Greg Carlwood has become a talent scout for conspiracy theories |330|

#41
It's more likely that no one is really in control, and that is the thing people are most afraid of.
I think this is the case indeed. And, for me at least, its quite comforting considering the alternative. Well, I should clarify that by "no one" I mean no one human. ;)
 
#45
I always struggle with grand conspiracies and the massive amount of collusion that seems to be required. Folks just seem to be a) not that smart (or more directly the level of intelligence required seems prohibitive) and b) all too willing to share "confidential" information with others. Mix in the modern cell-phone audio/video recording capabilities and it gets even harder. I will admit this comes from someone who has an a priori negative bias for belief in conspiracies and as such done no serious research/reading on the topic. So, I apologize if I offend. By no means am I intending to judge.
what fun is there in that? :)
 
#46
Yes, the sheer number of people involved would seem to be an extremely foolhardy risk to take. It would only take one agent to get stoned, get God, develop Alzheimer's, change sides, and the thing comes apart. Given that one of the more common conspiracies is people were told in advance to stay away from the twin towers, how come all those individuals stayed home based on one-to-one warnings, but not a single person involved in the operation has been found? No one from aviation, demolition, the higher reaches of state or the emergency services, dirty ops has left a trail? Scores of people apparently missed work, each with a mentor who convinced them it wasn't a crank call, but none have admitted they got a message? It seems inconceivable.

The gunpowder plot to blow up parliament and the king was uncovered because one conspirator warned a friend to stay away, yet in an age of mobile phones and the internet numerous individuals survived and not one has come forward.
deep state 101: Manhattan Project, Gulf of Tonkin, and on and on...
 
#47
All the reasons for not believing conspiracies are where most conspiracists start. I dismissed conspiracies for years, saying that, yes, people get together for financial purposes and it may look sinister/conspiratorial, but it's not like they're dressed in black cloaks in dark rooms planning out all forms of nefarious misdeeds (like 9/11)! Everyone somewhat calculates the number of people needed to be involved and the chances against one of them speaking up. Everyone initially defaults to pedestrian explanations of conspiracies.

I had a friend who believed the Mena conspiracies and had what I remember as an old VHS on the subject. It had grainy images and I found it easy to not take too seriously at all. I was open to the idea that they may be right after all, but I didn't think they could really prove such a thing (with their fuzzy pics). This is how I viewed most conspiracies, coupled with the idea that the one presenting such things was a bit of a strange and isolated individual . . . probably single, in his late twenties and living in the low-lit basement of his parents' house, smoking cigs. Now, of course, I know the Mena thing on the whole is certainly true.

Also, I might point out, I considered myself fully non-conspiracist despite the fact that I fully disbelieved the official JFK and RFK narratives. These somehow didn't count because they were so old, which was ridiculous on my part. My first exposure to 911 conspiracy I now see as an almost perfect example of cognitive dissonance meets conspiracy realism: I somehow, absurdly, pictured a missile hitting the Pentagon plane exactly as it was entering the Pentagon, thus solving the problem without having to revert to deep conspiracy. I mean, it never even crossed my mind, even as a staunch Bush hater, that it could be anything other than something like that . . . and yet the evidence was right in front of me and really only pointed one direction. Then, after being a fully confirmed believer in 911 conspiracy, I still didn't really believe any others for quite a while. I didn't want to! What person, who considers themselves an intelligent and careful thinker, wants to be known for believing something that looked wildly absurd to them only a year before? I'll answer my own question: no one. It's a bit painful, to be honest.
great point... yes, the whole thing is personally transformative and takes one thru the gamut of emotions... compounded by friends an family stuck in "I wouldn't believe it even if it was true" mode.
 
#48
great point... yes, the whole thing is personally transformative and takes one thru the gamut of emotions... compounded by friends an family stuck in "I wouldn't believe it even if it was true" mode.
Part of the problem is that in some ways insight into these events make you feel even more powerless. And kind of hopeless in a way. You're not going to stop them and you're not going to expose them in any meaningful way that hurts them. It's a red pill blue pill scenario. I understand why people live in denial. It really sucks when you start to see behind the curtain of what has been going on forever.
 
#49
deep state 101: Manhattan Project, Gulf of Tonkin, and on and on...
I wouldn't call the Manhattan Project a conspiracy. One of its key scientists Joseph Rotblat left when he realised the bomb was going to be used against the Soviet Union. He wasn't bumped off and went on to have a career in academia and medical research in the UK.
 
#50
I understand that. And it's certainly a positive thing.

But I'm more curious what you're driving at exactly with your other posts (in the past) on the subject of conspiracy and reality and/or making reality . . . Or am I getting that (enormously) wrong? Is your position that they're inherently negative and thus not good to dwell on?
Second reply to the same post. I omitted some of the context which was in some of my past posts.

In the past I have referred to a couple of people I know (not connected with one another) and who are in effect inflicting self-harm (in a psychological rather than physical sense) in adhering to conspiratorial ideas. It isn't all about uncovering the 'truth', it can be about creating a fictional world and then being obliged to live inside that world which has been created. The idea that we are passive observers seeking some objective reality is a dangerous misunderstanding. It is only by recognising the power of our thoughts to create that we can start to make sense of things.
 
#51
Part of the problem is that in some ways insight into these events make you feel even more powerless. And kind of hopeless in a way. You're not going to stop them and you're not going to expose them in any meaningful way that hurts them. It's a red pill blue pill scenario. I understand why people live in denial. It really sucks when you start to see behind the curtain of what has been going on forever.
agreed... I think many have already subconsciousness answered these questions and decided not to "go there." many parallels with religious belief... easier not to "go there."
 
#52
deep state 101: Manhattan Project, Gulf of Tonkin, and on and on...
The 'powers that be' couldn't even cover up a blowjob in the Oval Office... I know it's not cool to be too specific on who is behind the more challenging conspiracies, but there does appear to be a question over the competence to pull off the grand scale examples.

I think the recent project veritas releases illustrate how difficult it is to keep almost anything under wraps.

But perhaps the biggest conspiracies are laid out for all to see, because we are all a part of them. "Democracy" and "Capitalism" spring to mind.
 
#53
The 'powers that be' couldn't even cover up a blowjob in the Oval Office... I know it's not cool to be too specific on who is behind the more challenging conspiracies, but there does appear to be a question over the competence to pull off the grand scale examples.

I think the recent project veritas releases illustrate how difficult it is to keep almost anything under wraps.

But perhaps the biggest conspiracies are laid out for all to see, because we are all a part of them. "Democracy" and "Capitalism" spring to mind.
There is simply no need in creating any devilishly cunning and complex cover - to hide a act like 9/11 false flag in the very plainest sight, it is enough to label it "conspiracy theory" and organise a propaganda campaign of ridicule and defame anyone who questions the official narrative, therefore pushing it outside the veneer of "respectability" in the eyes of the academia, media, buisness etc. - that is, anyone whose voice may affect something. A few of these "important people" will dissent, and will be dismissed as "crackpots" by their peers. And the opinion of the general populace will be just ignored.
 
#54
There is simply no need in creating any devilishly cunning and complex cover - to hide a act like 9/11
I've read this several times and cannot understand how you could reach that conclusion. Spend 10 minutes on any truther website and the supposed cunning and complexity is plain to see. How could you pull it of without cunning and complexity (and many co-conspirators)?

Additionally, it's not about accepting the 'official narrative' but the absence of any other cogent narrative to compare it to.
 
#55
There is simply no need in creating any devilishly cunning and complex cover - to hide a act like 9/11 false flag in the very plainest sight, it is enough to label it "conspiracy theory" and organise a propaganda campaign of ridicule and defame anyone who questions the official narrative, therefore pushing it outside the veneer of "respectability" in the eyes of the academia, media, buisness etc. - that is, anyone whose voice may affect something. A few of these "important people" will dissent, and will be dismissed as "crackpots" by their peers. And the opinion of the general populace will be just ignored.
agreed, but unfortunately this is a worldview issue for most... no data needed. remember this in-your-face example: http://skeptiko.com/142-jim-marrs-on-donald-rumsfeld-what-is-building-7/
 
#56
I must say that I was kind of taken aback when in the intro excerpt, Mr Carlwood said he "liked" the idea of "spiritual puppet masters". I mean if you really accept that things like NDE, medium or reincarnation research point to the reality of something like spirits, how is the idea that "sinister forces" from that realm might be influencing people's lives anything but frightening? I'm all for doubting the establishment and stirring up things, but some of this stuff is, as he said himself, really dark.

Which leads me to the follow-up question: other than ignoring this conspiracy stuff wholesale, you probably are better off regarding it as fictional or entertainment. But of course, if you had a convincing experience of your own, that's easier said than done.

Many of the things alluded to in this show I had never heard of and I'm really reluctant to look further into them. I'm afraid that while there are obviously secret agreements and foul play involved whenever a lot of money and power are at stake, there are also lots of people coming up with strange and sensational theories just for the heck of it, maybe to sell books or just have a laugh at people who run with them. They are "connecting dots" so wildly that the actual picture (the truth) gets blotted out instead of being revealed.

Well, I guess it's a conspiracy theory of my own that the reason there are so many often really silly theories might be that the best way to keep a truth from leaking out would be to spread lots of half-truths and outright lies about the same topics.

As a german, for example, I'm really quite unnerved by how much traction this Nazi UFO stuff is getting. Yes, these psychopaths were researching exotic technology, like nuclear power, jet engines etc. Yes, they obviously would have liked getting air supremacy with faster, more streamlined airplanes and they did experiments with flying wings and maybe even saucer-like shapes, but they did not discover anti-gravity, go into space, collude with aliens or build bases in the anttarctic. The so-called "bell" and it's alleged "launch pad" were probably nothing but a nuclear power plant prototype. Still, there's theories now that want to date this conspiracy back to the 1800s, using german acronyms that may sound convincing, but actually don't make much sense for a native speaker.

So, yes, I would advise to pull the emergency brake and get out of this. If you have to dig deeper, look at every new claim, theory or new spin on a theory with reasonable scepticism and try to get as much information as possible from all sides.

Having said all this, I admire the openness and courage and I very much can relate to the "if this really happens, what else might be true" kind of attitude. The debunkers of course will have more reason to openly dismiss the show now, but I guess we're well past that point.
 
Last edited:
#57
I am sorry. What Judy Wood is presenting is not science. She has a lot of great photos. Her whole hypothesis is based on speculation. The one element that she will never discuss is the thyroid cancer epidemic amongst 9/11 first responders thus constitutes "smoking gun" evidence of a nuclear event at the World Trade Center. They don't call it "Ground Zero" for nothing.

The thyroid cancer epidemic is probably the most accessible and easiest-to-grasp "smoking gun", it isn't the only one. Already in 2006. Wiliam Tahil published a report entitled "Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre" (link below). In Chapter 2 of his report, Tahil studied the composition of dust samples collected by the USGS in the week following 9/11. He identified a set of correlations between elements which also prove that nuclear fission took place at Ground Zero.

• William Tahil, "Ground Zero: The Nuclear Demolition of the World Trade Centre" (PDF)
http://www.nucleardemolition.com/files/Download/GZero_Report.pdf
 
#58
It's much more difficult to prove a theory than it is to falsify one. It's easy to falsify the official theory about 9/11. Several plausible theories to explain the evidence have been put forward: thermate, mini-nukes, etc. But we don't have to know exactly what happened to know what didn't happen. We know the towers didn't fall without some sort of demolition device(s).
 
#59
I must say that I was kind of taken aback when in the intro excerpt, Mr Carlwood said he "liked" the idea of "spiritual puppet masters". I mean if you really accept that things like NDE, medium or reincarnation research point to the reality of something like spirits, how is the idea that "sinister forces" from that realm might be influencing people's lives anything but frightening? I'm all for doubting the establishment and stirring up things, but some of this stuff is, as he said himself, really dark.
yes, dark, but hard to read the data otherwise IMO. the good news (and I have serveral upcoming shows on this) is it seems to be a choice... you can choose the light or the off-white :)


Well, I guess it's a conspiracy theory of my own that the reason there are so many often really silly theories might be that the best way to keep a truth from leaking out would be to spread lots of half-truths and outright lies about the same topics.
that's been proven/admitted, see Mirage Men for example.

As a german, for example, I'm really quite unnerved by how much traction this Nazi UFO stuff is getting.
I don't go too far down that rabbit hole, but the nazi-ification of US thru Project Paperclip is undeniable.
 
#60
I'm thinkin' conspiracies do exist on the small scale as opposed to all these planetary scale 'globalist' ones. Globalist ones are backward constructed in that you can take how things just simply are in the world and build a conspiracy to explain it all.
Conspiracies are veeeery easy to fall in with because they can have real patterns of truth contained within which in turn our pattern seeking brain fills the gaps into a full blown narrative.

I rationalize my own belief in various conspiracies this way...... some people will murder to steal another's pair of sneakers..... brothers and sisters will go to war with each other over who gets recently departed mom's china cabinet..... so what do you think people, corporations, or nations will do when there's millions or billions of dollars at stake and/or having to hold onto and control enormous power and influence?
 
Top