Before you see the new Tarantino movie

Tools    





Well, as I have detailed the Manson psyop to the best of my ability here and in my video already...there isn't much point in repeating what you probably didn't read the first time.
I'm pretty sure there's a point to answering the simple questions I'm asking, though.

Unless, of course, you just like saying things but find answering basic questions about it annoying. Or, worse, deep down you don't want to convince people because as long as they remain unconvinced you can look down on them for being naive and gullible, or whatever. That certainly seems to fit the high energy opening of "look at all this evidence sheeple!" followed by the low energy petering out when someone goes "uhhh, what about this?"

Yes the families are in on it, freemasonic secrets are held closely around the world, yes people do keep massive secrets.
It's amazing to me that you think this qualifies as an explanation. Just insisting "yes the families are in on it"? That's it? That's all you have to say to handwave away this massive logic problem?

I think even you must know this is a terrible response, which is why you didn't offer it at all the first time and I had to ask you a second time.

I bring up the biggest proven conspiracies
They're not proven. Please stop wasting my time and yours by trying to convince anyone with insistence rather than arguments.

If you believe the explanations why bldg 7 can freefall, after being announced first, when hit by nothing....well I have to point out that siding with the overwhelming majority of authority loving obedient academics isn't thinking for yourself.
Yikes. This is just an absolute mess, both factually and logically.

First, thinking for yourself means weighing evidence on its merits. If you're thinking about how to avoid being on the side of a certain group (like these "authority loving obedient academics"), then you're by definition not thinking for yourself. You're still letting other people determine your views, just inversely.

Second, by issuing a blanket discrediting of an entire group (and not even a field! Literally just the group "people who formally study things"!), you've made your claim unfalsifiable. You have demanded technical explanations for a technical phenomenon, then dropped in "oh, and by the way, everyone with the technical expertise to answer is suspect and can be ignored."

Third, I've never even heard of the stereotype of academics as being "authority loving." You appear to have invented that out of thin air, in order to have a reason to dismiss them. In fact, in this case the stereotype seems backward, because it's not my experience that academics were big fans of the Bush administration, and didn't much like the idea that Islamic extremists had knocked the buildings down, either. So insofar as you want to invoke lazy stereotypes to ignore all technical expertise (how convenient), those stereotypes would undercut your position, not enhance it.


Seriously what other explanation is there for neil armstrong telling us that the stars in space were not visible from the moon or on the way to the moon? You don't find that interesting?
So your position is that these people were cunning and devious enough to fake the moon landing, but too stupid to remember to add stars?

You can Google the boring technical/photographic explanation if you wan't (and if you haven't already, think about why that is, maybe), but weird stuff like this is an argument against the conspiracy, not for it.

This is the problem every conspiracy theorist has. They try to have it both ways: dude it is just sooooooo obvious that this was faked, LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. IT'S SO CLEAR. But when you ask them about one problem or another, suddenly it's OH, BUT THEY'RE SMART AND THOROUGH AND COVERED IT ALL UP. Every conspiracy has to pretend that the conspirators are either the dumbest or smartest people in the world, back and forth, depending on the needs of the argument at that moment.
__________________



"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



The simple questions you are asking? They are all rhetorical questions! In fact reading your responses they are all insulting and ridicule without any substance. Like "you can Google the boring technical explanation for why they can't SEE the stars in space with their EYES! There is no boring technical explanation!!! In fact unless you go into conspiracy waters they won't even admit Niel Armstrong said this! But I was wrong you only wish to appear rational, sophism is what you do and no surprise. Impressed by your own sno0tty replies in which you accuse me of what you are doing in spades. You are solipsistic and you don't care about anything.



The simple questions you are asking? They are all rhetorical questions!
No they aren't. They're relevant, legitimate questions that you absolutely need to have decent answers to if you're going to float conspiracy theories.

In fact reading your responses they are all insulting and ridicule without any substance.
Nonsense. Read the post again; I'm criticizing you for being intellectually lazy, but there's no serious way to pretend I'm merely ridiculing you. It is, at worst, mixing in a moderate amount of sarcasm in with otherwise straightforward counterarguments. And you're transparently using those little moments of sarcasm to ignore said counterarguments.

Frankly, I think I'm being a good deal more substantive than I have to be, given that when I asked you a simple question you started hurling tons of unrelated claims at me, and just keep insisting and repeating things. You can't pretend to want substance if you immediately change the subject when I try to take you up on it.

Like' "you can Google the boring technical explanation for why they can't SEE the stars in space with their EYES! There is no boring technical explanation!!!
Yes, there is. I've read it. And it's actually pretty intuitive if you've ever tired to take a photo with wildly disparate light sources in the foreground and background. The answer's literally observable in your phone.

You also haven't addressed the actual counterargument, about why you think it's plausible that they went to such tremendous expense and effort to fake it, but forgot something as simple as this. Like most conspiracies, you have two conceptions of the people covering it up that you switch between from point to point, even though they're mutually exclusive.

I realize it's easier to get all huffy and storm off rather than address this, but that's a bad look for the guy who's accusing everyone else of not facing things.

You are solipsistic and you don't care about anything.
You're wrong. I care a great deal about many things, and deeply, too.

One of those things is proper critical thinking. I also care about intellect wasted on meaningless rabbit holes. And, unfortunately for me, I am strangely fascinated by the depths people will go to to rationalize things. Which is why I'm sitting here, foolishly trying to have a serious conversation with a person who is saying some pretty outrageous things. And whaddya' know, yet again, that person finds some excuse to not have it after all.



If you actually cared, then you would have already researched how Neil Armstrong and dozens of other astronauts STATED ON VIDEO that: they cannot see the stars in space with their EYES!



Except now (as of about 2007) they say they CAN see the stars. No apologies or explanations at all. Now the official story is they can see the stars no problem! Total contradiction. IF you cared you would already know this or you would go research it now. But you won't. Because you identify with the power structure and you love your special job as moderator which you would lose. I didn't sell my soul. But we can't say the same for you.



If you actually cared, then you would have already researched how Neil Armstrong and dozens of other astronauts STATED ON VIDEO that: they cannot see the stars in space with their EYES!
Startpage is your friend.
Can Astronauts See Stars In Space?

The origin of this misconception is usually traced back to an interview with the crew of Apollo 11, where (it is claimed) Neil Armstrong said he couldn’t see stars in space. What the crew were actually discussing at the time was the inability to see stars on the daylight side of the Moon, which is not surprising given how bright the lunar surface can be relative to the airless black of space. Even in space the stars aren’t overly bright, and our eyes can lose dark adaption pretty quickly.



BTW if a government conspiracy bumped off Sharon Tate and then blamed it on Charles Manson, how is it that secret government agents haven't taken down your conpiracy web site and came knocking at your door?



Mistress of Sick Gore
Oh my, getting all crazy over a form of art that is used for entertainment purposes? I don't think the producers have said that "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" is actually factual. I dont care.. I'm seeing it for entertainment purposes and no less or more.

@Yoda

This sounds like the guy that used to be here a few years ago, that liked to start controversial conversations with you. I remember what you did .. you banned him... whadda ya think?
__________________
Never talk smack about Star-Lord!!!
It is not his fault and he's not an idiot!


After all, horror is usually concerned in some way with death, and romance is concerned with love, but love and death and how one is bound up in the other is the very essence of gothic.



If you actually cared, then you would have already researched how Neil Armstrong and dozens of other astronauts STATED ON VIDEO that: they cannot see the stars in space with their EYES!
I did, and found this. Apparently I was giving you a little too much credit, since I assumed you didn't mean "with their naked eye," since that's addressed pretty clearly in this link, and the one CR posted, and in a dozen others to anyone who takes a minute to Google explanations.

So, since your specific claim is addressed in easily found sources, one of two things must be true. Either a), you've heard this counterargument already, in which case you should already be explaining why it's wrong, rather than just opening with the Armstrong claim and making us to flesh the rest of the argument down. Or (more likely), b) you haven't heard this, because you literally never bothered to find and consider the potential explanations, in which case I'll just quote your own words back to you:
IF you cared you would already know this or you would go research it now. But you won't.
So which is it?

Because you identify with the power structure and you love your special job as moderator which you would lose.
Nice try, but I'm the owner of this site. So the "special job as moderator" is one I got from...me. And I have it on good authority I won't be firing myself anytime soon.

So, now we have proof that you're willing to make accusations based on nothing, which turn out to be literally impossible. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence about your objectivity or commitment to the truth.

I didn't sell my soul. But we can't say the same for you.
See above.

Seems to me like you have a standard playbook of dismissals you use whenever someone pushes back on this stuff, and you don't really know or care if it's true. Everyone who disagree is just automatically a dupe or a shill. Why? Because they disagree with you, of course. It's unfalsifiable, the same way the blanket dismissal of all technical expertise makes your position unfalsifiable. And since everyone who disagrees is a dupe or a shill, you're spared the difficulty of having to respond to their counterarguments.

Except, of course, this time your accusation turns out to be literally impossible. So, you can face the music and try to substantively respond to what I'm saying to you, or you can effectively (if indirectly) admit you don't really want to talk about the evidence by continuing to deflect with dodges and accusations.



Oh my, getting all crazy over a form of art that is used for entertainment purposes? I don't think the producers have said that "Once Upon A Time in Hollywood" is actually factual. I dont care.. I'm seeing it for entertainment purposes and no less or more.

@Yoda

This sounds like the guy that used to be here a few years ago, that liked to start controversial conversations with you. I remember what you did .. you banned him... whadda ya think?
Unfortunately, we've had enough conspiracy theorists over the years that I legitimately don't know which you mean. I don't think this is an alt, though.



Startpage is your friend.

This will be my last post here since I am facing shills. Obviously you haven't SEEN the 2 interviews PLUS half a dozen other recorded interview with astronauts stating very clearly: WE CAN"T SEE THE STARS IN SPACE /watch?v=PCcKX2ZZ5Tg


And considering your avatar is Orson Welles...who was part of the war of the worlds PSYOP, which is referenced in the mondo hollywood film it appears I am trying to use logic to convince satanists. BTW orson wells, hg wells, orwell....all fabians, and the confusion is deliberate.



This moderator might be a piece of software I am talking to but chances are some human might read it. Gaslighting is what this is called. A confidence cult of winning. Its a method not interested in truth at all, and what they deliberately did to logos by replacing it with ego (Freud was Illuminati). The only question you asked me is if their families were in on it. I take it you've never been around an elitist family. Total dedication to the pyramid scheme(check yourself) because all that other writing above is avoiding objective evidence. parly because the perspective I am suggesting is associated with trauma, not just personal trauma either, man-son was just one of thousands of fake news historical events, which is FOR OUR PERCEPTION and the people delivering that content to you is just like what you are doing to me, gaslighting. The real history: "the enlightenment" was a Machiavellian scheme for centralization of power. Documented: elite academics writing ultra liberal utopian books were lying frontmen with elite bloodlines, like adam weishaupt. Consider that the movie The Matrix is freemasonic controlled opposition with neo's passport expiring on 9/11 (aka the emergency number that is predictive programming for the global trauma the plan at least 60 years old) Aud trauma often use the bully laughing in your face, it's more effective especially when it meets total cowardice, and for this we have endless historical evidence associated with proven false flag hoaxes. Like in those films I listed in my OP. This is how the counter-culture works: it uses movies like the truman show, so that any discovery how big the lies really are now equated with comedy fantasy or superhero quasi-religious propaganda in most sci-if mythological weaponized programs. Usually a twisted metaphor about the facts that we don't need a methopor about at all. Some few of us are trying to explain to muppets like yourself that you are defending a transhumanist totalitarian agenda that is based on lies, BIG LIES, and usually about fake freedom. This is not much different from yoda, developed from the works of Joseph Campbell closely associated with mk-ultra (so was Lucas) and the social engineering that aldous huxley was doing for the fabian society working under the charter of the rhodes roundtable group and directed by rothschilds and the black nobility. WW 1&2 were scripted and the evidence that is constantly being banned and censored for "hate speech" is just what they did to senator mccarthy back when what was left of a real congress was humiliated by media power. But go ahead and quote every sentence and make some contradictory sophist remark. No truth and no ground to stand = broken people. For a couple hundred years now Illuminati runs freemasonry and college fraternities and most secret societies around the world. Most governments have been run by the intelligence agencies since ww2. The scam was utopia up front and totalitarian hierarchic behind the scenes which is why people like MLK were freemasons. Cultural Marxism is the deliberate de-moralization by force and that is what Hollywood (the frankfurt school) was/is: the agenda to make good men into homosexual drug addict debt slaves watching their fantasy content for company coupons. So try and be a bit better than Pavlov's dog defending the prison, a prisoner graduating to prison guard. If you think I am wrong then take one big topic (like fake moon trips) and without appeealing to authority prove it's real. WITHOUT appealng to authority, at all. Sure you can do that, right? Well I won't know because I won't be checking back in to hear your slave mentality pretending to be happy about destroying all that's good in a surveillance state of disinformation pervs.



This will be my last post here since I am facing shills.
This is a really, really transparent way to dodge difficult questions. And I suspect you've got these dismissals chambered in advance, ready to fire the moment you meet any resistance you're not sure how to respond to. Which explains why you were willing to accuse me of shilling to curry favor with the site owner, unaware that I am the site owner. Seems like it's just a lazy, prefab accusation you toss out like a smoke bomb when things aren't going so well.

Obviously you haven't SEEN the 2 interviews PLUS half a dozen other recorded interview with astronauts stating very clearly: WE CAN"T SEE THE STARS IN SPACE /watch?v=PCcKX2ZZ5Tg
See, this is really damning, right here. Did you read his link? It doesn't just say "they never said anything like that." It says "here's the context in which they said it and why that's not what they're referring to."

Kinda seems like you're replying to stuff without looking at it...which proves that you're not interested in the truth at all, and is literally the thing you just tried to condemn me for (inaccurately, as I quickly noted).

Its a method not interested in truth at all
Yeah, don't you hate that? People who aren't interested in the truth. People who toss out accusations they have no evidence for that aren't even possible. Or who dismiss evidence without looking at it. People like that are the worst.

The only question you asked me is if their families were in on it.
False, and I can quote the others back to you to prove it.

Brief recap: I asked you how you reconcile the two mutually exclusive conceptions of the conspirators (they're powerful and clever enough to cover things up, but dumb enough to forget to include stars, and not bother to do anything about it for DECADES?), multiple times. I also asked for an explanation for your weird blanket dismissal of all academics (which seems to be totally made up, if not the literal opposite of the reality), and I asked you which of the counterarguments you were already familiar with. I've gotten crickets pretty much across the board.

I take it you've never been around an elitist family.
Uh...this is the explanation? That's it? They're "elitist," (all of them? How? Define your terms) therefore you can just say they're all faking? Good grief, dude. Your threshold of evidence for this is shockingly low. Certainly a hell of a lot lower than your threshold for believing anything which you feel supports a conspiracy.

Total dedication to the pyramid scheme(check yourself) because all that other writing above is avoiding objective evidence.
You know what conspiracy theorists spend a lot of time doing? Talking about how CLEAR and OBJECTIVE and UNDENIABLE their evidence is.

You know what they don't spend a lot of time doing? Actually discussing that evidence in detail when people point out it's none of those things.

The real history: "the enlightenment" was a Machiavellian scheme for centralization of power. Documented: elite academics writing ultra liberal utopian books were lying frontmen with elite bloodlines, like adam weishaupt. Consider that the movie The Matrix is freemasonic controlled opposition with neo's passport expiring on 9/11 (aka the emergency number that is predictive programming for the global trauma the plan at least 60 years old) Aud trauma often use the bully laughing in your face, it's more effective especially when it meets total cowardice, and for this we have endless historical evidence associated with proven false flag hoaxes. Like in those films I listed in my OP. This is how the counter-culture works: it uses movies like the truman show, so that any discovery how big the lies really are now equated with comedy fantasy or superhero quasi-religious propaganda in most sci-if mythological weaponized programs. Usually a twisted metaphor about the facts that we don't need a methopor about at all. Some few of us are trying to explain to muppets like yourself that you are defending a transhumanist totalitarian agenda that is based on lies, BIG LIES, and usually about fake freedom. This is not much different from yoda, developed from the works of Joseph Campbell closely associated with mk-ultra (so was Lucas) and the social engineering that aldous huxley was doing for the fabian society working under the charter of the rhodes roundtable group and directed by rothschilds and the black nobility. WW 1&2 were scripted and the evidence that is constantly being banned and censored for "hate speech" is just what they did to senator mccarthy back when what was left of a real congress was humiliated by media power. But go ahead and quote every sentence and make some contradictory sophist remark. No truth and no ground to stand = broken people. For a couple hundred years now Illuminati runs freemasonry and college fraternities and most secret societies around the world. Most governments have been run by the intelligence agencies since ww2. The scam was utopia up front and totalitarian hierarchic behind the scenes which is why people like MLK were freemasons. Cultural Marxism is the deliberate de-moralization by force and that is what Hollywood (the frankfurt school) was/is: the agenda to make good men into homosexual drug addict debt slaves watching their fantasy content for company coupons. So try and be a bit better than Pavlov's dog defending the prison, a prisoner graduating to prison guard. If you think I am wrong then take one big topic (like fake moon trips) and without appeealing to authority prove it's real. WITHOUT appealng to authority, at all. Sure you can do that, right? Well I won't know because I won't be checking back in to hear your slave mentality pretending to be happy about destroying all that's good in a surveillance state of disinformation pervs.
Good grief, dude. Hundreds and hundreds of words of what's essentially just a giant game of free association.

I mean, congratulations on knowing Star Wars is an example of Campbell's monomyth, but what the hell has that got to do with anything? It's starting to sound like this is less about defending a claim and more about just trying to show you know things, or are smart, or whatever. It sure as hell isn't consistent with just wanting a serious discussion of the facts, though. If that's what you wanted, you wouldn't fly off the handle and talk about everything other than the topic at hand the moment somebody asks you a question about it. That's a pretty big tell.



Mistress of Sick Gore
@Yoda, I love how he brushes you and @Citizen Rules off... just clearly ignores comments..

Conspiracy theorists crack me up... paranoids... .




For some reason this brief back and forth from Sneakers (1992) keeps popping into my head:

Mother: Were you still in C.I.A. in '72?

Donald Crease: Yeah, why?

Mother: Did you know the Deputy Director of Planning was down in Managua, Nicaragua the day before the earthquake?

Donald Crease: Now what are you saying, the C.I.A. caused the Managua earthquake?

Mother: Well, I can't prove it, but...



Mistress of Sick Gore
My mom is a conspiracy theorist. I found out on 4th of July... she's stockpiling groceries and such because she thinks the economy will crash and the price of things will skyrocket....



I think OP has done what many people do when the facts aren't clear and that's to fill them in and possibly connect dots that aren't there.

That said, I agree with some of what he's posted.

"Helter Skelter" was a strategy, concocted and employed by Bugliosi specifically to put Manson in prison. He states many times, in his own book, that he didn't have enough evidence of Manson's involvement to convict him. A 'family' member, Paul Watkins, brought up the Beatles thing and Bugliosi ginned it up to make Manson appear to be some evil Svengali. In reality, the Cielo Drive murders were about drugs and the LaBianca murders were mafia related (Manson had a lot of mafia connections in prison). He hints at it several times in interviews but the interviewers always fail to pick up the ball - instead focusing on the blood and gore and on 'evil' Charlie.

Manson had a lot of connections in Hollywood and on the L.A. drug scene. He also had connections with Leary (who might actually be MK Ultra) and many other movers and shakers of the time.

This has led to what amounts to guilt by association - ie anything his associates are guilty of he must also be guilty of (because Charlie was the devil, right?). Manson was not innocent. I don't believe it can be proven that he had anything to do with the Cielo Drive murders prior to them happening (but he might have visited the scene afterwards). I do think he was likely complicit in the LaBianca murders because no one but him would have had a beef/score with Leno (mafia connected).

Manson wasn't a 'fake' - he was a patsy on some levels and a conspirator on others.

Lots of real (first hand) evidence available in Nikolas Schreck's book "The Manson File" - the most truthful book on the subject IMO. Also, his film, Charles Manson Superstar is a wealth of information. Another good book is Stimson's "Goodbye Helter Skelter" - breaks down Bugliosi's built up case. By the by, OP is on the right track RE: Bugliosi - he was for sure a CIA darling - see the 1k+ page book on JFK trying to legitimize the Warren report.
__________________



My mom is a conspiracy theorist. I found out on 4th of July... she's stockpiling groceries and such because she thinks the economy will crash and the price of things will skyrocket....
By the way, 'Conspiracy Theorist' is a term coined by the CIA (circa mid 60's) designed to mock/insult anyone who questions the official narrative.

No one can really be sure of what happened in events like JFK, 9-11 etc. There are always elements that don't make sense.



Yeah, I think you're right on the basic posture: if something a little wonky goes on, people just sort of bifurcate. Either they pretend nothing wonky happened at all, or they buy into the absolute craziest explanation possible. Very few just go with the nuanced "yeah, there was some stuff that didn't match the official line, but it's probably not an overarching conspiracy with dozens of faked murders."

I'm of the mind that you can look at almost ANY major crime and find tons of things that don't make sense. Reality is weird and messy and coincidences happen all the time in events with lots of moving parts and lots of unpredictable people.



I don't find the agnostic approach to nearly anything a cowardly position.

In my experience, most things are surrounded by gray area and anyone who is dead certain about anything is making a leap somewhere along the line.



A system of cells interlinked

And considering your avatar is Orson Welles...who was part of the war of the worlds PSYOP, which is referenced in the mondo hollywood film it appears I am trying to use logic to convince satanists. BTW orson wells, hg wells, orwell....all fabians, and the confusion is deliberate.
I can't stop laughing at this.
__________________
"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP