Alex Tsakiris, Four Questions About the Future of Skeptiko |414|

***
Well, I think a bunch of us better stay connected worldwide. This is why I talk to people all over the world, to see what is really going on. The U.S. doesn't even talk about the "yellow vest" in France. I've told people about it & they are ALWAYS WTH? What did you say? What? Are you sure? I tell them yeah, there are thousands in the streets of Paris protesting. It's been going on for months. I'm telling educated well connected people. Granted they are business people, stock brokers, agents, accountants, busy living their lives. So they don't have time to dig.

I'll tell you something else going on (we all know) but something odd, it's not just Google, FaceBook, YouTube that are in some kind of cahoots, they ARE. Now this Mark Zuckerberg... think about that face a second. He wants to get into cryptocurrency. THAT guy. He can't even write code.

Now he wants to control billions of people's money. Let that sink in. You guys saw Veratas right? Where a Google insider was caught saying they let 2016 get away from them, but they won't let 2020 happen. In other words control our elections.

Remember that Christ Church shooting? That Muslim place that got all shot up? Okay, so when the videos came out, I downloaded them, then uploaded them to YouTube (because they were being deleted). YouTube took mine down & gave me 2 strikes (like I care). ANYWAY, the point is, I had 2 videos one was the guy who did the deed (he videotaped himself) I got that. AND, the after math video.

The first video shows him entering the Mosque... automatic blazing. Just walking into each room & down the halls guns a blazing. Not aiming but rapid SPRAY gun fire at everyone & EVERYTHING. Killing everyone & anything that moved. Some rooms had maybe 25 people in there, other rooms less people. But, he was just spraying those rooms with auto fire. Some people were standing up, some praying or huddled. But, he fired from the opening of the doorways into the rooms, broadcast shooting.

Now the aftermath video with the people all bloody & crying... yeah, if you look at it, you all of a sudden notice a few things, no broken windows, no holes in the walls. Even one guy acting dead, but when he thinks he isn't being filmed he is smiling. WTH? Just WTH. Let THAT sink in. No bullet shots in any walls.... no broken windows.

Now, I'm a pretty good shot, but nobody is THAT good. Ask me where all the bullet casing are? Not a lot of them, just a handful.

I can't say it is all fake cause I wasn't there. But they sure as hell don't want anyone talking about it or showing ANY videos.

BTW, I took Google off my computer. I use Brave and it works great for me if any of you guys want to install a new browser. Probably another psyop but at least I tried: https://brave.com/ I like it better than Google actually. You can transfer all your liked links to Brave. I used it a few weeks before I uninstalled Google, because I was worried about uninstalling Google. But, I just went ahead & uninstalled stupid Google. Nothing bad happened.
Atlantis,
I found a copy of the shooting vid. IMO, it's real. Then I went and read some of the conspiracy theories about the event. IMO, the usual sloppy, lazy BS.

Conspiracy theorists have the weird ideas that 1. video footage is the undeniable final answer and presents a perfect picture of reality. 2. That events happen just as the theorists imagine it would. 3. That they completely and perfectly understand complicated science, like physics, gunshot wounds and ballistics, etc

To answer your some of your questions; in the video it's obvious that many of the victims were cowering on the floor when the shooter entered some of the rooms. They were shot as they lay there. Hence, no blown out windows or holes in the walls in some rooms. I see spent brass everywhere, as expected. One conspiracy guy says that the ejected brass "disappears" before it hits the deck. However, that is also obviously not true in some segments of the video and in the few instances where it does seem to disappear, it can be explained by gaps in the film's recording speed, kind of like Kennedy's head moving forward when struck, but appearing to the unaided eye to move back (stop action enhancement clearly shows moving forward before jerking back, as expected from a shot from behind).

This just confirms for me, once again, that conspiracy theorists are usually wrong as wrong can be.
 
Atlantis,
I found a copy of the shooting vid. IMO, it's real. Then I went and read some of the conspiracy theories about the event. IMO, the usual sloppy, lazy BS.

Conspiracy theorists have the weird ideas that 1. video footage is the undeniable final answer and presents a perfect picture of reality. 2. That events happen just as the theorists imagine it would. 3. That they completely and perfectly understand complicated science, like physics, gunshot wounds and ballistics, etc

To answer your some of your questions; in the video it's obvious that many of the victims were cowering on the floor when the shooter entered some of the rooms. They were shot as they lay there. Hence, no blown out windows or holes in the walls in some rooms. I see spent brass everywhere, as expected. One conspiracy guy says that the ejected brass "disappears" before it hits the deck. However, that is also obviously not true in some segments of the video and in the few instances where it does seem to disappear, it can be explained by gaps in the film's recording speed, kind of like Kennedy's head moving forward when struck, but appearing to the unaided eye to move back (stop action enhancement clearly shows moving forward before jerking back, as expected from a shot from behind).

This just confirms for me, once again, that conspiracy theorists are usually wrong as wrong can be.
***
Love it. Well, I'm going to put your idea in the hat. I have no idea. When it comes to death, I don't want to be the ass that starts up with all the IT NEVER HAPPENED. That is so rude.

When the videos were being removed faster than you could upload it, I was like wth, don't we want to look & see if it is real? It's graphic I guess, there is something to be said for removing that. But, when someone said, there were no holes in the walls, I thought yeah, that does't seem right.

I also, thought they were on the ground, maybe he's a crack shot (?). wth is with the music at the start of his video?

Something is off. The reaction by the other people. But, I've never been a mosque shooting.

Ever since 9/11 I don't trust so much anymore.
 
Something is off. The reaction by the other people. But, I've never been a mosque shooting.

Ever since 9/11 I don't trust so much anymore.
I think there's a fundamental problem with the luxury of after the fact analysis via video. A lot of crisis situations do not stand up to deep rational scrutiny. There always seem to be 'problems'. We like to imagine that reality flows rationally all the time and maybe it does not. In my professional life I have investigated situations that have turned out to be nothing at all like they were claimed to be by people who should have been safely regarded as professional and reliable witnesses. Often, in fact, what I found to be so was the opposite of what was believed to be so.

If things are not what we imagine they should be we are right in thinking we need to be cautious about conclusions. But that maybe mostly because we are wrong. As an investigator I knew not to presume that the information I was given as the basis for the investigation was valid. The authority to initiate the investigation was. But authority and perception are not equal.

If I thought "something was off" I would use that as a trigger for thinking there may be possible misconduct, not evidence of misconduct. It would be a reason for initiating an inquiry to determine whether that impression was factually based. The first step would be to review what triggered the sensation. Why did I think that?

I encounter a lot of 'conspiracy theories' and the few I have bothered to examine in any detail have, in my view, turned out to be complete bollocks. Only one has convinced me there is a thing. Another has left me wondering and acknowledging I need to pay more attention. I don't have a lot of time to spare, so I give my time to those conspiracy theories that really grab my interest. The rest I ignore because I know I will not have the time or resources to dedicate sufficient energy to confirming their validity.

I have friends who are devotees of conspiracy theories I choose to ignore, and none have convinced me to be less rejecting than I am. I was going to say less 'skeptical', but I do actually find the basis for acceptance put to me to be rubbish. I am not skeptical - I reject and deny the claimed validity. Now I admit I could be wildly wrong. I am prepared to live with that.

I haven't been to a mosque shooting either. But then I haven't been to any mass shooting. I did work in Tasmania after the Port Arthur shooting as the Comment Recovery Officer for a time. So I have some reports in my head from people who were there. Nothing more than that. My point is that I would not dare to make any critique about a shooting scene, make no comment about what should or should not be. I do know that theory and reality often do not coincide - and theory often wins out because mistrust and ignorance swamp reality.

I have to say that nothing I have ever investigated in a professional capacity has ever matched the claims and beliefs conveyed to me by my supposedly professional peers.I want to be quite clear about this. Every single instance of an alleged misdeed that has triggered an investigation I was involved in turned out to be the opposite of what conveyed to me as interpretation or opinion.

I get being doubtful, but just don't trust your suspicious mind as the basis for asserting a belief. You will be wrong most of the time.
 
I think there's a fundamental problem with the luxury of after the fact analysis via video. A lot of crisis situations do not stand up to deep rational scrutiny. There always seem to be 'problems'. We like to imagine that reality flows rationally all the time and maybe it does not. In my professional life I have investigated situations that have turned out to be nothing at all like they were claimed to be by people who should have been safely regarded as professional and reliable witnesses. Often, in fact, what I found to be so was the opposite of what was believed to be so.

If things are not what we imagine they should be we are right in thinking we need to be cautious about conclusions. But that maybe mostly because we are wrong. As an investigator I knew not to presume that the information I was given as the basis for the investigation was valid. The authority to initiate the investigation was. But authority and perception are not equal.

If I thought "something was off" I would use that as a trigger for thinking there may be possible misconduct, not evidence of misconduct. It would be a reason for initiating an inquiry to determine whether that impression was factually based. The first step would be to review what triggered the sensation. Why did I think that?

I encounter a lot of 'conspiracy theories' and the few I have bothered to examine in any detail have, in my view, turned out to be complete bollocks. Only one has convinced me there is a thing. Another has left me wondering and acknowledging I need to pay more attention. I don't have a lot of time to spare, so I give my time to those conspiracy theories that really grab my interest. The rest I ignore because I know I will not have the time or resources to dedicate sufficient energy to confirming their validity.

I have friends who are devotees of conspiracy theories I choose to ignore, and none have convinced me to be less rejecting than I am. I was going to say less 'skeptical', but I do actually find the basis for acceptance put to me to be rubbish. I am not skeptical - I reject and deny the claimed validity. Now I admit I could be wildly wrong. I am prepared to live with that.

I haven't been to a mosque shooting either. But then I haven't been to any mass shooting. I did work in Tasmania after the Port Arthur shooting as the Comment Recovery Officer for a time. So I have some reports in my head from people who were there. Nothing more than that. My point is that I would not dare to make any critique about a shooting scene, make no comment about what should or should not be. I do know that theory and reality often do not coincide - and theory often wins out because mistrust and ignorance swamp reality.

I have to say that nothing I have ever investigated in a professional capacity has ever matched the claims and beliefs conveyed to me by my supposedly professional peers.I want to be quite clear about this. Every single instance of an alleged misdeed that has triggered an investigation I was involved in turned out to be the opposite of what conveyed to me as interpretation or opinion.

I get being doubtful, but just don't trust your suspicious mind as the basis for asserting a belief. You will be wrong most of the time.
It scares me to think that these conspiracy theorists sometimes end up on juries.
 
It scares me to think that these conspiracy theorists sometimes end up on juries.
Mate! not just that! Juries scare me in general because of a lack of ability to think critically.If I had the option of a just trial versus a panel of judges there is no way I'd go jury if I was innocent. A guilty person would take a jury every time. Judges can be complete asses and utterly incompetent, but reliably so, apparently. Juries are a real risk.
 
Mate! not just that! Juries scare me in general because of a lack of ability to think critically.If I had the option of a just trial versus a panel of judges there is no way I'd go jury if I was innocent. A guilty person would take a jury every time. Judges can be complete asses and utterly incompetent, but reliably so, apparently. Juries are a real risk.
I have never sat on a jury. Each time I've been called, I've been dismissed after the lawyers ask the questions. I'm clean cut, dress well and often told that I look like an "All American" type. When I meet people for the first time they usually peg me immediately as former military (or they guess a cop if they're on the shady side and paranoid). I always answer the lawyers' questions truthfully and quite rationally/sanely. It actually bothers me that every time I get sent home. I think I'd be a good jurist on a serious case.

My wife was on a jury for a murder case. A young man (the accused) had gone to an apartment in a large complex on the shady side of town to buy drugs. He was not armed when he went into the apartment. Something went wrong and one of the dealers pulled a gun and the other a knife. The accused ran out of the apartment, down the stairs and out to his car. He opened the car door. Meanwhile one of the drug dealers was following, but was some distance away. The accused could have - and should have - driven away at that point. Instead, he produced a handgun from under his car seat (totally legal in the state in which the event occurred)) and shot and killed the dealer that was following him. The dealer was maybe 50 feet away when he was shot.

The prosecution was asking for first degree murder (meaning premeditated and carrying the most serious sentence). The defense tried to argue self-defense, but added that if the jury couldn't determine self-defense (resulting in a dismissed case), then manslaughter should be more appropriate; certainly nothing more than second degree murder.

The jury deliberation went on for days. My wife explained that the problem was that the jury wanted to convict on first degree murder because the accused had hollow point bullets in his revolver; which they argued was proof that the accused wanted to kill someone. My wife was the sole holdout. She countered that many people load with hollow points just in case they must use the weapon in self-defense, they want the best chance of stopping the attacker. But the rest of the jury fixated on the hollow points (my wife is well versed in these matters).

Some other members of the jury began to threaten my wife verbally, but she held firm. Finally, after a few days, the jury decided on 2nd degree murder and handed in their decision. My wife tells me that it was one of the most disturbing experiences of her life (participating in the inner workings of the justice system).

The jurists remind me of conspiracy theorists. They latch onto one or two items that they don't understand and then draw battle lines. It's just nuts.
 
I think there's a fundamental problem with the luxury of after the fact analysis via video. A lot of crisis situations do not stand up to deep rational scrutiny. There always seem to be 'problems'. We like to imagine that reality flows rationally all the time and maybe it does not. In my professional life I have investigated situations that have turned out to be nothing at all like they were claimed to be by people who should have been safely regarded as professional and reliable witnesses. Often, in fact, what I found to be so was the opposite of what was believed to be so.

If things are not what we imagine they should be we are right in thinking we need to be cautious about conclusions. But that maybe mostly because we are wrong. As an investigator I knew not to presume that the information I was given as the basis for the investigation was valid. The authority to initiate the investigation was. But authority and perception are not equal.

If I thought "something was off" I would use that as a trigger for thinking there may be possible misconduct, not evidence of misconduct. It would be a reason for initiating an inquiry to determine whether that impression was factually based. The first step would be to review what triggered the sensation. Why did I think that?

I encounter a lot of 'conspiracy theories' and the few I have bothered to examine in any detail have, in my view, turned out to be complete bollocks. Only one has convinced me there is a thing. Another has left me wondering and acknowledging I need to pay more attention. I don't have a lot of time to spare, so I give my time to those conspiracy theories that really grab my interest. The rest I ignore because I know I will not have the time or resources to dedicate sufficient energy to confirming their validity.

I have friends who are devotees of conspiracy theories I choose to ignore, and none have convinced me to be less rejecting than I am. I was going to say less 'skeptical', but I do actually find the basis for acceptance put to me to be rubbish. I am not skeptical - I reject and deny the claimed validity. Now I admit I could be wildly wrong. I am prepared to live with that.

I haven't been to a mosque shooting either. But then I haven't been to any mass shooting. I did work in Tasmania after the Port Arthur shooting as the Comment Recovery Officer for a time. So I have some reports in my head from people who were there. Nothing more than that. My point is that I would not dare to make any critique about a shooting scene, make no comment about what should or should not be. I do know that theory and reality often do not coincide - and theory often wins out because mistrust and ignorance swamp reality.

I have to say that nothing I have ever investigated in a professional capacity has ever matched the claims and beliefs conveyed to me by my supposedly professional peers.I want to be quite clear about this. Every single instance of an alleged misdeed that has triggered an investigation I was involved in turned out to be the opposite of what conveyed to me as interpretation or opinion.

I get being doubtful, but just don't trust your suspicious mind as the basis for asserting a belief. You will be wrong most of the time.
***
Love it. Agree with most of it. I never bought the WMD excuse. Building 7 should give us all pause. Sorry, I'm holding a grudge because of 9/11. Buildings do not just fall in their own footprint, not building 7. I also don't buy the Oklahoma city (Morrow) bombing. Not after hearing the first responders & looking at the situation. I also lost all respect for the FBI (I give you the Bundy (rancher) shot to death.

All I can say is there are a LOT of psychopaths running around (and running things).

But, I hear you Michael Patterson, I hear you.
 
Top