DisInfoWars with Tom Secker- How to Avoid the Abyss

In the following on from the last episode I had a casual late night chat with Guillermo Jimenez of De-Manufacturing Consent. We picked up on some of the ideas and comments on the previous episode and fleshed them out, talking about our own experiences of trying to maintain sanity while investigating the insane. The core topics in this conversation are the importance of skepticism, intuition and having a sense of humor.

Listen to the Preview Clip Here

Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

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. great show guys. I have very much found that humour is a great trojan horse for getting information (true & untrue & inbetween) across to people. tv commercials use this technique ad nauseum these days. comedians george carlin, bill hicks, lee camp & others used/use humour very well to get people thinking. it seems to lower your boundaries enough to let some info in and allow you to consider different viewpoints. i imagine studies have been done on the effects of humour on one’s acceptance of information due to hormone releases of some kind but i haven’t looked it to it as of yet.
    as for skepticism & open mindedness i agree that having both is very necessary but with a basis in logic. as you said with the boston bombing & sandy hook, why would the facilitators of the conspiracy chance a leak of some kind from crisis actors etc when it’s a tried a true, possibly enjoyed by some, method to kill real people in similar terror inducing events.
    i look forward to more discussion on these topics.
    cheers

  2. Tom & Guillermo, great show and great theme: CONSPIRACY.

    Tom, I linked a short video of NYU media professor Mark Crispin Miller in response to your documentation query on the 1967 CIA memo in previous episode talking about the evolution of the deliberate pejorative use of “conspiracy theory” in corporate media (search: ‘Failure to Report youtube’ and it should pop up. No direct link as I’m avoiding a “comment in moderation” delay. From minute 1:00 to minute 7:00+).

    In brief, the CIA memo is a clear example of the weaponization of language from an elite organization and directed at the masses via assets. One is left to wonder whether its eventual success was fully foreseen. Miller points out that historically it was “a given” that the British would attempt to subvert the young American Republic, the difference today being that the power center in the world has shifted from the UK to DC (hence, the conspiracy to maintain power has shifted to OUR elites, feeding their proclivity to engage in conspiracy). Quite a trick when one considers how well developed the concept of conspiracy is in the US legal codes.

    The “anxiety” we all feel post the 9/11-anthrax attack is normal as it was our own people who were gruesomely harmed and the evidence strongly – overwhelmingly, I’d argue – leans toward inside construction and complicity. It’s akin to discovering that one’s favorite uncle turns out to be ‘Chester the Molester’.

    “Trustworthiness of the modern media lens.” Great point. It seems that in viewing, say, inconsistencies in the Boston Bomber videos that one must start with confirming the authenticity, context and sequence of the images presented. The least one can say about the videos I’ve seen is that the origins, context and sequences lack academic rigor. Far more compelling for me personally was the connection between the suspects and the FBI and that their uncle was not only married into the family of a notorious CIA figure, Graham Fuller, but that he wasted no time in judging his nephews ahead of any real evidentiary findings. Sibel, et al, were helpful there.
    One tool that’s helped me in thinking about news events is by applying the Inverse Square Law from physics (applied to gravity, if one doubles the distance from the source, the gravitational force falls by 4 times, etc.). My naive application of the Inverse Square Law is simply that the further one is removed from an event the more careful one must be in ascertaining the facts of the event. One of the real tricks of modern media is in getting us to form strong opinions about things we know little or nothing about.
    One other observation on media is that while many/most things get reported, the key is what’s repeated. The classic here is the unprecedented collapse of WTC 7, which was reported (hell, CNN kept their camera on it), but which disappeared from TV screens the very next day and thereafter.

    Finally, I’d love to hear an episode on the subject of “they”. Astute observers rightly point out the deficiencies of leaning on this imprecise term – we should ‘name the names’ – but it’s ever more difficult and borders on ridiculous when this criticism is levied by those in power who do everything possible to hide and obfuscate the facts. Whatever truly happened at Sandy Hook, say, one can’t argue that the lock down on evidentiary information has been stunning. This is a sharp community and I’d love to move the ball on exactly who THEY are!

    • Something strange happened at Sandy Hook for sure. I have wondered (speculating here) whether this wasn’t some sort of cult sacrifice, pinned on a lone gunman because that’s the easy cover story.

      I agree totally about the media – most things do get reported, but the stuff that gets reported once and then for no obvious reason is dropped to the bottom of the agenda is often where the real paydirt lies.

      • It’s amazing the things they will let out at the 4 and 5 am news on CBC Radio, which are country-wide. Many interesting things there will NEVER be repeated during the day. A few exceptions was how the Syrian Gas Attack didn’t make sense for Bashar Al-Assad to be doing as UN guys just arrived…that they carried for 2-3 days max, and I expect most of the media elsewhere did the same, hence creating the momentum in Britain that really said no way to a “real” intervention in Syria. The kind that Lybia had, right now Syria’s government space isn’t violated, but the space it doesn’t control it leaves Americans to do some stuff, but it’s nowhere near the NATO massacre of Lybia, thankfully a low-population country, but unfortunately what was the richest African country which did “trickle down” to people and immigrants.

    • Much of the real powerhouses are in the City of London, pretty much all roads go back to the Tavistock Institute and the Royal Institute For International Affrais, eerily shortly created before the behemoth of all evil the Federal Reserve…UK’s soft power is what is forcing the US to bend over to AIPAC so much, it was a british noble class thing to create Israel (Balfour Declaration – 1917).

      • In a video/podcast I watched (I can’t think of which one at the moment), it was mentioned that Hitler spent some time at the Tavistock Institute and that some of his family members stated that he was never the same afterwards; that his behavior had taken a dramatic turn for the worse. I haven’t done my own research to back up that claim, but in the context it was mentioned it sounded totally reasonable. Hitler didn’t just emerge on the scene out of nowhere and his associations with the elite political and business figures prior to his “officially” being branded as the face of evil (not without good reason, but not with the kind of branding of exclusivity he’s been classified with by popular Western culture) are well documented.

        • Yes, I should find the info for you later, but the sister-in-law of Hitler wrote a book about her life and said that Hitler went to Britain in 1907 and came back totally different. Probably one of the first victims of effective brainwashing that caused so much pain and suffering. (Siran Siran killed one guy, one great guy though…).

          • I’ll look for the book’s name tomorrow if you don’t find it not-using google. use duckduckgo or ixquick for stuff that tends to be pushed down in google results…

  3. I enjoyed the show, but I had a hard time paying attention because it seems like you weren’t really talking to “Guillermo”. It sounded like you were talking with a woman who was pretending to be “Guillermo”. I’m even more certain this is the case because I could tell that you sounded different at the beginning and end of the podcast. Why else would you use a separate recording of that conversation if not to deceive us? Either you’re trying to fool us with this fraudulent deception you scoundrel, or this so called “Guillermo” mistress has been planted as part of a psyop hoax that you aren’t aware of! 😉

    Seriously, though… thanks Tom, I enjoyed the podcast and your conversation with Guillermo (the real one;-) made me feel a little bit more sane. Looking forward to forthcoming series. Sounds interesting.

    • BennyB,

      See, just in practice: a little sense of humor goes a long way:-)))

      By the way: Have you see the conspiracy posts on my ‘ear’? The one that says I am not ‘Sibel Edmonds’ but some Israeli woman who had plastic surgeries to alter her look and become ‘me’? They are showing two earlobes, and saying the earlobes indicates that I am ‘that woman.’:-)))))))))

      • lol!!!
        No, I hadn’t seen those, but that confirms my deep suspicion that BFP is really just a front the Mossad… 😉

        • You got it, Benny! A joint CIA-Mossad operation.

          • btw: Did you see Sy Hersh’s explosive exposé on the Bin Laden operation? It seems the story we were getting from the Obama Administration was all wrong! I believe it turns out that they caught Bin Laden watching Dancing with the Stars in an assisted living home, then fed him to a lion. 😉

      • Ronald Orovitz says:

        Re: your ‘ear’ – that must be an Ed Chiarini joint. I must say, he is a great entertainer. And I have to admit, a lot of these out there conspiracy theorists are very entertaining, so it is a guilty pleasure…

    • BFP is obviously a CIA-Mossad operation, and my arrival signifies the involvement of MI6. Isn’t it obvious? If you look at a picture of my ears and a picture of Sibel’s ears then you’ll see we are in fact one and the same person. Even though we differ enormously in height, weight, gender and skin colour. But obviously all that’s just CGI and fake beards.

      Seymour Hersh’s ‘alternative history of the war on terror’ is laughable, for the most part, and his Bin Laden story was quite absurd. Just like the argument we got over who actually fired the fatal shot, this is all a distraction from the central question: was it Bin Laden? And the likely answer: no it bloody well wasn’t.

      I have read the book No Easy Day, the one by the Navy SEAL who was on the Abbottabad mission and I will do a book review episode on it at some point.

      • “Seymour Hersh’s ‘alternative history of the war on terror’ is laughable,” – Yeah, I bet it’s about as hard hitting as Mickey Mouse in a pair of boxing gloves…

        “I have read the book No Easy Day, the one by the Navy SEAL who was on the Abbottabad mission and I will do a book review episode on it at some point.” – Because it has comedic value or no?

        • It has some comedic value, but there is also some very suspicious stuff in there too. And I want to do more book review shows because I do read a lot, but mostly talk about films and TV dramas in podcasts. It just strikes me as a good idea for an episode.

          • I’d be totally interested in that book review. I’m intrigued by the suggestive programming within the interior of “state sponsored” entertainment propaganda (I think I’m safe in the assumption that the book in question is not a work of philosophical or literary genius), however I haven’t sufficiently mastered the suppression of my gag reflex to take on that kind of reader’s digest, so I’d appreciate your insight. 😉

          • Have you checked out Pearse and my latest project The CIA and Hollywood?

            And yes, you’re right, the book itself is quite terrible. And boring. A lot like Zero Dark Thirty in that respect.

          • No, I haven’t checked that yet. Where’s it at?

            Yeah, I don’t know if I could stand watching Zero Dark Thirty. Btw: Have you seen A Hijacking (Kapringen)? I think you could describe it roughly as the Danish equivalent of Captain Phillips. I was pretty impressed with it and taken aback at how differently this must have been from something like Captain Phillips which I haven’t seen (and I’m not sure that I would want to for the same reasons as ZDT), or any other similar Hollywood take on similar subject matter. If you haven’t I’d definitely recommend checking it out.

          • http://www.spyculture.com/tag/the-cia-and-hollywood/

            There are 7 episodes and some other posts too. It’s really a strong series, and you don’t have to have watched the films for it to make sense.

            I have not seen A Hijacking, or Captain Phillips. I will add it to my ever growing list of films to watch, and maybe do a show comparing it to Captain Phillips.

          • A Hijacking is on Netflix and I’d probably watch Captain Phillips if they add it at some point but I’m definitely not going to go out of my way to see it.

            Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out.

          • Tom,
            Great podcast. I just checked out the “Enemy of the State” episode. I highly recommend this out other BFP members. I have some thoughts on what was discussed which I might come back to, but I’ll just leave it at this for now.

          • Although somewhat off topic, but general enough to be a relevant part of the general conversation, it occurred to me while I was listening to a few of these podcasts (which are excellent by the way:) that a possible motive for the commonly occurring “rogue” intelligence agency character, such as Al Pacino in “The Recruit”, are a way of creating a sort of character model to fall back on in instances where there’s an unintended exposure of any “rogue” (aka: business as usual) operations. Thus when the excuse that the operation in question is only a case of “a few bad apples; not the norm”, it sounds more plausible as there’s a basis for this scenario in the psyche of the general public who have been exposed to these films. Just a thought.

            Btw: relating to books… you a fan of John le Carré at all? I don’t really know anything about Cornwell, other than his MI5/MI6 background, but I’ve enjoyed a handful of his books I’ve read.

        • Weren’t they all killed ?

  4. I believe it was Sibel who referred to him as C-I-Amor Hersh. That has stuck as one of my favorite humorous play on names. However, Intelligence Services Instigating S*** and Criminals In Action male for some tough choices.

    • Yeah, I like that too. How about: Seymour credible journalists for reliable information. 😉

      • Even better- I can’t believe I forgot Je Suis Gladio!
        On a serious note, Tom and Guillermo- when you guys were speaking about intuition and how to approach others about “conspiracy” topics. Intuition is developed off a personal base of knowledge. It wasn’t until reading William Blum’s Killing Hope and then hearing Sibel’s discussions on Gladio B that the totality of it all sunk in for me. It gave me a framework for what is possible and why these methods are used over and over. An idea of what the real agendas. Sometimes it takes being personally harmed in one arena to understand the rest is completely corrupt and all lies. Take my mother-in-law- a year ago she is telling me things like “if we just got rid of Medicaid/welfare everything would be fine” and asking me questions like” how come we send all these condoms to Africa and they still keep getting AIDS”. She is retired and living off her savings which is really being effected by zero interest rates and inflation on cost of living. She is now catching onto the game that is being played by the central banks and Wall Street all on her own. I was pretty shocked to hear her say there is nothing democratic about private central banks and their debt money and they need to go. To hear her say she is very skeptical about our healthcare industry anymore. She brought up the Boston Marathon bombing and seemed very intrigued when I told her about Graham Fuller/uncle connection. Agreed that the FBI/CIA have a lot to be accountable for there and that’s a completely different ball game than 2 nut job brothers acting on their own. It was the financial aspect in her life and feeling like a fool for believing the MSM about the economy/Fed policy that has started to lead to her beginning to develop some intuition and begin to be open to new information. However, it was very much up to me to pick the right information and angle to not overwhelm her and affirm that yes your intuition is spot on.

    • steven hobbs says:

      Hi Tom & Guillermo,
      Tom: “You got to trust your intuition, and your gut instincts, and keep working at them.
      And, that’s what we as humans have the ability to do. But, you’ve got to keep working at them and making them more subtle, discerning, and refined. I suppose. And, this is what self-consciousness enables us to do.” — Oh man. I feel a bellyache coming on. Thanks guys…

      I’m going to work now on Vegas nerve, be back with you soon.

  5. Tom, Guillermo:
    I don’t really want to be the Grinch that stole segment 2; however I’m going to lay out different categories NOT to make you feel Guilty, but hopefully to consider a simple way of observing the play(is the thing) in which we creatures stumble about.
    Category 1. Discussions about topics that SEEM important and should be discussed(or not).
    Examples: —Are the masses of Western civilization undereducated about the world?
    —Why does racism persist throughout the globe?
    —Why do so many world “leaders” seem a touch psychopathic?
    Category 2. Discussions about extremely serious phenomena which have a “brute reality” to them.
    Examples: — The “Nuclear fuel cycle”(from mining uranium to a series of processing
    plants to the REACTOR itself to stored highly dangerous “SPENT FUEL”).
    —The unknown dimensions of global geo-Engineering.
    —-The vastness of human waste(plastics, sewage, etc.)
    Note that Category 1 topics lead quickly to endless opinions, endless “experts’, endless talking heads, raging egos, and a sense of non- resolution. Whereas, Category 2 topics consist of a “brute reality”. In fact they are killing us by an overwhelming number of deaths–Many deaths are delayed-cancer, autoimmune system compromised and many are sudden. Category 2 topics con be ignored, but at an ever-growing price.
    And, yes, I’ve brought these topics up with friends over the years. These things are real. Some had never heard of a couple of them and were stunned; and, as you probably can guess, some absolutely did not want to talk about these existential physical realities. Bam! Denial!
    Maybe that’s the key word–“PHYSICAL REALITIES” pressing ever tighter. Category 1 topics are, in effect, abstractions—Category 2–that’s the shit we breath and drink.

    Two physicists walk into a bar…one of them forgot to duck. This is a family show and keep straight ahead.

  6. Empathy says:

    I would comment on how much I enjoyed this discussion… but there’s no point, as neither of you are real people, and are clearly shape shifting reptilian aliens.

    • Empathy,

      I love a good dosage of laughter first thing in the morning:-)))) I believe you have seen the comment @ Corbett YouTube? We are reptilians!! Just watch how my eyes are moving … you see that? And if you want another solid piece of evidence: why the videos show only our chest up? Because we want to hide our scales and tails!!! That’s a proof- right there!!!!

      Thank you for brightening my day:-)

      • Empathy says:

        We need to laugh as much as possible! Even knowing the little that we know about the real state of affairs in this sick world, it’s far to easy to forget the miracle that we are here on this beautiful blue rock in the middle of nowhere. We must never forget to laugh and love, or there is nothing left worth fighting for.

      • Hi Sibel,

        what video have trolls (they have to be) going off against James like that, I’d like a link to laugh and maybe flag them while at it.

  7. Very interesting and thoughtful episode, thanks gentlemen. I have a few thoughts so I’ll try to make them brief, (and will fail as usual).

    Instinct. While it is an indispensable human tool, and a finely tuned BS detector is essential, I guess the problem is, I trust mine, you trust yours, but what about everyone else’s? For a lot of people, their instincts tell them anyone who doesn’t watch TV 12 hours a day is a Commie. So it’s a bit like advising people to “be smart”. Great if you’ve got the goods.

    I love the Line of Crazy and yeah we’ve all got it but I basically try to override it. As you guys noted it’s important to balance it out with healthy skepticism and an open mind. If you’re a 9/11 skeptic, as you know, you’re way on the other side of a lot of people’s Line of Crazy. So I’ve decided not to do that to anyone else. I’ll either roll up the old sleeves and have a look at what they’ve got for evidence, or I’ll suspend judgement.

    You guys mentioned the need not to be overbearing or obsessive or weird, and keep a sense of humor. Right on. And that I think is way more important than the theory itself, whatever it might be. Present it well and don’t hit people over the head. Don’t get mad. Don’t get frustrated. Don’t insult people or accuse them of being CIA agents carving out a limited hangout. Don’t be a nut job. Be a normal person with a life. Present your ideas thoughtfully, to discuss, not to convince. To quote Mick Jagger: It ain’t the song, it’s the singer. It ain’t the theory, it’s the nut job.

    We can’t stop people from having theories we think are crazy. We can’t help being associated with them. But I think what we need in these cases more than instincts are criteria. Signs that things are amiss. Just to suggest the sort of things I’m thinking of, they might include (but not be limited to):

    — physical evidence that isn’t being accounted for
    — when reports are written before investigations are done
    — when investigations don’t follow established protocols of investigation, obvious leads aren’t followed etc
    — evidence of witness intimidation
    — witnesses getting slapped with gag orders
    — serious omissions and/or misrepresentations of evidence in reports
    — flagrant violations of scientific protocol in scientific reports (e.g., computer models with secret inputs)

    Right? A good, well-vetted, well-tested, consensus set of criteria might be helpful to sort of ‘professionalize’ the nut job, I mean conspiracy theorist community. Let’s not dismiss anybody’s theory using the same exact arguments people have used on our own theories. Things that start with “but why would they” or “why wouldn’t they” invite speculation — what we really need is usually more along the lines of “what did they” and “what didn’t they”.

    I knew I’d fail at being brief. Ah well.

    • dancingbrave says:

      I agree with all of Johns comments but I want to elaborate on this one ‘Let’s not dismiss anybody’s theory using the same exact arguments people have used on our own theories.’ What one person finds funny might differ from some one else, I am not entirely sure a conspiracy theorist mocking another conspiracy theorist would actually achieve the goal, it sounds kind of comical, also the side taking in the comments to the last podcast was elitist where some conspiracy theorists ‘are more equal than others’, again kind of comical if you wish. I agree that a comic element is needed to make the dark side of politics more palatable ‘a trojan horse’ to the masses and to protect ones self if need be from getting dragged down (in my own case I get stomach pains and heartburn and its not just the coffee and the wine). I think there is a fine line between satire and anger, its possible to hide behind your own comic genius, to keep in the right spirit BFP members should be aware of this otherwise the respect built here is in danger of being lost.

      • Yes, and of course respect has to work both ways. If it means don’t dismiss without investigation, it must also mean respect other people’s Line of Crazy. The more angrily you browbeat, the more definitively you are encircled by Lines of Crazy. Even if you happen to be entirely correct in your assessment. Respect isn’t just a gift you bestow on others, it’s pure self-interest as well.

        Detachment and humor. Zen in the art of conspiracy theories.

      • Faruk Mustafa says:

        I also did not find the “line of crazy” amusing. I understand that bfp has an ideological outline they want to maintain, but I would think between this group of smart, informed people they could have knocked brains together and come up with a more sophisticated way to ensure that than name calling.
        If you don’t want to talk about “Subject X”, don’t talk about. But the subject was broached not once, but twice.
        Or, tell your audience you aren’t comfortable discussing it, or that you don’t agree with “that” theory. But to call folks “crazy” is a cheap shot. If Guillermo is right and they are crazy, then it’s a huge punch down, as well.
        Poor form, Guillermo.

        • Thanks for your thoughts, Faruk. I believe you may be misinterpreting Guillermo’s phrase though (or maybe I am). But the way I interpret it, the “Line of Crazy” is not calling anybody else a derogatory name; it’s referring to your own inner boundaries. We all have them (I think) and it’s probably not a bad idea to acknowledge them explicitly.

          Where I think you and I definitely agree is that, having cultivated an awareness of our own biases, we ought to be aware of the extent to which they are arbitrary; the extent to which we seem crazy to others; the extent to which these determinations arise from psychological factors rather than evidence; and above all the need, therefore, to catch ourselves when our knee-jerk reaction says “crazy”. For those of us who have ever been smirked at for suggesting that JFK’s autopsy had anomalies, or that steel and concrete should provide some resistance against falling objects, we kind of owe it to ourselves and to others to either investigate or suspend judgement of theories from across our personal lines of crazy. You know, if we value consistency and principles anyway.

          • Thank you.
            I certainly think frank, open discussion is the goal but it seems the crazy word is, and was used here, to halt any exploration into “Subject X”. Perhaps I took his point the wrong way.
            Won’t be the last time.

        • Faruk,
          I appreciate your comment and I agree with you that the name calling and put downs in the manner you described doesn’t serve the purpose of having a constructive conversation. I understand what Tom and Guillermo are getting at: that it’s necessary to have a measure of self-awareness and be willing to challenge those within our circles who seem to be off the mark, particularly when this manifests itself in ways which are counterproductive. Still, in most cases I think this ‘challenge’ requires some sort of verbal engagement on our parts, not just a general put down. I think it’s safe to say most of us here have experienced our fair share of being written off for challenging conventional “wisdom” or state sanctioned propaganda. This ought to be reason enough to be that much more sensitive and judicious about the basis on which we “draw the line” with respect to fellow BFP members. Actually “drawing the line”, even if it’s just used here as a figure of speech, seems like a frame of reference worth avoiding. Anyway though…

          As I indicated at the top: I don’t think being open minded means that we shouldn’t challenge people openly and directly where need be, but this ought to be a place where people feel comfortable speaking their mind without feeling like they’re going to be written off or ostracized without having a chance to defend their position. Of course there are instances which fall outside of what I just described, but I think we ought to be judicious about how we define these cases.

          I’ve certainly dismissed and criticized statements other BFP members have made, as has been done by others to me, but I’d like to think that I’m at least relatively fair about how I handle these interactions.

    • You’re getting it. Most of it is just flagrant physical realities (it being what really kills us slowly, yeah sure, humans never lived to be as old as of now, but I think this is a peak and it will regress or people who are so old and ill and would actually like to die are actually kept alive in most of the world.

      Yeah, the psychopaths and sociopaths (I think one is not as bad as the other, probably sociopaths,but in a way more dangerous because there are more of them) and their forced ideas aren’t just abstract things. Thankfully I picked chemistry rather randomly not knowing what to do with adult life like most people reaching 17-18 years old these days. I got all the benzos and morphine to die a peaceful death. To add to the rather bon-vivant vibe of the thread…what a surprise, devices used to measure sea rising levels in the 90’s due to “global warming” as it was called then were badly calibrated by a degree of over 35%, news on my local weather channel.

      I remember when I was 17 in my last year of high school with them telling us that if we didn’t do kyoto protocol everywhere the planet would be fried by 2015.

      Oh yeah, I do believe in pollutions of all kinds and pesticides being extremely bad for humanity (and the ecosystem), if the bees are totally gone one day, we’re strangely close enough to be in trouble ourselves, not an extinction but….

      Also, apparently Israel is situated in a very seismic active area, thats news to me, but if true….I think Jeovah has to rock the boat of all these “I-Became-A-Nazi-Because-Of-Nazis”. Nationalist socialism…the words say it, socialism for one “race”. THERE ARE NO RACES, although yes there can be some differences deep to the medication level between people of different breed (7% of white people (a vague term itself) do not metabolize codeine so it’s totally useless for them and usully gives them a case of urticaria). But I mean, deep inside we’re all the same, we all feel the same feelings when somebody hurts us, may it be psychologically, psychically (energy vampires for example, really exist, often on the female side of things) where a man will be so stupidly in love with a woman who rejects him but constantly treats her like a princess, stealing all of one’s energy and life). But that’s just one example 😉 No misogyny here. But some girls have been doing this to friends I know and even me nce, wanting to keep it as just friends, but do everything else as if we were a couple.

  8. For some reason when I tried to play it I got some weird pop up about protected files and no worries on my download limit.

    • A Name,
      I didn’t have any problem accessing the file just using the little player that’s embedded in the web page. However, when I did select the options to either “Play In New Window” or “Download” I saw the message you described. Are you not seeing the little Player ‘Play’ arrow directly above the “Play In New Window” or “Download” links?

      • My thumb must have been hitting more than I thought. I thought I had zoomed in and was hitting the arrow.

        I get the arrow although I do sometimes have to rotate the screen to get it to appear.

    • Yeah I get that, then click Ok and the download starts, not an issue, I think Sibel could set a limit to the number of files one downloads in her WP settings, here the limit is 0 so we can all download everything if we want.

  9. wallace gromit says:

    Key thing is to have clear objectives and principles to guide procedure in both anaylsis and dissemination of info. Without clear objectives and rules from the start, its inevitable for one to get led astray.

  10. Great show. I find that a good way to talk to people about what they might call “conspiracy theory” is to list some things that we know are true, that the establishment acknowledges to be true. For example, Obama’s kill lists. My co-workers had a good laugh when I mentioned that Obama had kill lists. Then I showed them the NY Times article where it was first revealed and it wasn’t such a joke anymore. Things like the bin Ladens being flown out after 9/11, the Bush-Saudi partnership dating back to what, the 1970s? The fact that the hijackers were Saudi. The PNAC document. So many things can be proven beyond any doubt, and then you can start to put pieces together and explain how insane coincidences were never investigated or even mentioned by the media.

    • jdissed,

      Very good points indeed. Reminding people of these straight forward historical facts, which are well known and documented, is a good basis for engaging people when you encounter these incredulous responses to concepts which are only really “controversial” because they’ve been branded effectively as such.

  11. Recognising 911 as inside job deception,
    but not Boston, because of its complexity,
    is the definition of farce.

    • The Boston Marathon bombing was the sequel to 9/11. If this is directed towards me I think you’ve got something wrong. I’ve spent tons of time following this story and I think it’s by far the most significant event since 9/11 and if you go back and look I discussed this extensively and often felt like people weren’t taking it as seriously as they should. I still don’t.

      Virtually every part of the story is a lie. I’m not even certain whether the brothers actually did it. You had the Craft security guys standing at the finish line, where the blasts went off (at least one of them) right before, then across the street right afterwards. You had the bomb sniffing dogs, snipers, and the people announcing it was just a “drill”.

      Remember they announced that they had someone at the courthouse and were going to make a statement, then they cancelled it? Then they release the photos of the brothers walking in the vicinity, but somehow don’t have the footage of them actually placing the bags on the ground which seems ridiculous to me.

      The MIT officer who got shot doesn’t seem to be related, but was used to hype up the situation and the cops went ballistic as a result and during one of these shoot outs shot one of themselves. The idea that Tamerlan would’ve claimed responsibility for the bombing to this “Danny” (they released his real name, but I forgot), is ludicrous and his story changed countless times.

      The FBI has been covering up from day one, they knew about Tamerlan from the Russians and they probably would’ve assassinated Dzhokhar if there weren’t cameras, so the death penalty is the best way to make sure he doesn’t talk (same as the friend they murdered in Florida). I’m going to stop now, because I could go on and I’m willing to bet you’re familiar with these aspects of the episode.

      @remo: Don’t try to hassle me, because you don’t think I see that this is important. I’m just not buying the crisis actor theory, at least not in its entirety and I think I more than sufficiently articulated my concerns. Beyond that, the fact that I engaged Chris in the first place was because I feel as strongly as I do about the whole thing. I never told him he was “wrong” to investigate that route, I just expressed why I thought the sensitivity warranted greater concern than he was paying to that factor. His first response to me was quote: “Sorry Benny but this is ridiculous and foolish comment.”

      I’ve tried respectfully to articulate my concerns and opinion throughout this conversation and don’t feel that I’ve always been met half way. I don’t appreciate this sort of passive aggressive comment from you remo, but I’ve made an effort to address here what I think you’re trying to say; if not to me, than generally. I’ve generally appreciated much of what you’ve contributed to conversations elsewhere and, although I’m not positive, I believe I’ve stated so in the past. Even here, I don’t think you’ve said anything unreasonable, but there’s been a hostility at times an accusatory tone, as I feel here towards me and to others elsewhere, which I think is inherently problematic about where this conversation ended up going.

      I’m not interested in agreeing with everybody or having everybody agree with me by any means, but I’m not here to get into any sort of tit-for-tat. If I’m overreacting or being overly verbose (a common feature), so be it. I just want to be crystal clear about where I’m at and where I see it.

      ~B

      • It was something to prevent people looking at what was going on for real, what was happening at the JFK Library “Explosions” that turned out not to be “explosions” at all. And now the Carlyle Group bought the JFK library.

        *shudders*

        What this all means I don’t know, but it’s freaky. JFK must be spinning in his grave.

      • I think you pretty well covered it Benny. But this is not at you. Its an overall ‘thing’….a fluctuation in the color field…I think maybe I’ve lost a wheel somewhere in the argument concerning actions I can watch at the flick of a switch that do.not.correspond to the narratives presented of them in a court room, being put beyond a red-line. unexpected. disappointing. but ultimately cathartic. There is a logic -evidence base- that can be applied to the argument. One dataset can be observed in light of the other. Juxtaposed. Discord exists in the real. Exploration need not happen here but it is real. A blink…..call it intuition. I have been wrong before, and certainly apologize for any offence.

        • remo,
          Thank you for elaborating, I appreciate it. I understand your frustration around the topic of the Boston Marathon bombing. I probably didn’t do myself any favors by investing the kind of energy I did on it. But as I said, it’s something I feel very passionate about and it’s been a great frustration on multiple levels. I just want to leave that component aside for now and not feel like I’m going to be attacked, which perhaps I misinterpreted here. But once again, I appreciate your reply.

          • I support your assertions as I have seen them so far, although you do not mention (or if you did I didn’t notice the stuff going on at the JFK Library at the same time which had also drills going on around it and had explosions, then the media toned it down to “mechnical fire” whatever that means. I wonder what documents were burned in there huh?

          • Right, this would definitely fall into the category of trying to cause confusion. It’s also quite possible however that this is an instance of an edgy public and press, latching on to things that wouldn’t really be reported on under normal circumstances. If there were suspicious elements, such as documents damaged, I’d be very interested in that information though.

          • Benny.
            cool.
            onwards and upwards.
            and regards.

          • Right on =]

      • Benny,

        Just one thing about Boston – the ‘Craft’ guys were no such thing, from what I recall. The notion they worked for Craft International was based on one logo, on one guy’s baseball cap. Most of them were wearing uniforms from the CST:
        http://wideshut.co.uk/mystery-military-men-at-boston-bombing-indentified-as-wmd-taskforce-prior-knowledge-a-possibility/

        Now, exactly what the hell they were doing there I’m not sure. But just like with there ‘there was an exercise!!!!!’ meme, the ‘Craft guys!!!!!’ meme is all but baseless speculation.

        As to the Tsarnaev’s actually being guilty – I found the CCTV compelling. Not conclusive, but pretty compelling. And I have not seen it on ANY alt media sites, who seem to be pretending it doesn’t exist because they spent 2 years saying it was all fake and everyone was an actor.

        I appreciate that Boston is important to you but for the vast majority of the alt media it was just another disaster to exploit for money and attention. Hence why virtually all the major talking points about the bombing itself are a misleading load of guff.

        • Tom,
          Thanks for pointing out the article which correctly identifies the men in question as being members of CST (National Guard Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Team), not Craft Security. While I genuinely appreciate your pointing that out, why this somehow makes their presence at the crime scene any less significant in your mind is really beyond me…

          Now, exactly what the hell they were doing there I’m not sure. But just like with there ‘there was an exercise!!!!!’ meme, the ‘Craft guys!!!!!’ meme is all but baseless speculation.

          There was an exercise, Tom. It’s even stated quite clearly in the article you cited. Are you trying to say that, because this is public knowledge it’s somehow insignificant?

          As to the Tsarnaev’s actually being guilty – I found the CCTV compelling. Not conclusive, but pretty compelling.

          May I ask what CCTV footage you’re referring to? The footage of Dhzokhar placing the backpack at the scene of the blast which Governor Deval Patrick referred to as “chilling”, before acknowledging they never actually showed him this evidence, or anybody else for that matter?

          I’m sorry Tom, if ‘pretty compelling’ is satisfactory enough for you in the most significant false flag attack in the United States since 9/11, I don’t think you deserve to be taken seriously on this matter, let alone toss condescending jabs about memes and telling me that you ‘appreciate that Boston is important to [me]’, but that ‘virtually all the major talking points about the bombing itself are a misleading load of guff’.

          I’m not saying that the Tzarnaevs weren’t responsible, but I’m not satisfied with a couple of CCTV shots of the brothers walking down the street and photos of Dhzokhar standing near the site of the blast, but none of him actually putting the bag down. If they have it, why not show it? It’s not like they were ever concerned about unfairly biasing public opinion, which is another major piece of this in my mind that’s been totally glossed over even here. While I didn’t see footage of Dhzokhar placing a bag down, or any photos of Tamerlan, I see two guys from CST standing closer to the vicinity of the blast moments before it goes off, then safely across the street after it does. I’m not saying that this proves anything one way or another either, but I’m not satisfied with the BS narrative, so you’re goddamn right I think it’s worth looking critically at.

          I agree with you about the problematic nature of wild speculation in the alt-media, but in some ways I give them more credit than you for actually taking it as seriously as it ought to be. If you have good information like the article pointing out that the guys in tan pants and backpacks were from CST, not ‘Craft’, by all means bring it to the table, but don’t toss it off like table scraps from your high horse. I don’t think you’re conscientious of the fact that you’re doing this, but I think that’s the problem. I’m pulling your card because you keep coming at me and other people here with some Diet Chomsky “who cares” business and beyond the fact that it’s getting on my nerves, if it’s not counterproductive it’s not constructive either in my opinion to keep suggesting that this or that theory is rubbish, or such and such approach is a waste of time over and over again without at least providing some sort of counter argument, particularly as this applies to what it is that you wish to achieve in what you do here. I appreciate much of what you do, but not these things I just pointed out. What is it that motivates you to delve into this subject matter? What is it that you want people here to get out of your podcasts? These are not rhetorical questions. It’s just not clear to me at this point.

          • Benny,

            I apologise if that’s how I’ve treated you – it was not my intention. I’m not trying to single you out personally, not at all, it is simply that you’re quite vocal here so I often find myself responding to your comments.

            The only evidence for an exercise, that I know of, is one guy talking about some sniffer dogs and an announcement at the athletes village – which is at the other end of the marathon to where the explosions happened. There has been no corroboration of this that I’m aware of. There was at least 20 miles between where he’s talking about a possible exercise and where the explosions happened. To my mind, that means there was no exercise.

            When the guy was re-interviewed a day or two later and repeated the same thing – that the dogs and the announcement were at the athletes village – this was taken as final proof and confirmation that there was an exercise at the finish line. There isn’t even any real evidence that there was an exercise at the athletes village. It’s just one of those memes that the alt media ran wild with and has now become ingrained in the alt media folklore about Boston.

            The fact that the CST guys themselves were there is not all that surprising – they were likely part of the massive security operation that was evidently going on. And that is deeply suspicious. But what did the alt media do? They endlessly repeated that these people worked for Craft International, sending people in the wrong direction. The question here isn’t the ‘Craft guys’ but why this bombing took place in the middle of all this security.

            The CCTV I’m talking about is here:
            http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2j36q1

            At least for the younger brother, it does seem to show him putting down his backpack pretty much where the bomb he’s accused of planting then went off shortly afterwards.

            As to what I hope people get from my podcasts – among other things, the realisation that almost everything in the alt media is misleading hype. Their coverage of Boston typifies that. The irritation I’m expressing is, again, nothing to do with you personally. It’s with the fact that these memes were always deeply misleading, yet in almost all the discussion I see about Boston this is what people are talking about – not the CCTV, not Graham Fuller, not the FBI’s knowledge about Tamerlan, not the FBI’s assassination of that Russian guy who was friends with Tamerlan. My frustration is at that, not you.

            For what it’s worth I think Boston probably was a Gladio type operation, though the purpose of it remains rather unclear. It is possible that they botched the follow up and that’s why we got this ridiculous cop-shooting car-hijack chase story, and the massive overkill of the lockdown manhunt in Boston. Or maybe that was always the way it was intended to play out.

            What motivates me to delve into these matters – trying to understand them. Nothing more grandiose than that. And that means discarding an awful lot of bullshit, because there is a lot more bullshit out there than there is truth. I imagine you agree on this last point, but if you don’t then perhaps this is one of those moments where we accept that we’re just different.

          • Tom,

            This is better. You’re at least specifying why you’ve come to the conclusions you have. A lot of the time you make off hand remarks about how this theory or that is rubbish and that those who are pursuing these angles are somehow being foolish. In some cases this may be true, but if you think people are missing something, or are otherwise off the mark you should be more specific as you’ve done here. Sometimes you say things where I’m wondering; how the hell is he not recognizing that this is significant, or how could he not have looked into this? Eventually, when pressed about it by me or other members you provide more detail which proves that you actually have looked at the element in question, but upon doing so have come to the conclusion that you don’t think it’s important. If you don’t discuss the process you’ve gone through to reach the conclusions you have, over time it can have the effect of making people stop trusting their instincts to look at certain things critically, which I’m sure is definitely not what you intend to do.

            A lot of BFP members, including myself, see BFP as a place where we can discuss topics that are outside of the boundaries of what the majority are willing to entertain or take seriously. I understand that, in part, what you’re trying to do here is refine that discussion to avoid getting sucked into some of the nonsense that plagues a lot of the alt-media that deals with this subject matter. Still, I feel like you go about doing it in a way which often feels similar to the way the MSM or some of the quasi-alternatives try to resolve the issue then simply move on. This feels like it goes against part of the spirit of what BFP is about. Of course people can think for themselves and discuss what they want, but I feel like a lot of the time you’re playing a negative roll by stating why such and such an approach or topic is a waste of time without suggesting anything as an alternative.

            Tom Said:
            What motivates me to delve into these matters – trying to understand them. Nothing more grandiose than that. And that means discarding an awful lot of bullshit, because there is a lot more bullshit out there than there is truth. I imagine you agree on this last point, but if you don’t then perhaps this is one of those moments where we accept that we’re just different.

            Yes, I do agree on that last point. And yes, I too delve into these matters so that I can better understand them, but part of what motivates me to do this is the fact that I feel that by better understanding them, I can respond differently to events when they happen and perhaps more importantly, help other people to understand them so that they can do the same. All of us are well aware of the fact that most people really don’t care about these things, but just reminding us of this only reinforces a sense of pessimism and apathy.

            Regarding Boston, I’m not satisfied with any of the explanations and while there are important aspects I’d also like to see discussed, such as Graham Fuller, Tamerlan’s prior contact with the FBI, and the Assassination of Ibrahim Todashev, I’m still interested in looking for clues to try to understand aspects of what happened that day. You may not think the presence of CST at the crime scene is anything particularly significant, beyond being suspicious, but I’d like to know what the hell was going on there and just because certain figures in the alt-media got carried away with labelling them as “Craft” security, I don’t care if they were wearing CST, Craft, or Kentucky Fried Chicken uniforms, I think their presence should be noted as part of a larger analysis.

            Regarding the “exercises” going on that day, you know perfectly well how this tactic has been used to cause confusion in the past. The fact that this was going on doesn’t prove anything, but it should be taken note of. Just because you feel it’s an element that’s been overly emphasized doesn’t mean it’s something you should be rolling your eyes at. If you feel like people are getting hung up on this, or any other particular aspect, talk about what you do think is important.

            In conclusion for now, I know you didn’t intend to single me out but I appreciate and accept your apology nonetheless. I just hope that you’ll try to take into consideration some of the points I’ve made here.

            ~B

        • CuChulainn says:

          if one wants to play the skeptic, which is all to the good, one needs a finer brush.

  12. Oh also, sorry, but we were warned for a good while SOMETHING was gonna happen April 15th, for 3 weeks we had “North Korea” threatening the US with an “authorized” nuclear attack and apparently the NK government told the Russian and British embassies that they could not assure their security starting on the 15th. A few days before, I remember on CBC Radio how “North Korea” was saying that the “moment of explosion was imminent” and how 2 missiles were pointed east on the coast of NK. Then the boston bombing, then this story disappeared completely from the news and 2 weeks later they threw those missiles into the sea not even 200 km farther far from Japan.

    • Forgot my finishing line : Talk about spin/predictive programming. Yet I barely find anyone online who noticed those coincidences, well there are some, but not where I expected them to be talked about.

  13. CuChulainn says:

    Sibel, is there any way to make more than the 5 most recent comments visible? a blog like MoA, for example,
    lists the last 100 most recent comments in the margin http://www.moonofalabama.org/

Speak Your Mind