I've long since given up wondering why people do some of the things they do. Suffice to say we live in a weird, weird world.

That is very weird behaviour. With all the brain insults directed at myself over the months i could quite easily throw back but that'd make me worse than him, if anything i feel sorry for their behavioural actions seriously. Not only that he tried hiding his tracks and pinning those Alias's on me. Gee whiz The Butcher i feel sorry for you. Suppose that's the end of JML. Gee Whizz when challenged to a debate they/he ran off with his tail between his legs.

With this behaviour MY belief's are obviously causing his discomfort. Which means his beliefs are Vulnerable. The PROBLEM he is obviously suffering badly with rlCOGNITIVE DISSONANCErl TUT TUT TUT.

EDITED

The thing I don't get is why you are bothering going to all the effort. I mean, I do what I do because I find these topics fascinating and I post mostly for the many others who think similarly. Sure, it would be cool if a few more people clawed themselves out of their stupor - but the truth is it's largely a waste of time and energy appealing to their sense of reason.

No matter the quantity or quality of your evidence these people will keep on raising the bar as though the only kind of worthwhile truth is one which can be derived scientifically. Never mind the fact that in the courtroom the burden of proof is rarely (if ever) so high.

I've lost count of the number of times people dismiss evidence as purely "circumstantial" without realizing not only that such evidence is admissible in a courtroom - but that many cases have been decided solely on circumstantial evidence.

[iCircumstantial evidence has a reputation for generally being weaker and less valid evidence than direct evidence. It is interesting and necessary, however, to emphasize that it is simply incorrect to assume that direct evidence is always stronger or more convincing than circumstantial evidence. Aside from scientific evidence, other examples of circumstantial evidence that may imply guilt include the defendant’s motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the defendant had resisted arrest, or if any suspicious behaviors were demonstrated. Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence.[/i

You're better off not engaging with these fools. It's a fundamental mistake to think people behave rationally. Mostly it's just dumb instinct.

I mean, I can't force you to quit banging your head against a brick wall. But I wish you wouldn't. It's not healthy.

He's even formed a conspiracy that seems to involve me. Which is a bit weird. I wouldn't get into a serious debate about the validity of unicorns or why Harry Potter is actually real with someone, so I'm certainly not wasting time with people who think the earth is flat, that everything we see is all made up by secret societies, and that scientists are all hiding truth from all of us. These people are the same as those that would argue for unicorns and Harry Potter. It's not running away from debate, it's that their arguments are so ridiculous that debating them lends them some kind of equal validity with reality. Which they are very far from.

I don't need to create alter-egos to stalk you and discredit you, Stanley. You do a much better job of that without my help.

Besides, I'm not the one on here who's bothered to find out my actual name and post here. Kind of a bit like stalking eh?

You've asked this before, you're getting more weird by the minute.
Are you being serious with that question. Really. Are we talking Sandy Hoax here ? or Paris, or St Bernardino, to be honest all three had special operation drills going on prior or at the time of the event. Instead of providing Sandy Hook i'll provide all three to stop confusion

1.rlSANDY HOAX CHILDREN STILL ALIVErl
rlSANDY HOAX FEMA EXCERCISErl
2. rlST BERNARDINO SWAT TEAM IN OPERATION AT THE RIGHT TIMErl
3.rlPARIS DRILLS PRIOR EVENTrl

I can't comment on 2 & 3 but there are much better sources than those you've quoted on the issue of Sandy Hook. I don't regard Jim Fetzer as a particularly reliable researcher. He did some good work years ago on the Kennedy case but ever since he became tied up with Veterans Today he's become pretty flaky. Bear in mind that the editor of Veterans Today, Gordon Duff, has openly admitted that the publication is "95% disinformation".

I've no idea what JML32 alter ego The Butcher has coughed up. But i'd wager it's nothing to do with this Paris thread followed by a brain insult. I love this FOE BUTTON. :

I have no problem with people not believing conspiracy theories, they're a lot out there that are just plain bat5hit, and some like the JFK assassination, or opprration mockingbird are just about as open and shut as you can get, and have actually been proven. Yet people still greet people who relay this information with ridicule. As an example, Mugwump has named almost all his sources of information, yet almost nobody, except perhaps Cronus has tried to refute the evidence.
It isn't surprising though, whenever anyone suggests that almost everything a person thought that was true about his perception of society, or the world in general has all been a sham then they usually respond in a dismissive manner, and ignore the evidence that's in front of them. Religious people are a prime example of this.

I really don't mind people objecting to different theories about X, Y & Z. Covert actions are - by their very nature - designed to be opaque. It's the reason ten times as much resources are devoted to the cover story as the operation itself.

What I do object to is people who haven't the faintest idea about what they are talking about attacking others who have invested a considerable portion of their own precious time and energy researching events to a level which would be acceptable in an academic institution.

For instance - I have a rule of thumb regarding 9/11 which has never once let me downThe only people who deny the existence of some form of conspiracy either know next to nothing about the event or have some vested interest in supporting the official explanation.[/i

Only in some topsy-turvy universe is it acceptable for people who haven't even read the official 9/11 Commission Report to claim those who have and don't believe it are delusional.

Which is why I don't bother engaging with such clowns - [ior I ask them to state clearly, prior to entering the debate, precisely what it would take for them to change their opinion[/i - at which point they suddenly become very, very vague. What does this tell you?

I mean, I used to get pretty wound up about it. But now I just find it funny. I know I've done the hard grind. I have over a thousand books on the shelf behind me, heaven knows how much archived video and audio footage etc. etc. I'm not saying I know everything - but I'm more than satisfied that I know something about what I'm talking about.

My opinions are always flexible - which is precisely as it should be. It's the idiots clinging to a completely rigid explanation they don't even realise was disproven years ago who are in error.

The weird thing is - on at least three occasions I've caught out people who take great delight in ridiculing any and all conspiracies publicly espousing a completely different viewpoint in private. This leads me to believe that truth is far less important than social inclusion to these people. Which makes sense really when you consider how intelligence agencies try to muddy the waters. Bear in mind that it was the CIA which first emphasized the effectiveness of labeling people "conspiracy theorists" (see the first link in the Unmediated History Thread) as a means of combating the growing number of people who were dissatisfied with the Warren Commission (which means the joke is kind of on the people using it in a pejorative sense).

I wasn't always this way. For a good thirty years I WAS ONE of these clowns. Before embarking on any kind of serious research I've ALWAYS believed the official story (with the possible exception of JFK). And yet time and time again I've found that my faith in the official explanation was completely misplaced.