CIA Dispatch 1035-960, discussed copiously in deHaven-Smith (loc. cit. supra) in particular pp. 116-7, 128, 198. i realize books are so 19th century, but judiciously chosen they can help avoid talking out of one’s ass.

          • Hey Tom. Well, I did a quick search on NORA for “conspiracy theorist”, limiting results to anything published between 1964 and 1975. Books, journals, newspaper and magazine articles, and dissertations. I got 109 results. Here are the first few:

            — The Globe and Mail, 26 November 1964, “Warren Inquiry Went to Great Lengths to Probe Conspiracy Theories” by Anthony Lewis
            — A Guardian article (26 March 1965) by Richard Gott, called “Conspiracy theorists”
            — A New York Times piece (3 January 1968) by Anthony Lewis, “Educator Scorns Plot on Kennedy: Johnson Aide Is Critical of Conspiracy Theorists”
            — 1 March 1968, The Globe and Mail, “Top aide dismisses conspiracy theories” (no author cited)
            — 30 August 1970, The Atlanta Constitution, “Conspiracy Theories Pass for Analysis” by Reg Murphy
            — 22 December 1974, Boston Globe, “Government with a gift of prophecy: SHORT CIRCUITS”, first line “Conspiracy theorists might ponder the following: Nelson A. Rockefeller was confirmed as Vice President Dec. 19…”
            — 25 November 1975, The Sun, “The Death of JFK” , first line “For years “conspiracy theorists” have been charging that the Warren Commission…”
            — A Washington Post article (6 July 1975) by Joseph Kraft, “A Gasoline Ripoff: The oil companies, in their dumbness, have acted the way all conspiracy theorists always said they would.”
            — An April 28, 1975 piece from the Washington Post by William Claiborne, entitled “Interest Rises in Plot Theories”. The first line describes Penn Jones as “a former Texas weekly newspaper publisher turned conspiracy theorist”.
            — Another Claiborne piece in the Washington Post, also April 28 1975 (big day for conspiracies), title “Ex-Cabbie Compiles Data on Slayings”, first line “He is only a spear carrier among the leading assassination conspiracy theorists, but Theodore Gandolfo lakes his job seriously.”
            — Los Angeles Times, 24 August 1975, “Conspiracy Theories Exploit Anxieties” by Mark Harris

            Hope this helps. There seems to have been a distinct uptick around 1975 — hmmmm, right around the time of the Rockefeller Commission on CIA activities and immediately prior to the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation….

          • John:
            I’m stressing the fact that the term “conspiracy theorist”, per se, was NOT a hot button word In my world. I followed the JFK assassination–used to listed to Mort Saul on radio–he was heavy into it and I was to a degree.
            . I lived in Berkeley 60s, 70s…saw, heard many things. Of course the term was used; but it did not have an intense “put- down” quality and definitely did not pervade the media.
            I was called “conspiracy theorist” for the 1st time after bringing up 9/11. I cannot therefore help but disagree with you. The ad hominem part? ‘You guys are either very young or have short memories. Trust me…”

          • OK Ron. I would never presume to challenge your memory of your personal experience. As you’ve perhaps seen, I was nevertheless able to come up with quite a few mainstream citations from the 1960s and 1970s where the term was used pejoratively, so the documentary record suggests that there were memes being propagated of which you were not aware — which is certainly always true of all of us, so fair enough. I do agree it’s probably more prevalent now, with a greater number of conspiracies under our collective belts.

            More importantly, since I know it’s often very difficult to tell somebody’s tone or intention online, let me state outright that when I say things here, generally speaking I’m smiling. I’m friendly. I’m nice. I’m happy. I love this place. And I think for there to be an ad hominem attack, there must first be an attack. There was none. There was a bit of friendly banter is what there was. And if being called young counts as an attack, then I think I know quite a few people who wouldn’t mind it too much! Peace, banter, and good humor, my friend.

          • John,

            Thanks for that, but to my mind 109 results for ‘conspiracy theorist’ in 11 years is less than one story a month. And from the excerpts you posted it seems some of those articles were not using ‘conspiracy theorist’ as an insult to try to shut down criticism of/disbelief at the Warren Report, or indeed in a negative way at all.

            As to JFK – any alternative to the lone assassin theory is a ‘conspiracy theory’ in the literal sense. And conspiracy theories – whether called that or not – have been around forever. I suppose my point is that it is the idea of conspiracy – malevolent people secretly doing things, at heart – is derided and affirmed by our popular culture and popular dialogue at the same time. Watch any of these CIA- or MI5-assisted TV shows and you’ll see all kinds of storylines based around the exact same things we talk about here on BFP. Pick up any tabloid newspaper and it is full of scurrilous gossip about people cheating on their spouses or defrauding their customers.

            And yet, it is hardly ever called ‘conspiracy’. Part of this is the legal problem that if you allege conspiracy then you are alleging a criminal act. It’s like accusing someone of murder – you can report that they drove their girlfriend up onto the moors and she died by falling off a cliff in the middle of an argument, but you can’t say they murdered their girlfriend. Not if you have lawyers and care about getting sued.

            The flipside of this is that the alt media alleges conspiracy far too often, to try to explain EVERYTHING. It is a catch-all way of spinning things that renders the word ‘conspiracy’ a bit redundant and meaningless. So you have the mainstream pathologically avoiding the word, and the alt media obsessing over it to the point of it losing any value. Both of these reactions help the conspirators, ironically enough…

          • Hi Tom. I agree the term has only increased in frequency and virulence over the years, but you did simply ask for evidence that the term had been used against JFK researchers, and stated you had not come across it in the literature. It would be cheeky of me to wonder what literature you searched, since I turned up quite a few fairly obvious results in about 30 seconds — so I won’t wonder that! 😉 But seriously, I agree with the thrust of your argument entirely, although I do think most of the references I cited were distinctly pejorative, and the few that did not refer to JFK serve to show that the term was spreading more broadly as a meme.

            Also, I capped the search at 1975, before the HSCA and well before Oliver Stone. Out of curiosity, I’ve just done two more searches, for the two next decades (1976-1985 and 1986-1995), this time requiring both “conspiracy theorist” and “Kennedy”. For 1976-85 the count rose to a still-modest 275; for the next decade it exploded to 2,000 results.

            Fair enough I think to say it proves your point that the usage of the term increased, at the same time it establishes that it was indeed used extensively with reference to Kennedy research. And the more active and popular (and intellectually rigorous) the JFK research community got, the more aggressively the term was used.

  11. BennyB says:

    After having spent way to much time on the previous comment, upon reflection, I’d say that focusing on conspiracy theories, just for the sake of it and not as a part of a desire to address some of the underlying issues isn’t a good thing.

    As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, I see the recent popularization of conspiracy theories as a sort of concerted effort on the part of the Deep State/Establishment to trivialize conspiracy theories in precisely this manner. Although the Bin Laden Situation Room/Porn Tape/Human Shield/Burial At Sea variety of propaganda is typically sufficient for the masses, my guess is that some of the more recent examples; particularly the high production value Hollywood Blockbuster style, are serving a more sophisticated “rabbit in a box, holding a mirror with a reflection of a rabbit in a box” agenda. Perhaps, in part, as a reflection of the Deep State/CIA’s realization that the proliferation of information concerning conspiracies and psy-ops on the parts of those of us who are leveraging tools presented by the “digital age”, warrants a diversification in their propaganda expenditures. There’s a lot to unpack here and I know for a fact that Tom is all over this angle, so I’m looking forward to these discussions.

    • “just for the sake of it and not as a part of a desire to address some of the underlying issues isn’t a good thing.’- Of course not. Distraction, misdirection, de-legitimization, waste, and so much damage … They make the deep state’s wet dreams come true.

      “There’s a lot to unpack here and I know for a fact that Tom is all over this angle, so I’m looking forward to these discussions.”- I agree, and I’m looking forward to his coming episodes. I respect his sound approach and healthy skepticism.

      • Sibel:
        Your earlier remarks regarding “conspiracy theories” made me smile. That is the warrior part of you.
        To speculate, get excited, claiming that one “knows”, etc. is a gigantic multilayered strawman.
        The “theories” really are not theories in a classical scientific sense- and many are opinions filled with emotion and ego investment. And, they sidetrack us forever from REAL TIME horrors which are escalating. Divide and conquer–let the masses argue with one another over fine points with questionable substance–another deep state standard garden variety move.

  12. chris bagg says:

    Let me just emphasize here that the question of whether or not the Boston Bombing was carried out by actors or was instead a real bombing in not trivial or unimportant. If the former is true, and it really was staged as I think I have shown, this has enormous implications concerning the veracity of our Government and Media. Even if we all agree that we are being lied to about something as important as 911, using crisis actors and gory fake medical prosthetics for the camera is a whole new kind of lie. It demonstrates an ongoing and deliberate willingness to traumatize America. It proves that the lockdown of Boston, and the trial of the perpetrator are further examples of a Government deliberately and willfully traumatizing its citizens. And it begs us to ask the question: “If they are willing to fake this, what else are they lying about? What other events of national significance are totally fake? What other elaborately contrived national traumas are we being subjected to?” With so much evidence on the side of the BMB having been staged, it is irresponsible for anyone presuming to analyze this event not to look at that evidence. I don’t see how answering some of these questions and addressing the very evident anomalies could do “damage” to any forum honestly committed to seeking the truth.

  13. Empathy says:

    Benny B. – Although you said you cannot speak for me, you encapsulated my thoughts perfectly.

    • Good to know, Empathy =] Although I now recognize Sibel’s point, I felt like I had to respond with respect in regards to what you’d said.

      • Benny,

        Actually my comment/response was meant for the thread on Ronald’s and Chris’ comments. I do not see a single point we have disagreed with on this issue (so far;-).

        • Sibel,
          What I was really trying to say is that, after having spent a good amount of time trying to engage Chris and essentially having the importance of what I’d attempted to address completely ignored, the point you’d made regarding your policy of not even getting entangled in this kind of discussion made a lot of sense to me (even though I wasn’t able to apply the same restraint;-) I appreciate the affirmation though 🙂

    • Empathy, thank you for going on record with your stand. And I agree with you, and the big majority on this particular thought.

  14. It is A great word Empathy.
    And real life, are out there for us to learn from.
    I have to find a story…!
    Maybe this one..
    Titanic Express.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_Express_massacre
    Kind Regards
    Jens.

  15. Won-a-pa-lei says:

    “In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.”
    ― Mahatma Gandhi

  16. Won-a-pa-lei says:

    @BennyB: Believe me, I understand how ridiculous it is on my part to continue to contribute and come back to this site. I did not quite understand until now how deceptive the majority of contributors are here. I mean, wasn’t Tom’s podcast addressing conspiracy theories and the BMB in particular? If there’s nothing to question, why bring it up in the first place? Or was it just to shut down all conversation about the official narrative.

    You will be pleased to know that I will show self discipline and officially block myself from here on out. Carry on.

  17. The Janet and John murder mystery was solved by adult study of computer generated data, and argues for immediate investigation into numerous anomalies in the digital record of Boston, since that has been raised here, and there are so many of them.
    No disrespect to the other 13 amputees and 240 (officially) seriously wounded at Boston NOT recorded by massed camera footage, but,ok, forming opinion on matters of consequence by digital streams alone, presents problems. We accept and rationalise within that, as the detectives studying your example did. We were not ‘there’. But we are ‘here’ in the post 911 digital era where the lesson may be as simple as not to play games in the matrix, no matter what age .
    Recognizing 911 demolition as ‘matter of fact’, authenticates an until-then secret history of SCAD/false flag attacks hidden behind the slander of ‘conspiracy theory’, and that can be difficult to handle. However. We learn. We adjust. Try to further our actions toward resolving the crimes discussed and not fall prey to useful idiots.
    So, a question would be, why can ‘media’ and ‘justice’ discern and resolve the exampled murder mystery by digital analysis, while – in the face of clearly conflicting forensics much easier found involving mass casualty events such as 911 and Boston; be so unable to resolve any?

    .

  18. Thanks for this thought-provoking episode, Tom, and welcome aboard. You articulate some of the same concerns I’ve had myself, and it’s always nice to feel less alone. My two cents, condensed, after years of “practice” thinking and communicating about, in particular, JFK and 9/11, is that critical thinkers cannot avoid conspiracy theories, but we need what you call mental discipline. It seems to me that the key is a notion you also refer to, namely theoretical falsifiability. Crucial. No claims that cannot be proven or disproven, which incidentally should not limit any good questions one can imagine regarding any official narratives.

    Beyond that, I think it helps to have a more-or-less scientific framework for evaluation, tell-tale signs that the official narrative has problems. Things like scientific fraud and misconduct; evidence of witness intimidation; serious procedural anomalies; anything that’s demonstrably impossible. Generally speaking, anything that starts with “they did” or “they didn’t” is miles better than anything that starts with “they would” or “they wouldn’t”.

    One thing that occurs to me about conspiracy theories is that when you present them to unreceptive people, apart from the psychological/belief barrier stuff of “they’d never do it; they couldn’t away with it”, they actually ask many of the right questions: they accept none of it without intense skepticism, they cast doubt on the sources of information, they look for inconsistencies and implausibilities, well, they’re desperate to poke holes in it. And this is all actually excellent. The problem is that they don’t apply the same standard to things they read in the newspaper and watch on television. They’re expert detectives when analyzing conspiracy theories and credulous fools when assimilating the daily news. So the idea is not to get people to stop being so skeptical of conspiracy theories, it’s to get them to use those same critical faculties on the official narrative. It doesn’t always work. Most of us employ rational reason only in service of what we already want to believe.

    So it works both ways. We all need to subject our “darlings” to withering scrutiny, to be our own worst critics, in order to improve our understanding and our ability to explain ourselves. Examine all sides with the same rigor as dispassionately as possible. Since, as critical thinkers, we need conspiracy theories, we will be well served by a disciplined effort to reclaim them as a respectable pursuit. It may seem impossible. But it isn’t. We may have to start with “there are crazies out there, I know!” But if we avoid speculation; shine light on lies and contradictions; ask reasonable questions; keep a sense of humor; never shout; err on the side of understatement; and so forth, things have half a chance of getting better.

    • John,

      “But if we avoid speculation; shine light on lies and contradictions; ask reasonable questions; keep a sense of humor; never shout; err on the side of understatement; and so forth, things have half a chance of getting better.”- Well-said! Concur, and thank you.

      • chris bagg says:

        Sibel- I am a little confused here by your use of the word “speculation”. I don’t see why we should call it speculation when we notice that a person like Karen Brassard , who claims that a quarter inch piece of pipe/shrapnel was protruding from her leg, can be seen running around with no evident damage to either leg. Why can’t we just say that she is lying? Is it speculation because we can’t go over and touch her leg to see if we have missed something? Even though one can see her legs from every angle in numerous photographs, and she seems to be walking on them without any trouble? Don’t you think that this is an unnecessarily high standard of proof?

        If Karen Brassard’s dubious claim was the only documented anomaly then you might have a case, but, as I have already shown, It is not. Her husband and daughter also make provably false claims about their injuries. Mildred Valverde, another “victim”, demonstrably lies not only about her own injuries but about those of her daughter as well. Watch the video here: https://www.youtube.com/user/PlasmaBurns/videos (Click on the video titled Valverde Fraudsters. If the screen says an error occurred, just keep starting it over. Youtube is trying to block these videos.) We can find photographic proof that her daughter, Jocelyn Perez, was running on visibly uninjured legs right after the blast, yet later, in a news cast blocks from the scene, we have photos of her with holes in her pants and socks, and “red stuff” smeared around them. The commentator tells us that she has been severely injured. To me this seems to be pretty good evidence that these people are lying. I am not sure, Sibel, why you insist on calling it “speculation”

        P.S. If you found the above video helpful in getting up to speed about the BMB, then may I suggest you watch the rest of PlasmaBurns’ videos.

        • I told myself I wasn’t going to engage in this again but…
          @chris, are you willing to entertain the idea that some people were injured and it wasn’t just a matter of the whole thing being staged/fake?

        • Hi Chris — to be fair, that wasn’t Sibel’s use of the word ‘speculation’, it was mine. Sibel was just agreeing with my post, which didn’t say anything at all about the Boston bombing.

        • catherine cook says:

          Thank you Chris for providing those illuminating links, especially the FEMA events one. I am happy that you are contributing to this conversation despite what some of the other members are saying, please keep it up! It isn’t just a big “admiration society” of everyone agreeing with one another– or let’s hope that isn’t the case! The live video links are very interesting and are real documentary “evidence” despite what story is later presented to us.

          Some one else said they didn’t like Alex Jones, and I tend to feel his style is a bit abrasive, but I am starting to really appreciate him because he is the only one with a mass audience. When I and my family went down to the WTC site last year for the 9/11 anniversary, we went as part of the Architects for 911 Truth contingent, and I must say, if it wasn’t for the Infowars people who showed up in mass, it would have been a sorry turnout.
          I would also postulate that maybe the “paid actor” is alot easier to manage, especially after what the state has had to deal with from all the WTC victim family members who have been rocking the boat with lawsuits against the Saudi govt, etc.

          • Hi Catherine,
            Are you a member of AE9/11Truth? I’m not, but I feel this is one of the most important groups within the truth movement. Hats off to you if that’s who you went with either way. 🙂

  19. arealjeffersonian says:

    My takeaway from Tom’s well reasoned podcast is that just as a good measure of skepticism should be employed when digesting government and MSM narration of events, the same should be true of conspiracy theorists. I find that all too often these theorists are so enamored of their own ‘indisputable’ conclusions that they consider anyone who doesn’t fully subscribe to their views somehow at fault. Which is why I agree with Sibel that they should just go where those congregate who want to wallow in such self-deceit. For me, I’ll stick to BFP – I like the kind of logic Tom presents and the dialogue of the majority who comment here.

    • @arealjeffersonian: I couldn’t agree with all the points you just made. Good stuff 🙂

      • Actually, I’ll add a caveat: I’m happy to entertain different viewpoints, but not when people are so headstrong about theirs that they refuse to listen to anything else. This is the kind of attitude which poisons the debate and turns other forums into a sort of hotbeds for egotistical cannibalization which serves the Deep State. I appreciate the level of civility here. Even if some might feel ostracized here, particularly in this debate, this is leaps and bounds above the lowest common denominator you find elsewhere. In fact, before BFP, I never participated in any discussion forums or had the desire to based on how repellent I found the discourse.

        • chris bagg says:

          Benny- Did you watch any of PlasmaBurns’ videos. If so, which ones? Did you find any of them compelling? We should be talking about the evidence at hand, not imaginary uninjured people. I think it would be exceedingly improbable that some people were actually injured, while others were allowed to fake injuries with the help of first responders, medical personnel, the Media, etc. I think I have demonstrated that all of the most highly publicized “victims” are faking their injuries. This should be sufficient to cast the authenticity of the whole event into doubt. Anyone seriously interested in the truth about what happened should find this evidence very interesting indeed. You haven’t yet commented on any of it

          • Okay, thank you. I can’t say I didn’t try.

          • Y’know. Any conspiracy theorist worth their salt would have to feel they’d just been sniped from the music conservatory.

            Good heads are rolling as result of this “resident of Boston,( I _)actually know(ing)people_ who were maimed…..'”
            In the spirit of discovery, perhaps empathy could relate more clearly the facts known to her/him “from the field” just to clear a little of the smoke ……

          • I’ve been reluctant to engage in the Boston stuff for a few reasons. Mainly it’s that I’m under-informed, which is partly intentional, since I’m limited in the number of conspiracy theories I have time and energy for, and this one appears doomed in the sense that the odds of me making useful hay out of it versus just convincing more people that I’m an unreliable nut job seem screamingly poor, regardless of the truth of the matter.

            However, because of my overall favorable impression of Chris and the strength of his conviction that the evidence in the Brassard video settles the matter definitively, I did just invest six minutes of life in it. I must say, with all due respect to the beloved community member and doubtlessly better informed Chris, I was personally astonished at how weak that video was. I mention it because it does seem relevant to Tom’s presentation. It is full of unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions, for example a random orange bag is suddenly asserted to be a repository of fake blood for no discernible, let alone convincing, reason. Grainy still-frames of shoes are put forward as incontrovertible proof of lack of injury to underlying feet. Me, I wasn’t even convinced to my satisfaction about whose shoe I was looking at. A visibly limping putative Brossard is described as obviously totally uninjured. There were several times when Brossards under discussion were not even definitively present in the frame being referenced.

            Sorry Chris, no offense, I still welcome and value your thoughts and your participation and I say this in the warm spirit of comradely friendship, but that video is, let me be frank, a pile of utterly useless nonsense. It is guaranteed to do us more harm than good, and as such is a perfect illustration of Tom’s point.

  20. A six minute investment into this horror is of absolutely no material worth.
    6 to 60 hours at minimum.
    Begin at Russ Bakers http://whowhatwhy.org

    • Yes remo, WhoWhatWhy has had the most comprehensive coverage on the incident by far. There’s so much about this whole episode which has been overlooked it makes me want to scream. Have they covered crisis actors? Where are you trying to go with this comment?

    • Remo: granted, six minutes doesn’t constitute serious research. I know. I think you missed the point though, which is that this six-minute video is what Chris posted as his first choice of incontrovertible proof that the Brossards were frauds. And I found it less than compelling, to say the least, for the specific reasons I mentioned. That was my only, rather limited, point: that this video is a good example of a bad argument. Maybe all the rest of the evidence is completely persuasive.

      I acknowledge that, even from what little I know, there are excellent reasons to be suspicious of the Boston event. The fact that the drill team happened to be on the scene at the same time is a huge red flag. I get it. However, as I suggested previously, I have made the personal determination that there are going to be better ways to spend my time. This one, true or not, looks to me like a hard sell that is very likely to prove counterproductive. However unfortunate that might be. When you consider the overwhelming quantity and quality of evidence about Building 7 and most people still don’t buy it, good luck with offending the hell out of people with Boston theories. We all have to choose our battles and I’m never going to choose this one. But for those of you who do, naturally I wish you luck.

      • chris bagg says:

        John- I’m glad you had a chance to spend six minutes looking at the actual evidence of fraud. Let me just reiterate some of it here. Karen Brassard was said to have a quarter sized piece of pipe protruding an inch from her left calf, (That would be the lower part of the leg.) and another two inch piece embedded in her right calf. At the 1:41 minute mark in the video we can see a clear picture of front of Karen’s left calf. It is undamaged, and no quarter sized piece of pipe is protruding from it. At the 1:49 minute mark we have a clear shot of the back of her left calf. Still no damage whatsoever! Where is the quarter sized pipe she claims was protruding from her left leg? At the 2:00 minute mark we see both views simultaneously, with no blood or damage visible. What else do you need to convince yourself that Karen Brassard is lying?

        But there is more. Karen disappears from view for a few moments to go into a nearby store. At no point is she even lying down, let alone showing any discomfort with her legs. When she returns she now has a bright red substance on her hand, and a dark stain on her pants leg, though still no damage visible, and there is a new spot of “blood” on the ground near Ron’s head that was not there in earlier frames. Watch the PlasmaBurns video on the Valverde Fraudsters and you will see a short clip of Karen running unhampered down the street. How could she have managed this with a large chunk of shrapnel in both calves? Doesn’t any of this evidence make you even slightly skeptical about her claims of injuries?

        • Hi Chris. First of all, since some people seem jittery about even talking about this, let me start by saying I have no problem with you making this argument, no problem talking about it, I don’t think it has to be toxic, and I do think it’s relevant to Tom’s topic. Also, this community has an unusual and pleasant mix of critical thinking and openness so it’s kind of an ideal place to discuss it I think, as long as it stays open and friendly which I think it is.

          Let me also say, maybe you’re right. For me, this video does nothing to convince me, or really even make me slightly skeptical, no. I have skepticism, but it comes from other facts, other sources, like the history of the Tsarnaevs. Anyway, you’ve described what you see when you look at the video. Here’s what I see in the first two minutes or so:

          0:58: group of people said to be ron, krystara, and karen, totally unclear to me, I’m unable to feel confident that it’s actually them.
          1:10 “blood pack being stomped on”, erm, really? I cannot agree that the video shows this.
          1:14 “blood pack after she removed lid”, well, it looks like a coffee cup to me? I do see a lid but I see no blood coming out of the cup.
          1:32 circles around blurry things, totally impossible to tell what they are; am I supposed to be seeing fake blood? I don’t.
          1:55 is that karen behind two other people and we can’t see anything about her leg?
          2:00 two side-by-side pictures, in neither one do we get a good look at her leg, although the caption confidently declares “completely undamaged”; irresponsibility has now run rampant.
          2:06 an assertion that “the White tented area” is “where they created her wounds” — a completely evidence-free assertion — would these be the wounds that we can’t even see? I’m lost.

          See, by now, I’m not only not convinced, I’m highly skeptical of the whole video. I could go on, but suffice to say the rest of the thing does not improve, from my perspective.

          Sorry, maybe I’m not patient enough or perceptive enough to see what’s going on in the video. Maybe I’m not smart enough. But if I’m on a jury and this is the evidence I’m shown, does it tell me anything beyond a reasonable doubt? Hell no, Chris. Hell no.

          • chris bagg says:

            John- I am surprised that you think that a pipe the size of a quarter protruding an inch from Karen’s calf might somehow not be visible in the two photos placed side by side, one from the front and one the back. The photos are quite clear and show nothing at all protruding from her calf on either side, nor any other kind of damage. Am I missing something here? What do other people think? Furthermore, how is it possible that she could be pictured walking around unhindered with a large piece of shrapnel in each calf? One was supposed to be a three inch chunk of pipe embedded in her muscle. Did you watch PlasmaBurn’s “Valverde Fraudsters” video? A clip at the end shows Karen Brassard walking, then running down the street. It is clearly her, as we can see her for a moment up close in exactly the same clothes, with the same features. How could she possibly be running unhindered with a chunk of metal in each calf? The video also demolishes Mildred Valverde’s claim that she and her daughter were both injured. Again there is conclusive photographic evidence.

            It is a simple matter to trace the movements of the Brassard family in the photos shot from the office window. (the Ben Thorndike photos) Ron is the bald guy wearing the Duke sweat shirt with the sunglasses. Karen and Krystara are standing next to him. There is no question that the person with the uninjured calf in these pictures is Karen. Ron can also be seen in these photos walking around on what was supposed to be a “leg with a baseball sized hole in it”. He was supposed to be leaving a “puddle of blood with every step”. One of the photos clearly shows the “injured” left leg with no blood whatsoever dripping from it. His shoe should have been covered in blood had he been leaving a puddle with every step. I don’t know what to say John, perhaps a pair of reading glasses would help.

          • I was wearing my reading glasses! 🙂 Well, look, I don’t know how you’re certain it’s even them in the video, as far as I can actually tell it could be three completely other people. If I was in a room with Karen Brassard and I could show her the video, the first thing I’d ask is “is that you?”.

            I’m just not comfortable enough judging somebody’s injuries by what I think I see or don’t see through their clothing on a grainy video to go ahead and declare with certainty that these people are lying, fraudulent, “crisis actors”. It’s an extreme claim and it requires extremely strong evidence. This, to my mind, is enough to stimulate further questions, fair enough. Not to declare case closed. It may be a fair criticism to say I’m setting the standard-of-proof bar too high. I believe you are setting it rather too low.

          • John,

            Well-made points; echoed my thoughts on this as well.

          • chris bagg says:

            John and Sibel: I am absolutely mystified by your inability to see something that is right in front of you, clear as day. There is nothing grainy about these photographs; these are high-resolution digital images. There is no question that we are looking at the woman who calls herself Karen Brassard, and who has made verifiably false claims about her injuries. She has no injuries in these photos and can be seen running in a fashion that would be impossible had they been real. Claiming that you cannot see something that is plainly evident is a very dodgy way to win an argument.

            Why haven’t you watched of the other videos on the BMB in PlasmaBurns’ collection? There is equally good evidence in all of them. Tell me how you explain Mildred Valverde’s lies about her own and her daughter’s injuries. Why haven’t the doctors told them that they are faking it?

            Watch the above linked video from PlasmaBurns titled “Boston Weak” showing the interaction of Jeff Bauman and Christian Williams, and try to come up with a reasonable explanation for what Williams is doing pushing down on what looks like the stump of Bauman’s severed leg. Is this what someone would really be doing to a complete stranger a mere three seconds after experiencing a totally unexpected bomb blast? Williams himself claimed to have suffered severe leg injuries as well as a right hand that had been stripped of its skin on the last three fingers. Why, then, is he using both hands to put that strap on Bauman’s leg which compresses it in an impossible fashion, then pops off? Its a tourniquet, you say? Then why was this episode left out of the demonstrably false narrative we were given about how Carlos the cowboy saved Jeff’s life by pushing him down the street in a wheelchair waving a bloody American flag? I suspect that the planners of this event would rather we not look too closely at those particular photographs of Bauman and Williams.

            All the more reason, then, that we should be especially interested, yet all we have from many here is a very conspicuous blind spot. All we have is a very conspicuous absence of interest, and an unwillingness to address the actual evidence. What gives? Why this obstinate refusal to acknowledge the proven existence of “crisis actors”?Is this your mandate Sibel and Co.?

          • Chris. Pro tip: Banging on tables and insulting people has never in the history of discussions persuaded anyone to a different point of view. A different opinion of the table-banger maybe.

            Here’s what you don’t get: no amount of videos that combine intriguing footage of insufficiently identified people’s legs with over-reaching claims about blood-satchel coffee cups will ever, on their own, in a million years, convince me to put 100% faith in the “crisis actors” theory. I have too much natural distrust. So many bits of a story can turn out to be wrong, or to have been unfaithfully presented. I have known too many charlatans and con men. The video also feels a bit hokey to me somehow. That is why I’m not bothering to watch more of your treasure trove of “equally good” videos.

            Has anyone found any of these people and interviewed them, asking them about the apparent discrepancies? How about a little actual research? Video alone ain’t gonna do it for me. Ever. I don’t reject your theory, but I can’t embrace it on this basis. OK? Accept it: it’s a fact. Stop banging the table. Now have a cup of tea and chill out, cuz there’s only one person around here being obstinate.

          • p.s. One final thing. You believe something is plainly evident that I still have questions about. You call that a “dodgy way to win an argument.” So here’s something else you clearly do not get: I’m not trying to win an argument. I was trying to have a discussion.

          • 🙂 🙂 🙂

          • … 🙂

          • CuChulainn says:

            one technical defect of this forum is that only the last 5 comments appear. so comments like the above have the effect of burying previous comments without necessarily contributing anything of substance.

          • Personally, I’d like to think the occasional smile, virtual or not, doesn’t do anybody too much harm. I don’t think discussion will benefit much from worrying about whether any given comment is worthy of the “last 5” feature on the front page. CuChulainn, might I suggest ticking one or both of the notify features at the bottom of each item you’re following, then you won’t be totally reliant on the “last 5” to keep up on things, and we won’t have to worry about whether we’ve possibly annoyed you.

          • I actually appreciated the feedback. CuChulainn worded the comment very diplomatically, so I felt that it was helpful and not just finger wagging. I also use the email feature and apply a BFP mailbox filter so my inbox doesn’t get out of control, but in the interest of those who use the top five, the second smiley face I posted as a separate comment was an unnecessary stylistic flourish. The sentiment still applies though. 😉

          • chris bagg says:

            If we really were having a discussion here John, then I would have expected you to review as much of the evidence as possible. That you have clearly not done. The reason that I have persisted in trying to persuade you to have a look is that I know it is very compelling. Others here have agreed with me. You are doing no one any favors by loudly insisting that you can’t see things that are plainly evident and encouraging others not to look. You are fooling no one but yourself and perhaps Benny here. Enough said, I will continue my commentary in the next installment of Secker’s podcast.

    • Let me slightly amend my response: I think the crisis actors/fake event angle is a hard sell. The connections between the Tsarnaevs and the FBI and CIA (Graham Fuller), and the contradictions in the prosecution’s own story seem to me to be far more worthwhile angles.

  21. My comment recognises empathy as someone I do not automatically accept the truth of.
    I need convincing.
    Everything I have seen of Boston, screams F A K E

    • So you’re basically calling Empathy a liar until you get sufficient proof… Yes, everything screams FAKE to me too, but as a rebuttal to someone saying they weren’t convinced by the crisis actor video theory you’re telling them to go to an excellent, comprehensive resource for coverage of the event; whowhatwhy.com, that covers everything except the crisis actor theory!

      This topic is poison and wherever the truth lies what’s being argued about here is the master stroke on the part of those who really orchestrated what happened to keep the suckers, myself included, bickering amongst ourselves. I don’t have the kind of discipline Sibel has in not allowing herself to get dragged down in this sort of toxic, divisive trap, so I’m going to do the best thing I can think of and stop following this discussion, since I clearly can’t just let it things go. Right now I’m just allowing myself to be part of the problem. Hopefully the next podcast won’t rekindle this sorry ass debate. (@Tom: sorry, it’s not your fault. Matter of fact; I think you swatted at the right hornet’s nest to bring part of the problem to the fore. Until the next episode though… 😉

  22. I said I was going to stop following this, but I was just doing a video search starting with Freddie Gray and one of the first suggestions was “Freddie Gray Hoax”. I decided to see what came up and what do you know: tons of obnoxious “air quotes” around words and references to the whole thing being a psyop, some suggesting he didn’t die. I’m sorry, this sort of trivialization of what happened to Freddie Gray and of the underlying social conditions that form the backdrop both for the incident and the subsequent riots disgusts me. These are the sorts of conspiracy theorists which Tom alluded to in the podcast which are an embarrassment to have to be associated with and, in my opinion, are part of the reason it’s so easy to write off conspiracy theorists as a whole. Particularly when the line of inquiry is so repellent. Crisis actors in psyops are probably going to become increasingly popular as the deep state knows it can count on a sufficient number of conspiracy theorists to make it their life’s work to prove that “nobody got injured” or “killed” while other people like Russ Baker for example find themselves increasingly marginalized.

    I’ll try to exercise some restraint moving forward, but this is just toxic and I already see bad things happening here and find myself unable to hold my peace. Hopefully I’m not making things worse…

    • dancingbrave says:

      Benny and Empathy

      I agree with this comment from Remo-
      ‘In the spirit of discovery, perhaps empathy could relate more clearly the facts known to her/him “from the field” just to clear a little of the smoke ……’

      Considering the heated debate it would be very interesting to know whether Empathy for example knew these people in person before or after the Boston bombing? I realise this casts some doubt but I don’t think this is rude question but important as the answer sheds more light on a subject many are interested in. If I simply asserted I knew people who were injured (actually from the UK but it makes no difference to pretend I am from Boston) then I would fully expect to be asked further questions and so should any one else in my opinion.

  23. I said ” begin at” Russ B. Internet is fragmented information flow. If whowhatwhy won’t set up the viewer to finding the excellent dissections of video on Boston out of Individual interest. .. As it is with this discussion. The excerpt documentary in the podcast describes awful manipulation perpetrated by one boy on another via internet, discovered by analysis of the data. The “pattern” in the data. My argument is, that were the gross anomalies exposed in the visual record as opposed to the narrative presented or OCT,;investigated at same depth, two realities would collide. Those two realities exist for a reason. How Empathy’s statements relate to either of them is not established, and are by precedent, suspicious in the blogosphere ‘derail’ department so onus is on empathy.
    It is clear that there are huge discrepancies between theOCT and the available imagery. The digital data does not mesh with official narrative. That is the question. Don’t panic. There are experts out there trying to fuck us up.

  24. Well this is a lot of comments. A good first show, looking forward to the rest.

    The term itself is flawed, it implies a blind belief. ‘Critical thinking’ is better, as that implies a thoughtful analysis of the available evidence. And you may go off on a wrong tangent but so long as you are not too wedded to any particular narative then you should be able to get as close to the truth as is possible.

    I’m still waiting for the perpetrators of 911 to give me a call explaining exactly what went on, so until then I’ve heard ideas that seem impossible, implausable, possible, likely, almost certain etc etc. But I’ve no definately certain idea of how it all transpired, I was just not in the loop, but having said that I’m certain that I’m closer to the truth than someone who hasn’t looked into this at all, other than the official narrative and a vague knowledge that there are some unfounded loopy ‘conspiracy theories’.

    • davev,

      “…so until then I’ve heard ideas that seem impossible, implausable, possible, likely, almost certain etc etc. But I’ve no definately certain idea of how it all transpired, I was just not in the loop, but having said that I’m certain that I’m closer to the truth than …”- And I call this healthy and critical thinking: healthy dosage of skepticism, curiosity, open-mindedness, willingness to openly accept our limitation … Very sound:-)

  25. I haven’t read all of your posts but earlier I posted this to get things on a more positive note.

    “After reading under some other pod casts tonight I have to ask. How do you know this info you presented isn’t just disinfo?

    We always gripe about how we have this and that and some other stuff, but none of it is ever enough. Why don’t we direct the conversation to HOW we can make sure info is reliable? I can’t recall if I am still on the disinfo podcast as I should be asleep now. But ime going to start off with the following proposals for gathering info. They’ll probably suck but here goes.

    1) A surveillance society. We need more Lou’s.

    2) An AI. A real one, not a VI. Only way to sift through all the garbage.”

    I would like to add.

    You know THEY have counter intelligence screw you up by feeding you appetizing BS? Can you make use of counter intelligence type stuff directed at them? Turn them in on themselves?

  26. @CuChulainn: Sorry about that and thanks for the heads up. I didn’t realize the way it worked. Usually I just look at the text in the email notification. Actually, I’m still not quite sure what you mean (how it works). Would you care to elaborate?

  27. CuChulainn says:

    on the BFP homepage there is a list of the five most recent posts at the bottom of the page; for me, and probably others who don’t have time to check all forums all the time, or inbox space to follow all messages here, this is the way to keep track of recent posts.

  28. What is this..
    formation of a special Pentagon unit, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group…?
    Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq.
    http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/357L/200603FAPillarVsBushAdmin.htm
    Kind Regards
    Jens.

Speak Your Mind