Conspiracy Theories

Was all this from that book by Constantine? I skimmed it once, and read a few random pages with fault writing, so I wasn't going to poison my mind with a fishing expeditition for money.. Yeah, Jim Morrison's father was the Rear Admiral at the Gulf of Tonkin, but to asset that Jim himself was involved is hysterical.. Jim never saw his father after 64', and cut ties with him, only seeing his siblings once in a while.


In the 60s, almost EVERY child had a father who was in the military - it was WWII! It wasn't just the children from one section - it was all over.



I don't see how writing about anti-war "combats" the movement. You need specifics.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

You’re not a fan of the film, yet you make podcasts about this film, make multiple posts about this film and bring it up constantly, including bumping an old thread about it that was made a few years ago?

That’s rather odd behavior. Sounds like someone is backpedaling hard!

Though, I suppose it fits your profile as a pessimistic contrarian.

It does help. I mean, if you had to live all your life with auditory hallucinations (sometimes not explained to you, sometimes so "real" that explanations aren't satisfactory) and the ensuing uncertainties, incomprehension and divide between you and neurotypical people, you'd easily question and mistrust your surroundings.

But it's neither necessary nor sufficient. Conspiracies are appealing by themselves, they are fun (don't we all movie-goers love them in stories), they are flattering (no matter your status, "seeing" them makes you enlightened) and they are satisfactory (untangling them like little life puzzles in a world of cryptic clues is stimulating and feels rewarding) and paradoxically soothing (yes, a conspiracy of baddies is unsettling, but at least it brings sense and meaning to chaos). Plus, it's falsely difficult, falsely occult, falsely challenging, and actually very easy. Blur events, describe them in very general terms, and you can make everything overlap with everything, each overlap allowing a new "coincidence I think not". It's like painting under the guise of puzzle-solving. And it paints you, in real life, as the hero of a kind of plot everyone enjoys (the underdog unmasking criminal elites).

Plus, you get encouraged and flattered by all sorts of disparate third parties, channeling your "discoveries" for political, psychological, social and financial gains. Populists, cult leaders, influencers, writers, etc. It's a natural tendency of the functional brain (seeking patterns), socially rewarding in the right communities, and encouraged and applauded by them.

So, no, it really doesn't require any particular mental disorder. No more than any religion or belief in sorcery all around the world.

You can talk about a film without having to like it. This is a film site after all, and it would be rather boring if we just chose to talk about the films that interested us.

Have you seriously never heard the idea that flawed films are often the best for analysis? Because it's a common idea.

In fact, in our podcasts (which I'm guessing you didn't listen to, since you don't even seem to even read the posts you're responding to), we routinely talk/joke about whether the film we're discussing deserves credit for sparking the discussion, or if we're really just creating connections and finding angles that aren't there. Lemme know if that concept rings any bells...

Also, you might have noticed I pointed out a couple of reasons that it's still not a contradiction even if I was a fan of the film, but you've conveniently (or should I say coincidentally?) not responded to those.

So there is no contradiction, for at least three separate (but individually sufficient) reasons. And it's pretty obvious that you're just responding reflexively and defensively to everything at this point.

What odds can I get that the next reply is just more assertions and "I sure hope this puts him on the defensive" tweaks, instead of simple answers to the points posted early? Is Vegas taking that off the board?

Finally, he admits it.

More drivel. And you claim I am the defensive one on this? Haha! Good sir, kindly review your replies in this thread. It is clear you are the one on the defensive and backpedaling.

You are clearly projecting your own defensiveness and insecurities onto others. Do conspiracies really make you that afraid and insecure?

Every conspiracy that gets mentioned you quickly shoot down as you don’t have the capacity to consider an alternative perspective other than your own. If someone said “the sky is blue” I’m sure your response would be “no it’s more of a sapphire color”.

And why the heck would I want to listen to a podcast about a film from someone who A) hates the film and B) is not perceptive nor considerate enough to understand the deeper themes and subtext of the film, and therefore lack the ability to conduct a true, thorough analysis of the film ?

That makes no sense at all and would be a waste of my time. If I’m going to listen to an Eyes Wide Shut podcast, I would want to listen to one where the person has admiration for the film and knows what the heck they are talking about!

Good day to you kind sir!

Yes, the person constantly changing the subject and tossing out new, weak attacks is the defensive one. I even linked you to the unanswered points in the previous post, and they were once again ignored.

Thanks for immediately providing another textbook example of the thing I mentioned earlier: goofy psychological speculation like this is meant to distract from the unanswered points, in hopes that the other person will sputter and defend themselves rather than press on.

False: the overwhelming majority of theories floated in this thread have received zero response from me either way. Some are just in the last few pages, so even a light skimming shows as much. Shall I provide examples, or will you just talk past that, too?

Speaking of "projecting your own defensiveness and insecurities onto others," this is an amusing thing to hear from someone who, when met with an "alternative perspective," immediately assumed it must have been "influenced."

First, this isn't about whether you'd "want to," it's about whether you'd be in a position to form a meaningful opinion about it having not heard it. Obviously you aren't.

Second, "I'm not a fan of the film" does not mean someone "hates the film." There's plenty of daylight between the two. Eyes Wide Shut is interesting, occasionally brilliant, but flawed, and those are often the most interesting films to analyze.

Third, it's bizarre that you think anyone who understands the themes or subtext of the film must necessarily believe not only in the conspiracy it generally alludes to, but apparently completely unrelated ones!

Something something "don’t have the capacity to consider an alternative perspective other than your own."

Please don't waste my time with further replies in this vein, particularly responses that are easily dismantled with a moment's thought. There are several replies earlier in this thread you've completed ignored: you haven't explained your weird definition of "contradiction" and you've equated that claim with the much weaker idea that events depicted "could have happened." Any response that doesn't address these issues is, ultimately, just a very ornate distraction. Which, I guess, is a fitting thing given the thread topic.

Gottem.

Interesting how Eyes Wide Shut seems to resonate with "conspiracy theorists" at a much deeper level than, say, Wag The Dog, JFK or Capricorn One.

All good questions.

I think in all likelihood, both Ghislaine and Epstein were CIA operatives. Ghislaine’s father Robert Maxwell was a proven spy (who died under very suspicious circumstances) so he most likely had his daughter recruited before his death.

It explains how Epstein was able to get away with so much for so long, because he was being protected. Then he started recording these rich and powerful people as insurance to protect himself if the government ever turned on him.

I think Ghislaine now has possession or knowledge of those tapes/recordings.

The above Robert Anton Wilson book that I mentioned had an entry that states that two films in particular were known to have its fans monitored by intelligence agencies: The Magic Christian and Buckaroo Banzai. (Of course the book is also designed to force the reader to frequently question the author's sincerity.)

I think that you're aiming much too low with the FBI. Epstein and Maxwell were likely MI6/Mossad at least.


The most explosive piece of evidence regarding Epstein's vacay prosecution in Florida 2008 involved the then-federal attorney for South Florida in charge of prosecuting the case, Alexander Acosta. Why didn't he prosecute, and instead deliver a sweetheart hush deal? Well, according to reports, Acosta explained that "I was told Epstein belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone." Acosta, glaringly, gave a non-denial denial to this and promptly resigned from his position as Labor secretary (as any innocent man does). He's since refused to clarify or to further refute these remarks. Why hasn't Acosta since been deposed? Perhaps he has been, in the ensuing reopened investigation. Perhaps his deposition is sitting somewhere near the surveillance videos taken from Epstein's safe, or the sealed settlement deal with the two guards who were sleeping under the broken video cameras pointed at Epstein's jail cell.


I think that anyone who believes that someone like Trump or the Clintons were involved in Epstein's death are betraying a serious lack of imagination or understanding of the issue. Epstein's black book included an array of politicos, artists and scientists, but also a deep bench of known intelligence assets, organized crime figures, shady royals, arms smugglers, etc. As the link above states: "the lines between Russian intelligence, Israeli intelligence and organized crime can get remarkably blurry in practice".


The question of Ghislaine, and her father (known blackmailer and KGB informant), is directly related to the still unexplained question about where Epstein obtained his finances. No one knows where he made his money, and few people are asking. Robert Maxwell died owing some 4 billion dollars (officially - he likely owed much more) and no one ever figured out where his fortune was lost. Ghislaine, dependent on a small trust (some 100K #s a year) was living lavishly in NYC in the early 90s, well above her means, around the time she hooked up with Epstein. It's hard to resist the theory that their pedo-farm for elites wasn't essentially a blackmail honeypot, potentially compromising some of the more important and influential people that they could get into their orbit.


My conclusion at this point is that we'll have an idea exactly how high this goes as soon as those tapes disappear.

This sheds some light on the suspicious cancellation of its sequel.

Exactly, I think there’s no doubt Ghislaine and Epstein were intelligence of some kind. I’m guessing CIA operatives, but I suppose MI6 or Mossad are possible as well.

I don’t think Clinton would have been dumb enough to show up to some random dudes sex island unless he had some assurances that Epstein was affiliated with people he could trust. (Or maybe Clinton really is just that much of a hound)

Seems like the whole thing was a clear cut CIA blackmail operation where they could compromise rich/powerful/influential people so they could have them in their pockets and make them do the government’s bidding.

And I think the CIA recorded Clinton just so they could use the tape against Hilary if she ever got into the White House. The CIA (which has heavy ties to the Bush family) would have had Hilary dancing like a puppet of a string if she ever won the election.

I think Bill may be just that much of a hound.

Nah. Hillary would be perfectly content to let Bill go down with whatever booby ship they sink on him. Did she even lift a finger to defend him when the Lolita Express flight logs were released? I think most people at this point understand the nature of their relationship. It's common knowledge that they've very rarely slept under the same roof over the last 20 years.

Well, yeah, I mean H.W. is a former CIA director after all.

Yes and his father Prescott Bush was one of its founding members.

It’s wouldn’t surprise me if the CIA is anti-Clinton.

??? Not sure which crackpot book you found this in. There's a number of candidates - Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, John Forrestal, Frank Wisner, William Donovan, Hoyt Vandenberg, etc. As in these men were all directly involved in its establishment. Prescott wasn't even in Congress at that time to support the legislation.


This is a very unsophisticated take on how these kinds of organizations work.

Crackpot book ?? What the heck are you talking about sir? Educate yourself please.

It is well known that Prescott Bush was one of the CIA’s founding members. How do you think HW got to be it’s director? By shear luck and his own accord? Give it a rest. That’s not how it works in America my friend! Nepotism is king.

Prescott Bush was the head of the Yale Corportation which oversees Yale University. Prescott was also a member of the Skull and Bones at Yale. The same Yale University which is the breeding/recruitment ground for the CIA.

Stop taking “official narratives” at face value and do some research before your criticize.