Farewell to All...

MegB wrote:

Paladin, you've weathered some pretty whithering criticism for being part of the military industrial complex. Fair coment here.  But you bring a valued perspective that we need here, and you always express a willingness to learn about what it means to be progressive. That's more important than anyone's particular view on social justice or ideological purity. If we can ever become a truly unified group under so many different banners that seek a better world we need alternative voices.

I appreciate that Meg thank you. I've actually learned a lot here (yes, really) which is imporant because the military, while predominantly still a white straight male environment, is steadily becoming more diverse. Women, trans members, gay, visual minorities. 

Pondering wrote:

Noops, your approach reminds me of half hour or hour long advertisements about a revolutionary weight loss method or revolutionary way to make thousands of dollars a day from your home. It's all about the experts that were involved in developing it and how they had X problem and tryed XYZ to solve it yada yada yada but they won't tell you how until you pay. 

You're demanding payment in the form of us submitting our credentials so to speak. The thing is everyone has varying degrees of knowledge about false flags events and their history so it's pointless. 

That's a pretty good summary Pondering.

You can pretty much set your watch by how long it takes False Flag Conspiracy Theorists to show up after an incident.

Personally I find it's usually inconsiderate and borne out of some weird sense of entertainment. People enjoy coming up with far fetched ideas.

That's not to say false flag stuff doesn't happen. You could say it's an American tradition. From the Vietnam war and Gulf of Tonkin incident to the US military devising a plan to attack and murder American citizens and blaming Cuba in order to justify military intervention (thankfully shot down by JKF).

I try to always bewilling to listen to evidence about false flag stuff when it's presented. Delievery is important. When someone tries to sell me on a false flag attack and employs gauging my awareness or suggests they deserve to automatically be believed then my eyes start to roll.

Pondering wrote:

Noops, your approach reminds me of half hour or hour long advertisements about a revolutionary weight loss method or revolutionary way to make thousands of dollars a day from your home. It's all about the experts that were involved in developing it and how they had X problem and tryed XYZ to solve it yada yada yada but they won't tell you how until you pay. 

You're demanding payment in the form of us submitting our credentials so to speak. The thing is everyone has varying degrees of knowledge about false flags events and their history so it's pointless. 

Great analogy, Pondering!  

Badriya wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Noops, your approach reminds me of half hour or hour long advertisements about a revolutionary weight loss method or revolutionary way to make thousands of dollars a day from your home. It's all about the experts that were involved in developing it and how they had X problem and tryed XYZ to solve it yada yada yada but they won't tell you how until you pay. 

You're demanding payment in the form of us submitting our credentials so to speak. The thing is everyone has varying degrees of knowledge about false flags events and their history so it's pointless. 

Great analogy, Pondering!  

Yes it is.

This false flag allegation is particularly disgusting since it amounted to clickbait of extremely offensive content. Yes I saw what I never wanted to see just to see if there was soemthing there. I read bullshit sites and debunk sites. Congrats Noops while you had absolutely nothing you brought us through the mud. I have no sympathy or respect for what you have done or what happens to you now. You had one chance to lay out the proof and instead held it back for your fake "keenness" test and posting offensive content here while still advancing no justification for your comments or reason why we should believe you.

My analogy for your posts is that of absolutely outlandish so called "documentaries" that dramatically declare that soemthing MAY show what MIGHT mean that PERHAPS something interesting MAY have happened. All cleverly making sure that they never actually say what did happen -- except in your case you provide even less evidence, no qualifications in your theories but waste just as much time in speculation towards something utterly fanciful based on some tortured logic, leaps of the imagination and twisting of coincidences. What you are doing is deeply offensive. When you want to speculate in a way as offensive as this, you have to provide the evidence, get it right.

Of course I cannot tell if you are just prone to consiracy, driven to disbelieve reality, want to have the spotlight on you for knowing something others don't know or deep down sympathise with those who do these deeds. Some people also have such monochromatic views that distrusting the US means accepting every crazy idea that the US does not accept. On this latter point I will say that those who feel they have to take the opposite of whatever the US thinks and does are just as much programmed and controlled by them as those who agree with everything they do and say.

In any case, I won't attempt to decide which of these is the explanation but you ahve been asked to stop -- given a short leash and now have run out of rope. Please stop this now.

Noops wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

Noops, you are not anybody's victim here, and you have no reason to be this passive-aggressive about presenting whatever it is you have as evidence.  Your evidence will get a hearing-you yourself are not entitled to any special deference in exchange for your willingness to present it.

This is the Tarrant shooting video (for anyone here who has not seen it yet). Viewer beware, it contains scenes of violence.

Stay away from the comments below the video. They won't help you at all.

This video contains most of the evidence I have been talking about.
If you have a keen and analytical eye you will see it, otherwise you made need some guidance.
Let me know.

Posting a link to violent raw footage of a massacre is not acceptible on babble and is in violation of rabble's editorial policies. I'm removing the link and giving you a final warning. Third strike you're out.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

So, if I had actual, first-person footage of the École Polytechnique massacre, would babblers like to watch it?  Would babble want to host it?

But wait!  What if I told you that footage would prove that Marc Lépine wasn't a misogynist?  It would be worth it then, wouldn't it?

I don't want to give everything away, but if you freeze the video precisely on the 1136th frame, the way the one "victim" falls to the ground is clearly fake, and also you can clearly see the back of her head for three frames in the bottom corner of a blurry crowd scene later in the video, so if you want to continue perpetuating the MSM myths after seeing it, that's up to you.

ed'd to add:  crossposted with Meg.

Meg, please don't kick Noops until we've had a chance to be educated about whether 207 Sri Lankans really got killed today.

I'm sure the National Enquirer will give us the scoop on that in the coming days. I hear Alex Jones is hot on the trail.

OK, that tells us Tarrant may have mad accomplices.  It's a massive reach to go from that to implying that this was a "false flag" operation or that the motive was NOT Islamophobia.  

To establish that something is even possibly a "false flag" requires evidence that

1) There was some motive other than the obvious motive;

2) A specific regime/government/intelligence agency would have perpetrated this attack;

3) That whichever regime did perpetrate it had something to gain from the attack occurring.

At this stage, nothing you've posted establishes anything remotely like any of that.

Ken Burch wrote:

OK, that tells us Tarrant may have mad accomplices.  It's a massive reach to go from that to implying that this was a "false flag" operation or that the motive was NOT Islamophobia.  

To establish that something is even possibly a "false flag" requires evidence that

1) There was some motive other than the obvious motive;

2) A specific regime/government/intelligence agency would have perpetrated this attack;

3) That whichever regime did perpetrate it had something to gain from the attack occurring.

At this stage, nothing you've posted establishes anything remotely like any of that.

The trick with this conspiricy stuff is that it uses logic against readers. Most of us approach problems, questions and situations with a logical mind. So when something doesn't sound logical it allows people to plant a seed of doubt.

eg. a deranged husband shoots at his wife and his wife keeps walking towards the husband. It doesn't "make sense" that someone would walk towards someone trying to kill them right? In slides conspiries. The shooting was faked, the woman didn't flinch, how can he miss from so close.

Such a situation though can be easily explained. Getting shot at isn't a normal thing and when it happens sometimes peoples brains don't register whats happening. They don't realize they're in danger.  But how can someone miss from 10 feet away? Easy. Stress esentially causes the person to lose fine motor skills and their hands become clubs. Plenty videos of police officers and criminals blasting 15 feet away at each other and missing every bullet. Or 20 cops shooting at someone and hitting them 3 times.

I think a lot of people enjoy these theories (and spreading them) as a form of entertainment. Handlers in that video? Nope. As I said the video is identical to videos out of the middle east of people simply video taping themselves murdering people.

The only redeeming quality of that video, if you can consider it such a thing, is showing people how dangerous guns are, how easy it is to be a defenseless victim when you're in a crowd, how dangerous confined spaces can be and why attacking the attacker might likely save lives.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

The site that Noops linked to, 153News, has in fact already posted a video "proving" that today's multiple bombings in Sri Lanka are a hoax.

In fact, it's my sad duty to inform you all that EVERY mass killing that you've read about in the MSM in the last few years has been either a hoax or a false flag.  SpaceX is also a hoax, and Michelle Obama is somehow connected to the fire at Notre Dame, as are chemtrails.  I regret parodying this stuff earlier for fear that you'll think I'm making this up now, but I'm not.

Does this mean JFK died peacefully of old age in 1997 in Hyannisport, with Jackie and Marilyn at his side?

Quote:

I will continue with more evidence from the video. I didn't want to give it all away at once (that's how I operate).

It's more fun and entertaining to draw it out.

Quote:

I want to see how people respond first, and I am learning very quickly.

Like a car salesman. One has to work the audience.

Quote:

Ken, my first job is to show that Tarrant did not act alone.

An interesting choice of words.

Quote:

we will come to that in time. I will discuss that later.

More gamesmanship.

A sad but perhaps educational turn of conversation.

A string of coincidences -- and each can be explained but that is not the problem. This is endless-- not all cards on the table -- but each one you explain and another imaginitive thing will pop up like seeing things in clouds.

Tracing an alt-fact story through a story is easy to do. You can alsways find things if you have a foregone conclusion. So Let's just take one: the silver car. So he does not shoot the car. Foregone conclusion says they are part of the conspiracy rather than a whim, or he did not want to start the carnage then lest he be stopped earlier, or he liked cars of that model, or he somehow decided they were not the people he hated, or whatever other explanation you can come up with. None of the many other explanations are more outlandish than the ones, without evidence, used to stitch the story together.  Having the same foregone conclusion running through every item builds a conspiracy theory.

Just as a thought experiment try this without a tragedy. Pick any series of events in life and create a string of conspiracy explanations. You can see it is not hard. It is just using random facts as building blocks to create a new story. This is what fiction authors who base stories on facts do all the time.

It is sick to do this to deny what has happened or deny the final reality for all these lives. But it is not difficult, you just imagine an alternate explanation for each thing you see in the video. When people do this in their own lives they usually are encouraged, sometimes forcefully to get help. When they do this in other people's lives, people are offended and move away from them. When they do this with public stories on a place like this, people turn away from them and questions are asked about their posting priveleges.

Noops, this place is richer for more voices. Drop this and you get to stay and talk about other things -- just not consiracy theories that offend people. Don't you have other things to say that make that worth more than going out in a losing battle like you are doing now? Either way you won't get to continue this but you can make the choice to be able to speak about other things.

People are trying to give you a way out. Begging you to take it. Please do that.

Why are you all engaging with this? 

Shutting this down.