Midnight In The Desert

[comaphobe]

Did Heather say "mind controlled"  where's the proof, what's your source?  Isn't mind control a conspiracy theory?

i caught that too. she should read up on mk ultra.. or the early history of the CIA. then speak.

[akwilly]

great show tonight!

[Dr. MD MD]

why are you getting so worked uped over this? lol

I wouldn't describe it as "worked up" I just like thinking things through, if I can. Short of provoking a riot or yelling fire in a crowded theater, free speech is not something you can do in degrees. The tap's either fully on or fully off. Everyone's offended by something. If that becomes the standard by which we can speak freely then very little will ever be said and what is will be of little value. 

[comaphobe]

Just thinking about the logic of people who say you can't question what the authorities say when someone's murdered. By that logic all you would have to do is stage the killing of the people you wanted offed and you should be good as gold. No one will question it because it would be disrespectful to the families involved.

exactly. what is disrespectful to families is the status quo of drinking the cup of shut the fuck up. there is a time and a place for certain subjects, but if you open that can of worms, be prepared to count the worms as well as categorize each worm by species type and MO.

[coaster]

So if anyone wants to recommend an idea for a show to Heather, I may have one. I'm currently reading an article in a Reader's Digest about children who claim to have had past lives. Many are young, no more than five years old, who have some crazy stories to tell. That may make for an interesting topic if you could get a researcher who deals with that sort of thing on the show.
I'm not talking about fifty year old cat ladies who would call in and claim to be royalty in a past life. These stories are genuinely interesting.

[Auslandia]

So if anyone wants to recommend an idea for a show to Heather, I may have one. I'm currently reading an article in a Reader's Digest about children who claim to have had past lives. Many are young, no more than five years old, who have some crazy stories to tell. That may make for an interesting topic if you could get a researcher who deals with that sort of thing on the show.
I'm not talking about fifty year old cat ladies who would call in and claim to be royalty in a past life. These stories are genuinely interesting.

I've heard a lot about these too.  I just don't wanna hear Heathet do it personally.  The forced commentary would irk me.  Jimmy Church could do it though.

[Dr. MD MD]

I've heard a lot about these too.  I just don't wanna hear Heathet do it personally.  The forced commentary would irk me.  Jimmy Church could do it though.

Or Clyde Lewis maybe. I just heard a good one of his from a few days ago.

[Auslandia]

Or Clyde Lewis maybe. I just heard a good one of his from a few days ago.

I'll send aboard Hughes a note.  He'd do it well.

[CavemanOogUgh]

Ug.

Yes?

[SredniVashtar]

While I may not agree with everything you're saying here I at least appreciate your attempt to address some of it specifically rather than just dismissing it as "insane" which you also did, of course. Almost no one else would. I just think it does a disservice to your arguement if you try to simply dismiss another viewpoint as insane without saying why. There have been "armchair" theorists in history for whom time has proven them right too. Most simply find the subject of mass murder too distasteful to investigate and would rather just accept what they're told as fact. That way there's certainty instead of an open wound of uncertainty and they can lay it to rest and get on with their lives. However, this kind of expediency is rarely ever in service of the truth and using ridicule to cut off debate at the knees isn't really doing anyone any good though.

You can find a link to the book I was talking about here:

http://henrymakow.com/2015/11/nobody-died-at-sandy-hook.html

I think it's insane to insist on a point of view, despite the lack of any evidence to support it. No matter what you tell a Sandy Hook theorist about this they will never believe you. I recommend you flick through this book to see what I mean, because it often descends into parody and I wondered if it was an elaborate joke. The most egregious part is from a woman who effectively stalked one of the fathers of a murdered child, hassling him for proof of identity, marriage, everything really. Against all the odds they struck up an odd online friendship. Eventually  this came to an end when she said she was going to make a donation to a foundation set up in the dead child's name, because she explained that she needed to do that to be a part of class action lawsuit against him in the future. Not surprisingly, he called her a bunch of names and she heard no more from him. It's hard to read that book and not conclude that these people are suffering serious delusions. I think it's kind to call them insane, because the alternative is that they are horribly callous idiots who are inflicting their weird prejudices on innocent people.

The trouble with conspiracy theories in general is that their advocates never allow themselves to be proved wrong. They will always retrench. They rarely formulate a theory and stick to it and allow it to be falsified, but they jump from one horse to another to try and stay in front. I can't think of a conspiracy theory that doesn't do that, ranging from JFK to who wrote Shakespeare. If they allowed their ideas to be tested then they would get more respect, but they don't. All they do is claim that the 'official' story is hokum and try to pick holes in it. If you are going to be scientific about it, you have to be honest and tell people what they would see if their theory wasn't true. But their egos won't let them. That's why they can't be taken seriously.

[akwilly]

You can find a link to the book I was talking about here:

http://henrymakow.com/2015/11/nobody-died-at-sandy-hook.html

I think it's insane to insist on a point of view, despite the lack of any evidence to support it. No matter what you tell a Sandy Hook theorist about this they will never believe you. I recommend you flick through this book to see what I mean, because it often descends into parody and I wondered if it was an elaborate joke. The most egregious part is from a woman who effectively stalked one of the fathers of a murdered child, hassling him for proof of identity, marriage, everything really. Against all the odds they struck up an odd online friendship. Eventually  this came to an end when she said she was going to make a donation to a foundation set up in the dead child's name, because she explained that she needed to do that to be a part of class action lawsuit against him in the future. Not surprisingly, he called her a bunch of names and she heard no more from him. It's hard to read that book and not conclude that these people are suffering serious delusions. I think it's kind to call them insane, because the alternative is that they are horribly callous idiots who are inflicting their weird prejudices on innocent people.

The trouble with conspiracy theories in general is that their advocates never allow themselves to be proved wrong. They will always retrench. They rarely formulate a theory and stick to it and allow it to be falsified, but they jump from one horse to another to try and stay in front. I can't think of a conspiracy theory that doesn't do that, ranging from JFK to who wrote Shakespeare. If they allowed their ideas to be tested then they would get more respect, but they don't. All they do is claim that the 'official' story is hokum and try to pick holes in it. If you are going to be scientific about it, you have to be honest and tell people what they would see if their theory wasn't true. But their egos won't let them. That's why they can't be taken seriously.

thanks for this SV

[whoozit]

...JFK...who wrote Shakespeare...

Now you've started another conspiracy or at least enlarged an old one.

[Auslandia]

I'll send Howard Hughes a note.  He'd do it well.

[Dr. MD MD]

You can find a link to the book I was talking about here:

http://henrymakow.com/2015/11/nobody-died-at-sandy-hook.html

I think it's insane to insist on a point of view, despite the lack of any evidence to support it. No matter what you tell a Sandy Hook theorist about this they will never believe you. I recommend you flick through this book to see what I mean, because it often descends into parody and I wondered if it was an elaborate joke. The most egregious part is from a woman who effectively stalked one of the fathers of a murdered child, hassling him for proof of identity, marriage, everything really. Against all the odds they struck up an odd online friendship. Eventually  this came to an end when she said she was going to make a donation to a foundation set up in the dead child's name, because she explained that she needed to do that to be a part of class action lawsuit against him in the future. Not surprisingly, he called her a bunch of names and she heard no more from him. It's hard to read that book and not conclude that these people are suffering serious delusions. I think it's kind to call them insane, because the alternative is that they are horribly callous idiots who are inflicting their weird prejudices on innocent people.

The trouble with conspiracy theories in general is that their advocates never allow themselves to be proved wrong. They will always retrench. They rarely formulate a theory and stick to it and allow it to be falsified, but they jump from one horse to another to try and stay in front. I can't think of a conspiracy theory that doesn't do that, ranging from JFK to who wrote Shakespeare. If they allowed their ideas to be tested then they would get more respect, but they don't. All they do is claim that the 'official' story is hokum and try to pick holes in it. If you are going to be scientific about it, you have to be honest and tell people what they would see if their theory wasn't true. But their egos won't let them. That's why they can't be taken seriously.

Thanks! When I get some free time I'll look it over. While I may end up drawing the same conclusions as you I still think it's best to allow things to air out rather than shut it down immediately with ridicule. If someone's wrong or crazy or evil you'll find out by allowing them a forum not by hiding them or their views away. Besides, we're not doing anything that time of night except waiting for a good show. To me, that's one that's thought provoking, perhaps even controversial and generates a lot of discussion; not one shut down by an airhead getting bummed out and not knowing how to respond or what to say and not wanting to offend the families who aren't listening anyway. I'm open to being proven wrong but I think it's statistically unlikely that ALL conspiracy theories are wrong. We know that some have been proven true. Even though we could probably go back and forth all day over some of the big ones I'll spare you this because conspiracies exist at all levels and between all levels of sociopolitical power: governmental, corporate and scientific

https://xmovies8.org/watch?v=Merchants_of_Doubt_2014#video=cSdtr1ivHsSU5IOuZeKzFMMWwjTOgi1zHxWsX2F9Aow

[SredniVashtar]

Thanks! When I get some free time I'll look it over. While I may end up drawing the same conclusions as you I still think it's best to allow things to air out rather than shut it down immediately with ridicule. If someone's wrong or crazy or evil you'll find out by allowing them a forum not by hiding them or their views away. Besides, we're not doing anything that time of night except waiting for a good show. To me, that's one that's thought provoking, perhaps even controversial and generates a lot of discussion; not one shut down by an airhead getting bummed out and not knowing how to respond or what to say and not wanting to offend the families who aren't listening anyway. I'm open to being proven wrong but I think it's statistically unlikely that ALL conspiracy theories are wrong. We know that some have been proven true. Even though we could probably go back and forth all day over some of the big ones I'll spare you this because conspiracies exist at all levels and between all levels of sociopolitical power: governmental, corporate and scientific

https://xmovies8.org/watch?v=Merchants_of_Doubt_2014#video=cSdtr1ivHsSU5IOuZeKzFMMWwjTOgi1zHxWsX2F9Aow

I'm not a fan of censorship either, but the trouble with conspiracy theorists is that they are unable to have a debate. If you have someone on a show to talk about 9/11, or whatever, nothing you say will ever get them to budge an inch from their pre-prepared script. It's as though their whole personality is tied to this belief and nothing will shake them. I put them in the same bracket as religious zealots, because both are holding positions that are based on faith rather than evidence. You can debate them, if you want, but it's a waste of time.

I know that conspiracies go on all the time, but we are talking about big conspiracies involving large numbers of people who would require an almost superhuman level of coordination to bring off. There are too many variables, and I tend to see the simplest explanations as the more likely. I don't know if you can cite any examples of events that were later found to be the result of a large conspiracy. I honestly can't right now. Conspiracy theorists can never agree, either, on how something happened, they only agree on how it didn't. That's cowardly really. If they had the guts to stand by a theory, and take the risk that it could be proven wrong, then they would get more respect.

[Kolchak]

Just catching up on the final bit of last night's program. Heather seemed really shocked to realize that her core base - who are prone to believe in magic, aliens, demons and chupacabras - also believe in conspiracy theories. It was a weird exercise in cognitive dissonance.

[Yorkshire pud]

I'm not a fan of censorship either, but the trouble with conspiracy theorists is that they are unable to have a debate. If you have someone on a show to talk about 9/11, or whatever, nothing you say will ever get them to budge an inch from their pre-prepared script. It's as though their whole personality is tied to this belief and nothing will shake them. I put them in the same bracket as religious zealots, because both are holding positions that are based on faith rather than evidence. You can debate them, if you want, but it's a waste of time.

I know that conspiracies go on all the time, but we are talking about big conspiracies involving large numbers of people who would require an almost superhuman level of coordination to bring off. There are too many variables, and I tend to see the simplest explanations as the more likely. I don't know if you can cite any examples of events that were later found to be the result of a large conspiracy. I honestly can't right now. Conspiracy theorists can never agree, either, on how something happened, they only agree on how it didn't. That's cowardly really. If they had the guts to stand by a theory, and take the risk that it could be proven wrong, then they would get more respect.

Abso bloody lutely. The best ones though infest YT. The ones that spring to mind (because I have a lot of knowledge of one and a modicum of the other) are the 'two suns' photos; and the chem trails ones. The former conveniently overlooking the lens flare and dispersion; the latter having next to zero knowledge of how turbines work or the practical constraints of fuel therein. The funniest ones are the photos of the internal water tanks in airliners (passenger ballast simulation) being cited as the containers for all these alleged chemicals. No photos though of the plumbing, egress nozzles, paperwork or personnel involved.

[Taco Bell]

Was Thursday nights show any good? Didn't really scroll through that nights postings, but I read about the truther calling in...

[73s]

I enjoyed parts of last night's show (mostly the comedian at the start). But I felt it kinda dragged at the end. I was hoping Art would pop in as a caller or even do some hosting but no dice.

I feel like I'm waiting for Heather's show to improve a bit and I keep hanging on but I'm not sure for how much longer. I almost enjoy reading the Bellgab "Mystery Science 3000" commentary more than the show itself. For me there's 1 or 2 shows per week that are mildly entertaining (I really liked Shostak this week), the rest are kind of awful either due to the guests or just weird stuff like the Titor fiasco (which was entertaining in a train-wreck kind of a way, for a short while). And like many of you, her mannerisms can be annoying to me, but I try not to hold that against her since I find mannerisms of many other hosts annoying as well. I feel she's getting better at managing callers (hanging up and moving on quicker), but it just seems like there are a lot of other skills still needed that might take years to really acquire.

I don't know, I want the show to succeed and for her to improve her style and skills. I may yet become a "time traveler". Just not quite there yet myself. For now I'm also listening to other shows and just sampling what's out there for the woo-woo entertainment stuff.

[SnapT]

Just catching up on the final bit of last night's program. Heather seemed really shocked to realize that her core base - who are prone to believe in magic, aliens, demons and chupacabras - also believe in conspiracy theories. It was a weird exercise in cognitive dissonance.

Yeah, a host who won't even entertain 9-11 conspiracy theories (which frankly have a MOUNTAIN of evidence to back them up) makes for a damn lame late night radio show.  Art was such a good host that he could be forgiven for that prejudice, but Heather?  Not a chance. 

Just let the guests/callers speak their mind and if you disagree, say "Eh, I disagree with that" and move on.  Don't spend a minute making weird agonized painful noises like George Noory's "Jeeeez!"

The fact that the host who put on Fake John Titor as a guest was also lecturing us last night about verifying things you find on the internet?  Laughably insane.

[3OctaveFart]

I was listening to Heather explaining that this is her natural way of talking .....well you know, people can go and learn to come across professionally.  There are public speaking classes and such.  Natural born radio hosts are not common......it takes a lot of work for most. But if it's your dream, then I suppose it would be worth the time and effort.  Just sayin, Just my opinion. 
:

Straining one's epiglottis to sound hip can't be a natural way of speaking.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Is that how she got John Titor?

Worthy post

[Inglorious Bitch]

Yeah, a host who won't even entertain 9-11 conspiracy theories (which frankly have a MOUNTAIN of evidence to back them up)

Absolutely. 911 was clearly an inside job. I usually don't argue with those who dismiss all "conspiracy theories" as crazy. I'm not here to convert anyone to my way of thinking. It does strike me as strange when people that I would normally consider intelligent have these knee jerk reactions to a theory. Especially as there is much evidence to support many "conspiracy" theories. It's like many people are not able to think outside of their programming.

I din't think that the Boston Marathon was a false flag operation. Not everything bad that happens can be one, right? Then I saw this:

[3OctaveFart]

Maybe wait until your job is done for the day to get fried, like everyone else.

[Mind Flayer Monk]

Yeah, a host who won't even entertain 9-11 conspiracy theories (which frankly have a MOUNTAIN of evidence to back them up) makes for a damn lame late night radio show.  Art was such a good host that he could be forgiven for that prejudice, but Heather?  Not a chance. 

It's the only way to keep TPTB off your back. Says its foolish, but let guests talk about it on air.

[GravitySucks]

Absolutely. 911 was clearly an inside job. I usually don't argue with those who dismiss all "conspiracy theories" as crazy. I'm not here to convert anyone to my way of thinking. It does strike me as strange when people that I would normally consider intelligent have these knee jerk reactions to a theory. Especially as there is much evidence to support many "conspiracy" theories. It's like many people are not able to think outside of their programming.

I din't think that the Boston Marathon was a false flag operation. Not everything bad that happens can be one, right? Then I saw this:

IB, I love ya girl, but I thought we went through this back in January. The amputee in Boston is not Nick Vogt!  Posted pictures back in the day debunking that. His name was Jeff Bauman Jr..

I don't have time to go back and find those posts or references, but maybe this one will suffice:
http://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/boston-bombers-conspiracy-theories/

[Inglorious Bitch]

IB, I love ya girl, but I thought we went through this back in January. The amputee in Boston is not Nick Vogt!  Posted pictures back in the day debunking that. His name was Jeff Bauman Jr..

"Jeff Bauman" is the part he played. They obviously were not going to use his real name. It is the same guy.

[GravitySucks]

"Jeff Bauman" is the part he played. They obviously were not going to use his real name. It is the same guy.

The legs are not amputated at the same place. Please discuss this with SV. I posted side by side pictures of them. While there are similarities, it is two different people.

[whoozit]

Abso bloody lutely. The best ones though infest YT. The ones that spring to mind (because I have a lot of knowledge of one and a modicum of the other) are the 'two suns' photos; and the chem trails ones. The former conveniently overlooking the lens flare and dispersion; the latter having next to zero knowledge of how turbines work or the practical constraints of fuel therein. The funniest ones are the photos of the internal water tanks in airliners (passenger ballast simulation) being cited as the containers for all these alleged chemicals. No photos though of the plumbing, egress nozzles, paperwork or personnel involved.

I think the reason there can be no rational or logical debate is because conspiracies are based on perception not fact.  People who argue conspiratorial reasons for events seem to not know anyone affected by the event.  I think part of their reluctance for meaningful debate is they don't want to believe at a deep level.  It is related to why people can see the same thing and describe it differently.  It's not bad per se, it's just the human condition.

[whoozit]

"Jeff Bauman" is the part he played. They obviously were not going to use his real name. It is the same guy.

I live in the area Jeff is from.  While I don't know him personally I know others that do.  He lost his legs in the marathon bombing not before.