Skepticism and your stance?

[steveyraff]

Hey.

I just wanted to share my thoughts on the subject of skepticism, and perhaps have some feedback from other Art Bell listener's to see what their stance is on it. This subject interests me a lot and it is something I spend a great deal of time thinking about.

Firstly, I am not a debunker. I see this as someone who systematically debunks any theories at all costs, and as such, its a destructive form of debate and opinion that rules out open mindedness and the possibility to uncover truth where truth is being smoke screened.

I would say that the best I can describe my stance is as being a 'hopeful skeptic'. That meaning, I think it is good to question everything, but I question and remain inquisitive because I want to believe. I just regularly have a hard to convincing myself 

I love listening to Art Bell, and I've used the internet to do so for many years now. Some of his shows cover topics that I find very plausible, others topics I have little to zero trust in being true - but I still enjoy listening and find it all entertaining regardless, like a kid listening to a fictional ghost story.

One of the things that I first have a problem with is how there is a definite correlation between people who supposedly experience paranormal or unusual events in their lives, and a prior interest to the subject. What I mean by this is that a lot of people who call in with a story about a supposed unusual event that happened to them, seem to already be the kind of person who was interested in paranormal and usual happenings in the first place. This is often where I find the first loss of credibility. On the other hand, not to contradict myself, but I do realise that for example, people who are interested in UFO's do a lot more looking to the skies, so the chances of seeing these unusual things increases. I can understand that. But there is an awful lot of professional astronomers out there who've dedicated their lives to watching the skies, and they've nothing unusual to report. I recall Sir Patrick Moore being asked about UFO's once; and he maintained that he has never witnessed anything unexplainable in his entire life watching the skies.

From I was a child, I've had a big interested in Astronomy. I've witnessed several very unusual things - but my skepticism naturally made me research these sightings to death, until eventually, I was fairly happy that I came up with a more plausible explanation. One of the strangest things I seen was on a very starry night, with a clearly visible Milky Way. I live in rural Ireland so there is little to no light pollution here. I seen what looked like a satellite. However, instead of being a solid light, it was pulsing. Then it slowed down a little, and then it arced; making roughly a 90 degree turn in the sky and moving off over the horizon in a different direction. Eventually, I found that this is often the behaviour of space debris. As it spins uncontrollably, the suns light reflects off it with every spin, giving the impression that it is a pulsing light. As it comes in contact with the atmosphere it can appear to slow down, change direction, change colour, light up, fizzle out etc.

Another even stranger sighting was when I was roughly 10 years old. I was in a car late at night with my older sister and my mother. My sister seen a red light in the sky. She thought it was from a mast on top of a mountain. We stopped the car and got out. It was practically right above us so it was very obviously not a light. This thing was high up in the sky. It had the same size and brightness as something like the planet Venus when it comes close to earth. There was no sound. Then, from one side to another, it turned white. Then all of a sudden, it dramatically shot off across the sky with a blue flame blazing from behind it.

It was very spectacular. Again, through research I more or less confirmed that it was probably a rock burning in the earths atmosphere. In fact, to bring up Sir Patrick Moore once again - he was once asked what the most amazing astronomical sight he ever witnessed was. He said something very similar, a rock burning in the atmosphere. As they heat up they often change colour, fiery red to hot white etc. Apparently as they break up they can shot off in an apparent change of trajectory. They can even release gasses that also burn up etc that could explain the blue flame.

When it comes to UFO's, I find it extremely irritating when someone states that they don't believe in them. How can one not 'believe' in an unidentified object in the sky? Of course there is such a thing as UFO's. Whether they are visitors from another planet, or secret military craft is an entirely different story. Likewise, whilst it is totally ignorant to for a second think there is definitely no other intelligent life in this universe, out of the millions, perhaps billions of planets out there - whether this intelligent life is in contact and visiting us is again and entirely different story.

On the subject of ghosts. I am really unsure. I believe that we only understand as much about science as we have learnt to date. How can we possibly say there isn't a whole other realm of science that we have not yet even slightly touched on in order to begin to understand the possibilities out there. Ghosts could be a phenomena that we have not yet discovered with our current understanding of conventional science.

I've never seen a ghost, nor can I say I've witnessed ghostly paranormal activity. I've witnessed some things which I would say are more to do with the power of the mind than real supernatural happenings. i.e My mother was born and raised here in Ireland. However her father was a nomadic Romani Gypsy with a whole background of fortune telling (again, that is a subject I have little to no belief in). She was never in contact with her Father for most of her life. Growing up, I always presumed he had passed away before I was born. One day, when I was about 18 years old, we were shopping in a local supermarket. My mother suddenly dropped a glass jar, and it shattered to piece in the shopping aisle. She started to cry. That night she couldn't sleep, she had vivid dreams of her father. The next day, she couldn't stop thinking about him, with a lump in her throat. She contacted a cousin and found out his whereabouts that day. He directed her to a hospice, or an old folks home. She went to visit him immediately. Unknown to her until she arrived, he was on his deathbed. He acknowledged her presence but she couldn't speak much to him as she was upset. The next day he passed away. I don't know if this is anything supernatural or what that is, but I believe human intuition is quite powerful and in someways it may not be fully understood. The science behind the workings of the human brain and our mind is always developing and we are still learning new things about how it all works. For all I know, it could one day unlock evidence for things like telepathy, telekinesis, or even those who claim to predict the future. Until such science may or may not be unlocked, I find little evidence that convinces me to fully believe.

With stories I've heard on Art Bell and elsewhere about people who witnessed Ghosts, Aliens, extraterrestrial UFO's; some of them do seem much more plausible than others. Especially those with many witnesses. Then it can be a little more undeniable. However, I don't know if anyone can use these individual 'fairly reliable' stories to say there is definite reason to fully believe these things are real.

Cryptids. I find this area to be rife with speculation, heresy, hoaxes and tales (excuse the pun).
Some of them I find truly unbelievable and far fetched. They seem to be the easiest way for hoaxers to seek fame or recognition. However, some stories are more plausible. Humanoids, bigfoots etc, have a logical possibility. There is a lot of extremely remote areas, and in these areas, something relatively intelligent like something in a primate family could very easily dodge people or intruders from the outside world and remain reclusive. I've watched interesting documentaries that touch on this. As for the likes of the legendary Patterson-Gimlin film; well, the way I see those things are on par with the Michael Jackson trial. Once these things gain THAT much recognition and media attention, it turns into a circus. Disinformation is flying around all over the place. Any real truth that may or may not be out there will never truly be known anymore because of the hype surrounding it and obscuring credible evidence. Thats why I find a lot of these topics a lost cause and the debate over them will just go on eternally. It makes me frustrated to the point that when an Art Bell show comes on about Bigfoot or The Lough Ness Monster I tend to lose some interest immediately. Its just going to be more of the anecdotes we've heard the likes of for years, that may or may not be true - what is the point?

I can say the same for things like Area 51. I do find that topic very interesting, but I fully believe the real truth about the Roswell Crash will never be clear. Ever. The only time you can ever believe these highly debated, media fairground stories are with 100% official disclosure stating its reality with lots of hard proof. Until then, I find the debates and stories to often be tiresome and again, a lost cause. Albeit still enjoyable and entertaining for me to listen to stories about and ponder.

This brings me on to my next topic of thought. 'Conspiracy Theories' in general. Yes, this covers a multitude of topics and issues. Again, the skeptic in me believes in always asking questions and searching for real truth, and exposing cover ups. The issue I have here is that I often find conspiracy theorists to be their own worst enemy. Think of that term... a conspiracy theorist. The name itself suggest someone that sits around theorising about possible conspiracies. That is not the way I think it should work. A theorist will continue to theorise and that will turn anything into a conspiracy. Again, many conspiracy theorists seem to already have an interest in paranormal activity, espionage, cover ups, supernatural, unusual happenings etc. I believe their 'want to believe' forces them to often make mountains out of ant hills.

What happens when there really may be a cover up - what happens when there actually might be a conspiracy? Well, unfortunately, that conspiracy will never be taken seriously. The reason it won't be taken seriously is because of conspiracy theorists. Take for example 9/11. Undeniable evidence here to suggest something is not right. But to what extent? I've read a multitude of credible books on this subject. The best by far to me was "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 (Second Edition)" by David Ray Griffin. What makes this book special is how Griffin starts the book by simply saying, there is not one single opinion in the entire book and nothing in the book is his original writing. Basically, the book is a huge bibliography. Its a collection of facts and only facts, and for each fact, a reference so the evidence can be thoroughly backed up. Brilliant.

What is NOT brilliant, is the abundance of dire videos, flooding youtube, uploaded by armchair, day dreaming, investigators behind keyboards, depicting the same slow motion footage over and over, with little red circles everywhere to focus our attention on the visuals behind their theory. There is only one thing this is brilliant for - the US Government, because these people are doing the US Government a HUGE favour. They can rest assured, no one is ever going to take the topic seriously, and when they do, there is plenty of disinformation and far fetched drivel to obscure all the credible, legitimate theories. I personally believe the only part of this conspiracy theory that we can 100% believe in, is that 9/11 was allowed to happen, and it was strategic, and that it gave the US Government and excuse to do what they couldn't do without such an excuse. But that doesn't matter now, because there are a million videos showing UFO's around the twin towers on that day. In fact, go to Youtube and type in the name of any major event or huge catastrophe, and also next to it type in UFO. You WILL find a video melding the two together. I work as a Sound Engineer, so I watch a lot of Youtube videos on this subject. One of the most horrific I seen was the Indiana State Fair stage collapse, that killed a lot of people. Sure enough, there is also a video of it uploaded, with slow motion replays, and little red circles showing us where the UFO flew out from behind the stage before the stage collapsed. Because, ye know, the aliens are parking their space craft back stage.

To the people who died in 9/11, and to the search for the truth, these conspiracy theorists are completely and totally insulting all those families negatively effected by the events, and they are doing nothing other than helping the cover up process.

Time Travel. This one really interests me. It interests me because this is about science. My favourite Art Bell shows are those dealing with real science. Its harder for me to be a skeptic here! John Titor? Again, no substancial evidence for any of us to ever be able to say he was genuine or not. Its too far fetched for me to believe, there is major holes in his story, but the concept behind it (time travel) can't be ruled out and for that reason I can't legitimately 100% say it is not true.

The main theory on this subject that many scientists have spoke about, is that the biggest problem with time travel is having the receiving technology at the date to which you are travelling to. ie - if we invented time travel today, we would probably need to invent a portal, gate etc today, and this day would be the furthest we could travel back to. So then how would we travel to the future? The topic then expands to parallel universe, alternating dimensions, different timelines etc. Like I stated earlier, there could be an entire world of science we are not any where near intelligent to understand that could make the manipulation of time perfectly possible in every way imaginable. I sometimes wonder if some UFO and alien sightings are actually time travellers that we are witnessing. When scientists try to imagine how the human form will evolve and change in the future, I can't help but draw similarities to the likes of the alien 'Greys' people claim to have witnessed. Its also just about the only shred of plausibility all these conspiracy theorists have to cling on to when they keep claiming to spot UFO's at the scene of any major event or catastrophe caught on film. ie - the inauguration of Barrack Obama. When I sat up late at night here in Ireland to watch this huge event Live on CNN, I was bowled over at the scale of the event. Over one million people crammed into one area to witness it first hand. I also noticed during a part of the ceremony, something streak across the sky. I thought nothing of it, but sure enough the conspiracy theorists have videos of it slowed down all over Youtube. Yes, I do believe this again is very far fetched. But I question everything from both sides. If you could go back 100's of years to witness events, you'd pick something massive. Then the other part of me thinks, well, if we truly did reach a level of technology so sophisticated to time travel, it would also be highly plausible to predict that we would by then also have the technology to cover up our tracks, to remain invisible while doing this time travel.

For me and my skepticism its a constant contradiction and swaying back and forth between the idea of wanting to believe, trying to look at everything as logically as possible, but then at the same time playing devils advocate and asking myself how could this be possible if it IS real?

I believe one of the greatest aspects about Art Bell is his willingness to listen to just about anyone, no matter what their claim to be. Its a testament to his patience and the time he has for people and listeners, and its reflected in how successful and popular his broadcastings reamin. Don't get me wrong, I know he also knows when to draw the line and to call someone up on something that can't be true. I love this quality about his show, it keeps me listening.

Religion. Because of my skeptical nature, I consider myself Agnostic. Again, I can't rule anything out that is not completely and totally understood. In some cases I DO have a problem with institutionalised, organised religions. So many religions out there, often with completely different views, but all based on similar symbology and ideologies, some of them borrowing their entire symbology and belief structures on different religions and paganism before them.

What if there IS a god. A creator. Well, when it comes to the likes of the Catholic church (which I was born into), we are taught to not worship false gods and also to have blind faith. The fail safe for the religion, like many others, is that faith is about believing even when there isnt evidence, and when you don't believe, its sinful and you are a doubting Thomas. Clever little trick to include anytime you are creating a religion.

Well, I sometimes thing that if I were to die this day, and then discovered there is an afterlife, and I had to meet my creator or god face to face, would that super intelligent all seeing, all being entity REALLY judge me and REALLY condemn me for not going along with a religion just because I was born into it?! There are thousands of religions out there, and each one of these religions has a highly dedicated following, and in these followers some people dedicate and commit their entire LIFE to their god. What if they got the wrong one? Because no matter how you look at it, some of those got it wrong. I would never put all my eggs into one basket in any other situation in life - if religion is so important, I'm not doing it there either. If anything, surely my completely 100% dedicating ourselves to a god, we are further risking completely insulting the real one for worshipping a false god.

Again, religion I am not sure about. I think people can be good, moral individuals without being religious. A lot of atheists are beautiful people too! But when it come to faith, and the after life, again, all I can possibly say is there may be an entire world of science we haven't touched on yet that could suddenly make everything like this completely plausible. But from the science we already DO know, we have to use that in our opinions and theories of this subject. ie Evolution. I just can't stand debating about evolution anymore. In fact, if someone starts a debate about evolution, I will just walk away. In 100's of years time, we will look back and find it utterly ridiculous that even debated the subject and tried to somehow deny its existence. As Bill Hicks once said, in debates like this just say one word "Dinosaurs!". I guess now they have that covered too, I've heard the debates where people will seriously try to say that fossils where planted to test our faith.

I listen back to a lot of older Art Bell shows. What I find truly fascinating, is listening back to guests Art had on, who are now totally exposed as hoaxers. The acting is incredible. If I was listening to it live, in some cases, I'd be totally drawn in hook, line and sinker - even as someone who describes themselves as a skeptic. I think some of these hoaxers are so desperate for something to be real, that they just take it into their own hands to the point that they are even lying to themselves. Honestly, some of those hoaxers talk like even they genuinely believe it. When I listen back to some of these guests who are now exposed as hoaxers, I chuckle to myself at just how arrogant some of them are. In retrospect, it was clear they were just loving the attention and being able to play out the role of some form of 'expert'. They genuinely enjoyed being on the pedestal of Art's show. Some of them I genuinely believe started to fool themselves, and they became so intertwined with the character that they were portraying that they were living out their fantasy.

To conclude, I am not really trying to make a point or statement here. I am just sharing with you my thoughts and interest in these subjects and how they interact with both my want to believe and my skepticism.

I am very interested to hear how other listeners of Art Bell's show feel about skepticism and what their stance is.

I often think it would actually make an excellent topic for one of Art's shows! I'd be so interested in the open line callers and what they have to say about it.

Thanks for reading. Look forward to hearing from you all.
Regards,
Steve.

[Jackstar]

I concur.

[b_dubb]

I have a wide stance.


http://youtu.be/0_Vs5570pKw

[Stellar]

To the people who died in 9/11, and to the search for the truth, these conspiracy theorists are completely and totally insulting all those families negatively effected by the events, and they are doing nothing other than helping the cover up process. 

I often think it would actually make an excellent topic for one of Art's shows! I'd be so interested in the open line callers and what they have to say about it.

Thanks for reading. Look forward to hearing from you all.
Regards,
Steve.

Hmmm is this your manifesto on doubt? 
skep·ti·cism  [skep-tuh-siz-uhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
skeptical attitude or temper; doubt.

Well I doubt you know how the victims of 9/11 think and feel even if you were one of them unless of course you think you can mind read and well that's your perception.

I wish to tell you something Steve the world is shrouded in mystery as our solar system moves through a galaxy which is moving too.  As the Universe expands the ? arises do our minds do too on some similar exponential path? 

My perception of a skeptical thinker is well they maybe boxing themselves in, out of fear, thus stifling their personal growth.



Architects and Engineers Respond to CNN's Jake Tapper Slander of 9/11 Truth

[Jackstar]

I think he was implying that people who ask pertinent, legitimate questions about the relentless avalanche of manufactured bullshit that the mainstream media presents us, are not the same as people who photoshop little green men into Fox News reports, and that the latter is bad, but I may have inferred all that incorrectly.

Maybe I got that wrong? It was too long for me to do anything but concur.

[Yorkshire pud]

My perception of a skeptical thinker is well they maybe boxing themselves in, out of fear, thus stifling their personal growth.

Does that explain why you start threads with an absolute but then call it a debate? You know, critical thinking and all that...After all you wouldn't like to be accused of simply posting YT videos that support the conclusion you'd already arrived at...Would you?

An example is the recent shooting: You haven't yet posted a view that the CT might be wrong. Your woefully ill informed crap about a floating HAARP platform that could wreak havoc.. That was your only speculation, it never occurred it could be anything else did it?

Oh and there's the NK EMP attack on the USA...You have absolutely no scientific proof it's even possible, yet you imagine posting a YT video is evidence! Hey, have you seen Lord of the Rings, that's longer than any YT video so that must be more true surely?

You're a deluded fool. It's probably chemically enhanced with home grown and bleach, but you're deluded nonetheless.

[onan]

Does that explain why you start threads with an absolute but then call it a debate? You know, critical thinking and all that...After all you wouldn't like to be accused of simply posting YT videos that support the conclusion you'd already arrived at...Would you?

An example is the recent shooting: You haven't yet posted a view that the CT might be wrong. Your woefully ill informed crap about a floating HAARP platform that could wreak havoc.. That was your only speculation, it never occurred it could be anything else did it?

Oh and there's the NK EMP attack on the USA...You have absolutely no scientific proof it's even possible, yet you imagine posting a YT video is evidence! Hey, have you seen Lord of the Rings, that's longer than any YT video so that must be more true surely?

You're a deluded fool. It's probably chemically enhanced with home grown and bleach, but you're deluded nonetheless.

Don't forget the fluoride.

[steveyraff]

Hmmm is this your manifesto on doubt? 
skep·ti·cism  [skep-tuh-siz-uhm]  Show IPA
noun
1.
skeptical attitude or temper; doubt.

Well I doubt you know how the victims of 9/11 think and feel even if you were one of them unless of course you think you can mind read and well that's your perception.

I wish to tell you something Steve the world is shrouded in mystery as our solar system moves through a galaxy which is moving too.  As the Universe expands the ? arises do our minds do too on some similar exponential path? 

My perception of a skeptical thinker is well they maybe boxing themselves in, out of fear, thus stifling their personal growth.



Architects and Engineers Respond to CNN's Jake Tapper Slander of 9/11 Truth

Hey guys,

Thank you all so much for taking the time to read my post. It was a long one, but it is all the thoughts I've ever had about the world we live in - so it was a lot to get out there. I understand due to its length, the exact nature of my point can be a little lost or confused. I think the main question I am asking is as the title reads - I am interested in other peoples opinions on skepticism and to how far they take it? Although I am extremely interested in the unknown, and the eternal search for reality, truth and answers, I think skepticism is a healthy way to weed out the useful information from the rubbish.

Your perception of a skeptical thinker is "they maybe boxing themselves in, out of fear, thus stifling their personal growth." That is a very interesting answer. I believe a lot of these conspiracy theorists who get carried away with wildly far fetched theories are often in a quest to make life more interesting. A conspiracy is always much more exciting than what we would be expected to believe.

Let me ask you this - do you think while we look for answers, a skeptic is boxing themselves in or rightfully asking for evidence before committing to believing? A 'debunker' is narrowminded and boxing themselves in, as I stated in my original post. A skeptic is keeping an open mind and trying to remain unbiased, taking both sides of the story in, allowing doubts to be there until answers are gave to allow for a undoubted opinion. What I think to be much more dangerous, is to have no skepticism whatsoever. You call this not being boxed in. I call it being gullible and easily influenced. This is how many religions brainwash people into their belief structures, having them follow invisible sky gods, demanding they have faith without evidence or they are sinners.

I think you may have picked up my post entirely wrong, or not read all of it. There is a difference between debunkers and skeptics. Skeptics are not people who dont want to believe in anything. Skeptics are people who want answers about the unknown, like you, so they have very open minds, but they aren't willing to believe in something just because someone says so or theorises. They need evidence first. I don't see how this could be a problem - I do see how there could be a problem by easily believing in any exciting story you hear without doubt. It is not 'fear' to question before believing.

I think he was implying that people who ask pertinent, legitimate questions about the relentless avalanche of manufactured bullshit that the mainstream media presents us, are not the same as people who photoshop little green men into Fox News reports, and that the latter is bad, but I may have inferred all that incorrectly.

Maybe I got that wrong? It was too long for me to do anything but concur.

You are correct. I think for the sake of keeping the real search for truth and answers intact, we need to distinguish a difference between over hyped conspiracy theorists, and those really wishing to highlight important questions that must be asked where and when necessary via using realistic thinking and evidence.

Anyway, I definitely didn't mean to start any arguments here so I hope we can talk calmly without insulting anyones viewpoints. 

Thanks for reading and writing back - its all very interesting to me.

[Jackstar]

I meant it, I concur.

The thing to remember about skepticism is that it is largely incompatible with intellectual dishonesty, and so some non-trivial percentage of the posts in this thread are already null and void. It's like the 3-4-5 Rule.

[PB the Deplorable]

... I am interested in other peoples opinions on skepticism and to how far they take it?...

Nothing has made me more skeptical about most of the popular paranormal topics than the various guests who have appeared on Coast to Coast

[pate]

... UFO's...ghosts...Area 51...Conspiracy Theories...9/11...Time Travel...Religion...

Something's missing here...  I just can't figure it out...

[steveyraff]

Something's missing here...  I just can't figure it out...

Kitchen sink, Pate - the answer you are looking for is the kitchen sink.

[wr250]

Kitchen sink, Pate - the answer you are looking for is the kitchen sink.

i thought the answer was "42" .

[Stellar]

Your perception of a skeptical thinker is "they maybe boxing themselves in, out of fear, thus stifling their personal growth." That is a very interesting answer. I believe a lot of these conspiracy theorists who get carried away with wildly far fetched theories are often in a quest to make life more interesting. A conspiracy is always much more exciting than what we would be expected to believe.

Steve how do you pull a building with ropes or detonation devices?

9/11-WTC7 Larry Silverstein says 'PULL IT' (INSIDE JOB)
How & Why do you know a building is gone or pulled; well the facts tell you with your own eyes.

ENHANCED VERSION: News Reports WTC7 Fell Before It Happens!

[steveyraff]

Steve how do you pull a building with ropes or detonation devices?

9/11-WTC7 Larry Silverstein says 'PULL IT' (INSIDE JOB)
How & Why do you know a building is gone or pulled; well the facts tell you with your own eyes.

ENHANCED VERSION: News Reports WTC7 Fell Before It Happens!

Stellar, I feel really dismayed that out of my entire post, asking people how they feel about healthy skepticism in general, you have focused on a specific case point I made as a reference and have started posted tiresome Youtube clips to me that I've seen a million times before. Again, maybe you did not clearly read my original post - but if you did, you will see that not only did I state that I've read a full bookshelf of the most credible books I can find on the subject of a 9/11 cover up, I also have watched enough documentaries and youtube clips to do me for a life time - and on top of it all, I ALSO stated that I in no way have ever tried to make out that there is nothing suspicious about 9/11. I have looked at the hard facts of that case from every conceivable source that you could image.

If anything, I may be trying to get the point across that with cases like 9/11, where there is genuine reason to be suspicious, we would be much, much better focusing our attention on the credible theories and weed out the enormous amount of B/S surrounding it. This includes some discrepancies that may be true, but in no way can be proven. That is a waste of time. You can debate it until you are blue in the face like the rest of them, but if you know there is never going to be a way of definitely proving it, give up and focus your debate on something that has much more substantial evidence. This goes for ANY conspiracy theory. The whole building being pulled theory for example, highly suspicious in the case of WTC7 for sure, but I definitely wouldn't use that clip as reference to this theory. I've heard very plausible reasons as to how that news team could have mistakingly reported it as being collapsed when it clearly hadn't yet. Maybe WTC7 was pulled, but how do you think that clip proves that? What, the conspirators accidentally told the BBC before they did it? Come on now. A much more effective line of enquiry would be to ask questions about reflections in the stock market surrounding the days prior to it. Stocks and shares are controlled by the inner most workings of the financial and trading world - the elite heads of industries and wealth are privy to the most secured and confidential tip offs and future trading predictions. Its very clear that some people, some investors, some business moguls had some sort of a prior knowledge by looking at the behaviour of certain effected business tradings leading up to the events of 9/11. Theres Silverstein sitting there in that overplayed Youtube clip saying how he knows it was pulled. Again, this video is a waste of time and it is heresy and proves nothing. But yet again, you can take a more effective line of enquiry when questioning Silverstein in relation to the events of 9/11. He was one of the biggest financial earners out of the events. Just months before 9/11 the trade centres lease was privatised and sold to Silverstein who then immediately took out an insurance plan that fortuitously covered terrorism. After 9/11 he went on to take that insurance company to court claiming that he is owed double the insurance pay out because there was two separate attackers on the day. He won that case and he was awarded $4, 550, 000, 00. That is beyond coincidence. So please, don't show me this video of Larry claiming he knew it was pulled, its practically irrelevant to me on the bigger picture. Its all about the money, and you can't hide anyone in positions of power trying to foresee a big profit maker - whether its Silverstein doing this, or Securacom (Marvin Bush) conveniently being in charge of the trade centre plaza security.

Actually, lets sweep all conspiracy theories to the side for one moment in relation to 9/11. Toss the all away and deem them all useless for one second. The one huge gaping fact that remains, is that a multi billion dollar defence procedure failed on several consecutive occasions on that day in order to allow these events to happen. Protocol, every day security measures that are carried out when something does not follow accordance or common procedure were specifically stalled or denied that day. If anything, we can focus on THAT as being one of the main credible theories. Why on earth would the US Government make life harder for themselves by planting explosives, using cruise missiles instead of real planes, all these other far fetched rubbish, when they had a much, much easier option. Allow the current, and monitored, known incoming threat of a terrorist attack to continue, and to proceed - let it happen, let the plane fly into the building and let the building collapse, if it collapses or not is the least of the priority - this already warrants them an excuse for revenge and inevitably an excuse to go into any country they want and take what the want by force. To come up with anything more complicated on that is in no way beneficial to their plan at all. But I am sure a lot of the theories you may believe in are much more exciting to imagine than just that.

So you see Stellar, my entire point here, about any conspiracy theory, or any paranormal or unexplained case study, is that skepticism will not box you in from the truth. It will not help you 'hide from fear'. It will not in any way act as destructive to a line of enquiry - it WILL at the very least, help you find the most realistic answers. You are welcome to stay completely open minded to every single Youtube theory you hear, but by taking every thing in for consideration, you are immediately opening the flood gates to an onlsaught of utter nonesense that does nothing more than obscure any real truth or conspiracy.

Stellar, while I hate to debate with anyones rights to express their own opinions on certain events, I really didn't mean for this topic to divulge into very specific debates about very particular topics. Although it is becoming quite clear that your answer is that you don't have much skepticism at all and you are willing to take anything on board for consideration. To each their own I guess!

Thanks for the replies.

42 is a fine answer too.

[Stellar]

we would be much, much better focusing our attention on the credible theories and weed out the enormous amount of B/S surrounding it.

The Bull Shit Test:

Steve look deeply into the mirror and say Bull Shit.  Then open your grade school social engineered History book and again say Bull Shit.  Then look at the last 4 Presidents and others and say Bull Shit.  Then try and fill your glass half way full and realize its bull shit too.  Now that's healthy skepticism for you!  Because your focusing on your own bullshit which unlike a theory is an axiom.  Well we weeded out the bullshit surrounding you.

Fake Skeptics & The "Conspiracy Theorist" Slur

[steveyraff]

The Bull Shit Test:

Steve look deeply into the mirror and say Bull Shit.  Then open your grade school social engineered History book and again say Bull Shit.  Then look at the last 4 Presidents and others and say Bull Shit.  Then try and fill your glass half way full and realize its bull shit too.  Now that's healthy skepticism for you!  Because your focusing on your own bullshit which unlike a theory is an axiom.  Well we weeded out the bullshit surrounding you.

Fake Skeptics & The "Conspiracy Theorist" Slur

Stellar - you are a very strange guy lol. I am not even sure what that post means. What do you mean I am focusing on my own Bullshit? Can you explain to me how we have now weeded out the Bullshit surrounding me?

From you last answer, and from most of your replies since my original post, I think the problem may be that you've failed to understand me and you continue to try to enlighten me on things I'm already enlightened on. You are being presumptuous and in response to your presumptions you are being sanctimonious. Why are you telling me to question 911 with the presumption that I don't already do so? Why are you telling me to question history books and former presidents when I already do so? Because you've already presumed I'm not, when all along I am and I've never stated otherwise.

You appear confused. I'm a skeptic, it doesn't mean I am a categorical debunker.

I couldn't help but check out your previous posts to see if you always react like this or is it just to me you are being like this. I see you are posting videos about the Santa Barbara shooting being a hoax. You can also find videos staying how the Boston bombing is a hoax and pretty much any other major event involving some form of mass murder or terrorism.

Allow me to make one huge,  presumptuous sweeping judgement as you have repetitively and wrongly done to me. I predict that if tomorrow, North Korea launched a nuke and wiped out a US city or a radicalised brain washed kid assinated the president of the US, the Internet would be flooded with conspiracy theories and you'd be falling for them hook,  line and sinker.

Question when suspicion is valid - that is very important, but not at every possible opportunity, every single major news story. SOME of them really are just as they seem.

[Jackstar]

You can also find videos staying how the Boston bombing is a hoax

The belief that those two kids did it, is a hoax. Obviously, there actually were explosions.

and pretty much any other major event involving some form of mass murder or terrorism.

This whole "X event didn't actually even happen" schtick seems to be a fairly recent meme. I don't remember any expose videos from people saying that "the Oklahoma City bombing didn't happen" or "Waco didn't happen."

SOME of them really are just as they seem.

Fewer and fewer as the days go by. Did you hear about that G-5 that crashed on takeoff the other day? Obama Kills Top Philly Mob Boss Linked To JFK Assassination

I am very skeptical: I find it highly unlikely that Obama would not do this.

[Yorkshire pud]

Stellar - you are a very strange guy lol.

No shit? He's bat shit crazy.

I am not even sure what that post means.

He doesn't know what anything he says means. He has the capacity to copy and paste, but zero ability to learn anything or use critical thinking. In short, if he's seen it on YT and it's posted by a CT it has to be true according to him.. He pretty much disregards anything that unravels his bullshit, and then goes onto another CT. Or as he did with you, post a YT video and demands (A CT trait) that you answer that. Now if not sooner.

I think the problem may be that you've failed to understand me and you continue to try to enlighten me on things I'm already enlightened on. You are being presumptuous and in response to your presumptions you are being sanctimonious. Why are you telling me to question 911 with the presumption that I don't already do so? Why are you telling me to question history books and former presidents when I already do so? Because you've already presumed I'm not, when all along I am and I've never stated otherwise.

He hasn't failed to understand you. You're not doing what he wants. He throws a tantrum. He's got mental health problems. Either naturally or chemically induced. 

You appear confused. I'm a skeptic, it doesn't mean I am a categorical debunker.

In his world it's the same...You're a 'truther' or you're a shill/sceptic/debunker. CIA/MI5/ FBI employee, take your pick.

I couldn't help but check out your previous posts to see if you always react like this or is it just to me you are being like this. I see you are posting videos about the Santa Barbara shooting being a hoax. You can also find videos staying how the Boston bombing is a hoax and pretty much any other major event involving some form of mass murder or terrorism.

No, you can take solice from him not being an asshole just to you. He's an asshole to everyone who he perceives as disagreeing with him, or having another opinion..

Allow me to make one huge,  presumptuous sweeping judgement as you have repetitively and wrongly done to me. I predict that if tomorrow, North Korea launched a nuke and wiped out a US city or a radicalised brain washed kid assinated the president of the US, the Internet would be flooded with conspiracy theories and you'd be falling for them hook,  line and sinker.

Yes. You're catching on.. Look up the 'The ten ways to spot a Conspiracy theorist' There are actually 23 listed.

Question when suspicion is valid - that is very important, but not at every possible opportunity, every single major news story. SOME of them really are just as they seem.

Not good enough in Stallarworld. You either agree with him and he'll ignore you anyway (paranoia as you might take his attention) or you're a paid shill in which case you're de facto the 'enemy'..

To give an analogy it's like trying to debate 'no more ice cream' to a two year old toddler having a tantrum. Mind you, that might be over stating Stallar's ability to be reasoned with.

[steveyraff]

Yorkshire Pud - I try not to judge anyone so quickly, but I am quickly realising from the short time I've spoke to Stellar that its not going to be very fruitful or productive conversation. I have noted what you've said about him now - seems to add up to my experiences too lol

The belief that those two kids did it, is a hoax. Obviously, there actually were explosions.

Why not? I mean, I don't actually want you to explain, I've already heard all the conspiracy theories. I've also read about the kids A LOT. It doesn't really seem like rocket science to me. In fact, it would have been very easy for these kids to do and there is plenty of evidence to show a potent mix of radicalism and stupidity where at play. For both becoming radicalised, and guides on how to make a bomb and put it into a back pack, the internet is a hell of a tool. No problems there. I'm surprised more misguided kids looking for attention and a misdirected purpose in their lives don't do it more often. I am glad they don't obviously for the lives spared (and also to spare us from even more conspiracy theories that would without a doubt surface about every one of them).

This whole "X event didn't actually even happen" schtick seems to be a fairly recent meme. I don't remember any expose videos from people saying that "the Oklahoma City bombing didn't happen" or "Waco didn't happen."

You are exactly right. It is a recent trend. Youtube wasn't around then. The internet hadn't yet created a soapbox for every armchair detective to share their every imaginable fanatical theories. Once that soapbox was created, it became a kind of Youtube trend. It probably started with the high hits received by all the 9/11 conspiracy videos, and then it snowballed to people making their own theory videos on just about every topic. Of course, some of them are starting to work retrospectively, going back to theorise conspiracies involving Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. And even at the time, Bill Hicks was live on scene at Waco with his conspiracy theories. Again, I am not categorically debunking all of these - but we'll not get into which theories seem plausible and far fetched when it comes to these two events or we'll be side tracking again.

Fewer and fewer as the days go by. Did you hear about that G-5 that crashed on takeoff the other day? Obama Kills Top Philly Mob Boss Linked To JFK Assassination

I am very skeptical: I find it highly unlikely that Obama would not do this.

I did not. But thank you for the heads up. I look forward to looking into this one.

Put it this way, there is literally no end to the opportunities for conspiracy theories and I genuinely DO believe a lot of these tragic stories are just exactly how they are being reported. Not all of them of course, but most of them. In many cases it would actually be much, much harder and more inconvenient to plan and execute the conspiracy theory, compared to what is reported to have happened. But now with the social media trend of making the likes of conspiracy videos, its become harder to find real conspiracies and the real cover ups because of all the crap floating around. They'll be hidden immediately by the onslaught of rubbish ones. Its ironic really. Conspiracy theories helping to cover up real conspiracies.

Still, some of them make for good comedy viewings lol :
http://youtu.be/_c6HsiixFS8

[Jackstar]

You have time to write Moby Dick, but not time to do primary research on Boston? Okay, well, carry on then.

[steveyraff]

You have time to write Moby Dick, but not time to do primary research on Boston? Okay, well, carry on then.

Of course I've researched it. I've read everything about it. I just personally conclude that what is reported to have happened is much more plausible and much more likely than anything else.

Definitely wouldn't have time to write Moby Dick. Its already been done!

[McPhallus]

I, for one, am skeptical of anything not directly posted by Stellar. His ability to interpret reality by selectively posting YouTube videos is all I need to answer all of life's questions.  Carry on, great prophet.

[steveyraff]

I, for one, am skeptical of anything not directly posted by Stellar. His ability to interpret reality by selectively posting YouTube videos is all I need to answer all of life's questions.  Carry on, great prophet.

Lol - brilliant. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Of course I've researched it. I've read everything about it. I just personally conclude that what is reported to have happened is much more plausible and much more likely than anything else.

Definitely wouldn't have time to write Moby Dick. Its already been done!

Big white fish at sea. Gregory Peck and some film extras go and find it..Gregory Peck gets killed..The End. This novel writing is a piece of piss.

[Yorkshire pud]

I, for one, am skeptical of anything not directly posted by Stellar. His ability to interpret reality by selectively posting YouTube videos is all I need to answer all of life's questions.  Carry on, great prophet.

When did he convince yo he was the chosen one? Was it the Laser death beam plasma rocket silos, buried in Tazmania that are aimed at Alex Jones's studio.?

[wr250]

I, for one, am skeptical of anything not directly posted by Stellar. His ability to interpret reality by selectively posting YouTube videos is all I need to answer all of life's questions.  Carry on, great prophet.

i am skeptical that McPhallus actually posted that.

[wr250]

When did he convince yo he was the chosen one? Was it the Laser death beam plasma rocket silos, buried in Tazmania that are aimed at Alex Jones's studio.?

nooooo. the laser beams are on the moon planted by the astronauts that didnt actually goto the moon in those nasa mission. they actually went aboard a black project vehicle reverse engineered from the roswell craft. so there. and the "giant lasers" are pointed at alex jones studios, and pahrump NV.

[Yorkshire pud]

nooooo. the laser beams are on the moon planted by the astronauts that didnt actually goto the moon in those nasa mission. they actually went aboard a black project vehicle reverse engineered from the roswell craft. so there. and the "giant lasers" are pointed at alex jones studios, and pahrump NV.

Don't be so preposterous!!! Damn you!!! There's NO YT video to support your wild shill speculation.

[PB the Deplorable]

Of course I've researched it. I've read everything about it. I just personally conclude that what is reported to have happened is much more plausible and much more likely than anything else.

Definitely wouldn't have time to write Moby Dick. Its already been done!

Wait, what?  I thought Moby Dick was an STD