Question

...
Petra Liverani

Does the use of the term false flag tend to create in our minds the fallacy, false dilemma?

Does the use of the term false flag tend to create in our minds the fallacy, false dilemma?

The meaning given for false flag is “an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party.”

But could it be that the term sets up the mental model of a false dilemma where argument over a claim of false flag splits opinion into a confined set of two opposing arguments as follows:

Option A: Entity A’s claim that Entity B did the crime is correct.
Option B: Entity A is lying and it was really Entity A who did the crime …

when, in fact, there’s a third option:

Option C: Entity A staged what looked like a crime and blamed Entity B but no real crime was committed apart from the psyop of making people believe the crime occurred and was committed by Entity B.

Where only two options seem to be possible, people will tend to plump for Option A or Option B for various reasons but they’ll all be wrong because the false dilemma prevents them from seeing the correct Option C.

Example: Bologna Station bombing 1980
At the time, it was blamed on Communists; and indeed, soon after, the PCI (Italian Communist Party) was badly beaten in parliamentary elections. However, later it was deemed to be a false flag operation carried out by neo-fascists. The neo-fascists were hired as operatives for Operation Gladio, a clandestine NATO "stay-behind" operation in Europe during the Cold War in which the CIA played a central role.

When we look at the visual evidence, however, there is nothing to suggest that the killing and wounding isn't staged - the sheets draped over people are awfully white - and there are strange anomalies "hidden-in-plain-sight" style. The BBC reported a 22-year-old witness saying he saw a middle-aged man carried to an ambulance with blood pouring from a severed leg but we see no clear evidence of injury of any kind or an ambulance but rather strangely seemingly a person being carried onto a bus. Another witness is reported as saying he saw a flash of bright light but didn't hear any explosions. Why not?

Challenged by someone who finds my opinion on the bombing very upsetting (my goodness do those in power prey on our finer feelings), I wrote to the President of the Association of the Relatives of the Victims of the bombing, Italian MP, Paolo Bolognesi, expressing my opinion about the bombing and asking if it was correct ... but, unsurprisingly, I got no reply. It amazes me the myth is still going strong 40 years later.

asked on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2022 09:59:34 AM by Petra Liverani

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

...
1
Shawn writes:

Very interesting and insightful observation, and I think your comment is valid. 

posted on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2022 10:06:35 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:
[To Shawn]

Thank you, Shawn, I very much appreciate your comment. Bombing of an evacuated area dressed up as a terror event - not their first BBQ nor their last, right?

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Jun 15, 2022 11:49:02 PM

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Like the Site? You'll Love the Book!

This book is a crash course, meant to catapult you into a world where you start to see things how they really are, not how you think they are.  The focus of this book is on logical fallacies, which loosely defined, are simply errors in reasoning.  With the reading of each page, you can make significant improvements in the way you reason and make decisions.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Dr. Richard
0

You ask: Does the use of the term false flag tend to create in our minds the fallacy, false dilemma? This is a psychological question, not a question of logic. 

Those bad guys who fly the false flag intend to blame a specific person or group for an evil act the bad guys did. Investigation of the facts and the use of logic will destroy the false flag. But, how any individual reacts depends upon the method that person uses to draw conclusions. Those prone to knee-jerk will be the first to be suckered into the false flag operation. Those who sit back and investigate after the dust settles will not be drawn into deception. In short, the initial mindset will determine the outcome.

answered on Thursday, Jun 16, 2022 11:55:07 AM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

I think the logical fallacy of false dichotomy is still playing a role here even though sure it's all psychological.

The perpetrators of the "false flag" present to the citizens the false dichotomy of:

A. Those bad guys did it (mainstream narrative) OR
B. Yeah, actually, mea culpa, we did it (narrative directed to those they anticipate won't believe them)

So it's a logical fallacy from that point of view. They've given citizens the notion that only A or B are possible. Sure citizens can blow away the propaganda dust directed to both groups but that hardly ever happens as is evidenced by the widespread belief of either A (terrorists) or B (US government) responsible for the crime of killing 3,000 people when close scrutiny of the evidence shows that none of it favours real death over fake thus neither party committed the crime. The only crime committed was the US government psyopping the world into believing that the terrorists did the crime with a much more subtle narrative that they did it when they didn't, they just demolished buildings. 9/11 was essentially a massive demolition job with all the buildings at the WTC being destroyed eventually if not on the day.

posted on Friday, Jun 17, 2022 07:15:49 AM
...
1
David Blomstrom writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

The idea that an alleged false flag operation blamed on A or B could in fact be the work of C is intriguing. However, I find all the comments very confusing.

First you talked about an alleged bombing that purportedly wasn't a real bombing at all; the victims were faking it. (Sounds like the Boston Marathon bombing.) But even a staged disaster can serve the same function as a false flag attack.

In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, the government blamed - take a wild guess - a couple Muslims, while conspiracy analysts suspected the government of orchestrating the carnage. But what if those alleged victims really weren't injured after all? If that's the case, it could present us with a problem in semantics: how can we call something a false flag attack when no one was injured?

But I don't see any change in actors. Whether anyone was injured or not, the government blamed two Muslims. And if the Muslims weren't guilty, the guilty party was probably the U.S. government.

Then you suggest that the U.S. government blew up the World Trade Center - but no one died, if I understand correctly.

I find it hard to believe the claim that no one died, but even if it's true, what does it change? The government still "attacked" the buildings. (If all the people who were in the WTC and the four airliners are still alive, where are they hiding?)

Though we should always keep our eyes open for all possibilities, a fake false flag attack just doesn't suggest a changing of the guard to me. In fact, it appears to be even stronger evidence that the government did it. After all, why would a bunch of Muslims hiding a cave in Afghanistan plot a fake false flag attack that involves blowing up buildings but not hurting anyone?

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jun 17, 2022 11:42:03 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To David Blomstrom]

Yes, there are different kinds of "false flags" - but I haven't seen one which really fits the term as in Crime X was said by Entity A to have been committed by Entity B when it was really committed by Entity A. There isn't really a single false flag you'll find that fits that description, there's always some kind of deviation. For example, the Gulf of Tonkin incident that is called a false flag was simply a lie, there was no provocation or even evidence of a staged provocation, no? Called a false flag but it was just a simple lie. The Boston Bombing and many others like it are just completely staged, there's no bomb other than smoke bombs or no shooting, we just see guns firing blanks, a few bullet holes and spots of alleged blood, that kind of thing. In other cases such as Pearl Harbour, Bologna station, 9/11 and a few others the destruction is real but the area was evacuated. If they want to destroy things this kind of event is very useful, killing two birds with one stone - psyop plus get rid of unwanted buildings, parts of buildings or boats.

I favour the term psyop, psyop covers them all admirably - let's get rid of false flag, it's misleading. I'm all about the PSY part not the WHO part. I think it's much more important to look at how we are made to believe things rather than who did them ... at least in the case of psyops.

It amazes me how people do not assign importance to whether or not people were killed on 9/11. It's not even so much whether people were killed or not but the fact that a massive propaganda campaign was targeted to the anticipated disbelievers of the story. That's the important thing. That all of us - believers and disbelievers - alike were targeted with propaganda - we each had our own propaganda narratives and those two propaganda narratives continue on and on with no resolution. The truth will never emerge as long as the false dichotomy of those two narratives continues unchecked.

I'm not interested in pointing the finger at anyone particularly what I'm interested in showing is how our minds are controlled by propaganda, even those who don't believe what we're told - we are anticipated and we get our share too. Do you not think that's significant? Do you not think it's significant that the vast majority of people with only the tiniest number of exceptions think either:

A. 9/11 was a terrorist attack
B. A fake terror attack where the US government let 3,000 people die

when in reality it was a demolition job dressed up as a terrorist attack in the form of a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist Exercise comprising numerous smaller exercises, many of which they told us about but a crucial few they didn't including the drills producing images of the injured.

And I cannot get through to prominent truthers what the event really was. Their minds are fossilised in "the evil US government killed all those poor people". Do you think this fossilisation was unanticipated by the perps? Of course, it wasn't. They knew that when the few who woke up to what it really was - they lay all the evidence of fakery of death and injury bare so they know at least a few will - tried to tell the other truthers, "Hey, they didn't kill the people, not so bad," that the majority of truthers would definitely not go, "Oh right, I see, let's change thought direction here." No way. The majority of truthers are completely beguiled by the "evil rogue elements within the US government killed those poor people," they've fossilised in that view. Can you see how well they understand us and how that understanding gives them so much ability to control our minds and orchestrate their events accordingly? It's pretty amazing, don't you think? 

I'm not saying no one died, I say that there is very clear evidence of staged death and injury with not a single skerrick of evidence favouring real death and injury over fake so the most I'll say is that there is no particular reason to think anyone died or was injured but, of course, I cannot say no one died or was injured. No one questions the complete evacuation of WTC-7, a very large building that no one supposedly was expecting to come down, so why the questioning of the complete evacuation of the twin towers? In fact, when you look at the images of the destruction of the WTC after the twin towers came down you'd have to think the entire WTC was somehow evacuated before they came down.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jun 17, 2022 09:16:54 PM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

Good points. In fact, I'm thinking of incorporating some of your ideas into a book I'm working on.

However, for me, the most important aspects of a false flag attack is 1) the perception that there was a false flag attack, and 2) the results of a particular false flag conspiracy. If the injuries were staged, that makes the particular conspiracy all the more interesting, but it doesn't change the big picture for me.

I would simply divide false flag events into two categories - real and staged.

Although it is indeed possible for the government (and other powerful entities) to fake deaths, the death 9/11 death toll was a little overwhelming, including some 3,000 people in the WTC plus the people aboard four airliners. How could that many people still be alive and unaccounted for?

As for pointing fingers, that's very important for me. It seems kind of pointless to analyze an event without even considering the actors behind the event.

 

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jun 17, 2022 09:24:23 PM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To David Blomstrom]

If you can find a skerrick of evidence, David, that favours real death and injury over fake for 9/11 please give it to me. I cannot find any. Ironically, the perps are much more meticulous and scrupulous (if that is the correct term) in staging their events than we are in analysing them. They never fake anything so well that anyone who believes their story can brandish it in defence of it. If they staged their events realistically then how could I make my claims? Someone could come along and brandish evidence of what at least seemed to favour real death or injury over fake on 9/11 ... so far no one has and I've been saying it for four years. Others such as Simon Shack have said it for far longer, before I even had the slightest clue about 9/11.

If you think anyone will get nailed for any of these events (bar what's happening now with covid which is far more serious) good luck. To my mind it's best to simply educate people in understanding them so they can reject them ... but I know I'm wasting my time there too. But one has to do something in life, right? And as I understand psyops - at least to a reasonable degree - I feel I have to try to spread the word even if that endeavour is a Sisyphean endeavour like trying to spread frozen butter.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jun 17, 2022 10:04:44 PM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

When analyzing conspiracies (which are historical events), evidence isn't the only game in town; there's also logic.  I simply find it hard to understand how even the U.S. government could make more than 3,000 people - including the crew and passengers of four airliners - disappear. That would appear to defy logic.

No, I don't think anyone will ever be held accountable for 9/11 - at least, not in the sense of prison terms or execution. However, merely pointing fingers at people is a form of accountability. It's also important to track down the conspirators if we want to prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.

In fact, conspirators are held accountable from time to time. Watergate is a spectacular example. And people are convinced of conspiracy all the time, even if they aren't formally charged with conspiracy.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jun 17, 2022 10:10:07 PM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To David Blomstrom]

I think the supposed exposure of Watergate is a bit of red herring. We think a deception was uncovered but, in fact, I think that supposed uncovering is smoke'n'mirrors covering something else ... but I haven't looked into it. It's like Russian dolls. When a big supposed expose happens it's advisable to be skeptical.

The burden of proof is on the claimant isn't it? They told us that 3,000 people died and 6,000 were injured but there is zero evidence that favours real over fake. I have a page on it if you're interested. Some people were completely made up or had already died some other way but certainly not all were obviously. I know someone who knew an insurance agent who worked in one of the towers and was supposedly killed. What happened to him? No idea. What happened to Barbara Olson? No idea. What happened to John O'Neill? No idea. It does boggle the mind where all these people go to I have to admit but the evidence of staged death and injury simply means we have to accept it ... or alternatively that some people were actually killed but I think it's really pretty much an either or situation. I really don't think they would have mixed it up, that just wouldn't have been the MO, except perhaps for some very deliberate targets.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jun 17, 2022 11:08:59 PM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:
[To Petra Liverani]

Thanks for the links; I'll check them out.

I am very familiar with "crisis actors;" I've seen many of them at local school board meetings, even. And the claim that the Boston Marathon bombing was a hoax isn't hard for me to believe.

But, again, faking the deaths of more than 3,000 people becomes very problematic. In fact, it was to the evil ones' advantage to kill them, because that added to the emotional impact, which was used to justify their phony war on terror.

However, I'll check out your links and see if your evidence outweighs my logic. Thanks.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jun 17, 2022 11:32:03 PM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:
[To David Blomstrom]

In fact, it was to the evil ones' advantage to kill them, because that added to the emotional impact, which was used to justify their phony war on terror.

I'm afraid it's pure supposition to think that they need to make it real for emotional impact. Remember, it's a psyop. They absolutely love controlling our minds through their propaganda techniques, they pride themselves on it. It's very obvious that at every turn they undermine the reality of what they tell us but nevertheless are still supremely confident that a sufficient number of us will believe their nonsense ... and they are right every single time.

I believe this is the most important quote about propaganda although there are certainly a number of other important quotes:

"The purpose of propaganda is not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponds to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control."

Anthony Daniels, British psychiatrist
(said about communist propaganda and political correctness but it's obvious it applies to all propaganda; my emphasis)
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/124952-political-correctness-is-communist-propaganda-writ-small-in-my-study



[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Jun 18, 2022 02:48:49 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:
[To David Blomstrom]

When analyzing conspiracies (which are historical events), evidence isn't the only game in town; there's also logic.


Evidence has first priority. We were told that 3,000 people were killed and 6,000 people were injured, however, all the purported visual evidence either favours fake or doesn't favour real and there are a number of other pieces of information that favour fake, for example, we can see that the journalists were scripted to allude to controlled demolition in relation to WTC-7's collapse. It really starts to make you scratch your head if you think that those reporters would be in on the murders of 3,000 of their fellow citizens.

Logic tells us that if people really were killed and injured there would be at least a single piece of evidence that favoured real over fake. As there isn't a single one then logic says fake!

We must always give priority to the evidence not what we think plausible/implausible, possible/impossible and accept that we simply don't know how something was done. As I say, a significant number of people were simply made up.

[ login to reply ] posted on Sunday, Jun 19, 2022 08:00:20 AM
...
1
David Blomstrom writes:

"Evidence has first priority."

Not necessarily. If we have some way of knowing that we have a solid, accurate evidence, then that counts for a lot. However, evidence and logic can both be misleading.

Simple logic tells us that the fact that the government intentionally destroyed or hid mountain of evidence is itself evidence of foul play.

posted on Sunday, Jun 19, 2022 10:21:54 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To David Blomstrom]

In your earlier comment you say:

"When analyzing conspiracies (which are historical events), evidence isn't the only game in town; there's also logic.  I simply find it hard to understand how even the U.S. government could make more than 3,000 people - including the crew and passengers of four airliners - disappear. That would appear to defy logic."

When you say "appear to defy logic" this is really an expression of incredulity and we know there's the fallacy, argument from incredulity. I myself wonder how they disappear all the people (remember though some of them are completely made up) but if all the visual evidence either favours fake over real or at least doesn't favour the other way for 3,000 alleged dead and 6,000 alleged injured I think it's fair to infer that death and injury were staged and that only a few if any people died or were injured. The planes were faked so right off the bat 265 people didn't die in planes, assuming they were all real and living people. What happened to them? Why be more incredulous for 3,000 than 265?

If you can find me a single piece of evidence that favours real over fake please provide it David. Otherwise, give me a good reason I shouldn't believe that death and injury were faked.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jun 20, 2022 09:26:47 AM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:

When I said "appear to defy logic," that's exactly what I meant.

When people die, there are certain investigative, legal, and medical procedures involving a variety of specialists that are followed. But if more than 3,000 people did NOT die, then there should have been a corresponding "lack of business" that should have earned some attention.

If you worked in the WTC and you learned that 3,000 people who also work there had died, wouldn't you be a little curious as to who they were? If you had no friends or co-workers who died, and you never met anyone else who knew someone who died, wouldn't that get your attention?

Frankly, I think the moon landing hoax theory is more believable. I'm not saying it was a hoax; I don't know. But I think it would have been relatively easy to pull off such a hoax, partly because the alleged landing occurred so far away in a location that was generally hidden from public scrutiny.

However, the 9/11 terrorist attacks were filmed and broadcast around the world as they were happening. The conspirators made some unbelievably stupid mistakes that make their conspiracy blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain. But faking the deaths of thousands of people is quite a stretch.

I'm also struck by the lack of literature. Are you the only individual who knows about this sub-conspiracy, or have others written about it? A piece of evidence this big should be on the front page of all conspiracy theorists' websites.

Dick Cheney did a fantastic job of hiding during and after 9/11. However, he wasn't declared dead.

posted on Monday, Jun 20, 2022 12:46:59 PM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To David Blomstrom]

You're in wouldn't/couldn't territory, David, Argumentum ad speculum or Hypothesis Contrary to Fact

We don't know what went on in the buildings and who was working there. I've read that Cantor Fitzgerald, for example, laid off many of their workers on some pretext prior to 9/11 and in their place hired a number of others who could have been intelligence agents, for example. Then after 9/11 they got rid of those temporary people and re-hired those they'd laid off. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of this claim, however, it certainly shows a way that fake deaths could be managed: make alleged workers intelligence agents using fake identities.

I'm telling you, always give the facts and evidence primacy. They have primacy. Don't go into territory where you don't have the clear facts to hand.

This is a FACT, David, a FACT, and a very, very important one.
There is not a single skerrick of visual evidence that favours real death and injury over fake for 3,000 alleged dead and 6,000 injured.

Please explain that fact to me.

No I'm certainly not the only person to work out staged death and injury, in fact, I certainly didn't work it out by myself. Although it came to me as an epiphany, I'd seen the work of others and while they didn't convince me initially probably only because I was still in thrall to the truther-targeted propaganda, their work certainly contributed to the epiphany finally occurring. People worked it out way before I even had a clue about 9/11 (I only woke up to the "false flag" part of 9/11 in 2014 after unsuspectingly clicking a link in Facebook to the film, JFK to 9/11 Everything is a Rich Man's Trick - it took me a further four years to work out it wasn't a false flag so much as a complete psyop).

If you go to my page on Analysts you'll see a list of people who worked out the staged death and injury, all of whom I'd say worked it out before I did.

I'll tell you what though I think that on the internet at least I'm the only person who believes both that:
Death and injury were staged on 9/11
Astronauts landed on the moon

The evidence says we went to the moon, David, loud and clear, no need to go into wouldn't/couldn't territory.

The conspirators made some unbelievably stupid mistakes that make their conspiracy blatantly obvious to anyone with a brain. But faking the deaths of thousands of people is quite a stretch.


My words seem to be falling on deaf ears, David. The MO of a psyop is to tell us loud and clear underneath the propaganda - no stupid mistakes (or if there are mistakes no one will notice anyway) - having a passenger airliner do a 270 into Defence HQ - completely against reality - is not a mistake, OK? It cannot be a mistake. It is very deliberate. Nor is Larry Silverstein saying he said to "pull it", nor is having reporters scripted to refer to controlled demolition in relation to WTC-7 after its collapse. These are not mistakes. I've already stated twice recently on LF what I think is the most important quote regarding propaganda. Have you seen that quote?

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jun 20, 2022 10:44:51 PM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:

"I'm telling you, always give the facts and evidence primacy. They have primacy. Don't go into territory where you don't have the clear facts to hand."

Suppose ten different people dredge up ten different sets of facts and evidence, each one supporting a different theory. Which set of facts and evidence has primacy?

Or suppose two people point to the same evidence - but they interpret it differently and reach different conclusions. We can give that evidence "primacy," but what does it matter if we can't figure out who's correctly interpreting that evidence?

"This is a FACT, David, a FACT, and a very, very important one.
There is not a single skerrick of visual evidence that favours real death and injury over fake for 3,000 alleged dead and 6,000 injured.

"Please explain that fact to me."

Well, let's see ... If I was in the World Trade Center when it began collapsing, and I just happened to be holding a video camera, would I stand there and calmly film people who are dying all around me? And if I did, would my video camera survive the inferno?

"The evidence says we went to the moon."

Can you specify what evidence you're talking about? Surely you haven't visited the moon to search for evidence. We have evidence that a rocket blasted off from Earth, and there's a film that purportedly shows the astronauts on the moon. But how hard would it be to fake such a film? I mean, think of all the science fiction movies that have been made.

That doesn't prove no one ever landed on the moon. However, it's amazing how hard it is to find specific evidence that proves the landing happened. One of the most convincing pieces of evidence for me was the revelation that the astronauts brought back a specimen of a mineral that's unknown on Earth.

However, even that evidence could be questioned. Could such a mineral have been manufactured in a laboratory? Then I learned that that particular mineral was discovered on Earth not long after the moon landing.

Your claim that conspirators can't make stupid mistakes is absurd. Arranging for pResident George W. Bush to be in an elementary school in Florida was a stupid mistake. At first glance it might seem like a smart move, because it gave him an excuse to not assume his duties as commander in chief. (He said he didn't want to scare the children.)

But any rational person would see through that argument in an instant. If we came under nuclear attack one day, wouldn't it be comical if the pResident couldn't perform his duties because he was once again stuck in a classroom and couldn't think of an excuse for leaving without scaring the kids?

Another example of a stupid mistake is the post-9/11 anthrax attacks. If the anthrax was in the hands of demonic Muslims who hated America, surely they would have killed millions of people. Instead, just a handful of people were targeted, most of them Democrats. I'd call that a really stupid strategy for silencing people.

posted on Tuesday, Jun 21, 2022 11:51:11 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To David Blomstrom]

"This is a FACT, David, a FACT, and a very, very important one.
There is not a single skerrick of visual evidence that favours real death and injury over fake for 3,000 alleged dead and 6,000 injured.

"Please explain that fact to me."

"Well, let's see ... If I was in the World Trade Center when it began collapsing, and I just happened to be holding a video camera, would I stand there and calmly film people who are dying all around me? And if I did, would my video camera survive the inferno?"

Let me modify my fact to make it more compelling.
There is not a single skerrick of visual evidence that favours real death and injury over fake for 3,000 alleged dead and 6,000 injured and there is significant purported evidence indicating fakery.

If you haven't looked at my page on the fakery can I ask you to do that before you come back with any other arguments against it so time isn't wasted unnecessarily in argument.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

Please explain the purported evidence indicating fakery or otherwise undermining the reality of the claim. Also, what is your explanation for the alleged airliner passenger and crew deaths? Analyst, Jon Revusky, shows how the alleged existence of flight attendant, Betty Ong, shows clear signs of falsity.
https://heresycentral.is/revusky/blackbetty/

"The evidence says we went to the moon."

"Can you specify what evidence you're talking about?"

Every single skerrick of visual evidence is consistent with expectations considering the radically different conditions on the moon, including but not limited to:
1. 1/6th of earth's gravity
2. Virtually no atmosphere
3. Black sky during lunar day (the astronauts went to the moon during lunar dawn)

The black sky during lunar day would not be an easy thing to fake I'd say. What we see is a very bright lunar surface indicating reflected sunlight surrounded by blackness - utterly alien to terrestrial conditions.

If you wish to argue "we don't know what the conditions on the moon are," then please provide a refutation of the scientific explanations put forward for those conditions. I'm not interested in "we don't know" arguments where scientific explanations have been put forward that haven't been refuted.

I have no interest in "could be fake" arguments unless there is a nugget of compelling evidence that says fake otherwise it's simply a case of "could be fake/could be real." In that situation, where's the value in arguing for could be fake? Sure, I'll say that it's not unreasonable to infer the twin towers were empty before collapse even though I don't have compelling direct facts for that inference because there's clear evidence of fakery from a number of angles and there's nothing that says they couldn't have been empty. I follow the words of Conan Doyle.

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” 

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 21, 2022 11:22:19 PM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:

"The black sky during lunar day would not be an easy thing to fake I'd say."

You've obviously never heard of a GREEN SCREEN.

Some of your theories are interesting, but your logic is all over the map. That, combined with your obsession with the word "skerrick," makes it hard to take you seriously.

posted on Wednesday, Jun 22, 2022 05:54:16 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To David Blomstrom]

I've heard of a green screen and seen evidence of it. TV trickery is not undetectable so if the moon landings were faked using green screen it would be detectable.

You think my logic is all over the map but I think it's perfectly fine and very straightforward. You need to deal with the evidence first.

Psyops have a very distinctive MO of which we see no evidence with the moon landings (apart from agents pushed out saying "we didn't go", targeting those who never believe the authorities in order to undermine them - and those of us more nuanced in our judgement - when they call out their many lies).

To give an example utterly alien to psyop fakery. There are tiny amounts of regolith dust in the wrinkles of the mylar coverings of the landing pads of the lunar modules which can only be seen with magnification of high resolution photos. Fakery in psyops is absolutely never done like that, it's always done reasonably detectably at the very least if not very obviously ... and even if someone was aiming to fake something as well as they possibly could they wouldn't fake dust in such miniscule amounts on the landing pads like that.

Click the link below, then click magnifier and scroll to the left of the landing pad to see minute amounts of dust.
https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/40/5926.jpg

Similarly, while there is no blast crater (not to be expected in any case) we see faint traces of radial exhaust. No one's going to fake that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyH4Zaz3mEE


One thing I like is for all the pieces of the jigsaw to fit together.

[ login to reply ] posted on Wednesday, Jun 22, 2022 08:11:14 AM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:

"I've heard of a green screen and seen evidence of it."

You've seen "evidence" of a green screen? So what does this evidence look like? Would it be something like visiting amazon.com and searching for "green screen"?

"TV trickery is not undetectable so if the moon landings were faked using green screen it would be detectable."

OK, I'll bite. What kind of evidence tells us that a particular film was made with the help of a green screen?

In some cases, we can use logic. We know green screens are commonly used in film making, and a lot of movies that have preposterous backgrounds were presumably made with green screens.

However, there's nothing really preposterous about the moon, and the black sky beyond the moon could be recreated by a child with a black crayon. So if someone filmed a video on the moon and someone else filmed something similar in a studio, using a green screen, what evidence would you use to discover which film was fake?

posted on Friday, Jun 24, 2022 07:04:47 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To David Blomstrom]

I've seen use of green in fakery for 9/11 and Sandy Hook in reporters' interviews.

This is my case for the reality of the moon landings, David, in a nutshell and I don't think I have anything more to say on the subject ... except I believe that anyone who disbelieves the moon landings isn't looking at the evidence properly.

Visually, everything is consistent with the very different lunar conditions with no signs of fakery. Moreover, there is an incredible level of subtlety of consistency as I pointed out in an earlier comment where we see barely visible amounts of regolith dust in the mylar wrinkles on the landing pads and a faint radial exhaust pattern from touchdown, nuances we would not expect to see in fakery and certainly not in psyop fakery whose MO generally is to make itself obvious.

Additionally, no signs of fakery have been identified in the hours of audio between astronauts and mission control.

I've seen perfectly reasonable debunking of all the arguments against the reality of the moon landings and many of those who speak about the moon landings as having happened are obviously far more knowledgeable on the subject than those who say we didn't go.

The purported evidence overwhelmingly favours the reality of the moon landings and I see no reason to doubt them. Claiming that something "could be" faked if there's no actual signs of fakery and no good reason to suspect fakery has no value.

[ login to reply ] posted on Saturday, Jun 25, 2022 07:36:00 AM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:

"I've seen use of green in fakery for 9/11 and Sandy Hook in reporters' interviews."

Please share.

"Visually, everything is consistent with the very different lunar conditions with no signs of fakery."

That's an awfully arrogant statement. You should say, "I haven't detected any signs of fakery," or "There don't appear to be any obvious signs of fakery." What you're saying is that you're an expert on both film and the moon, you've meticulously examined the film, and it's positively genuine.

"Additionally, no signs of fakery have been identified in the hours of audio between astronauts and mission control."

No signs of fakery, no signs of fakery, no signs of fakery . . . we could say the same thing about any number of conspiracies. We often don't see signs of fakery until they're pointed out to us.

"I've seen perfectly reasonable debunking of all the arguments against the reality of the moon landings and many of those who speak about the moon landings as having happened are obviously far more knowledgeable on the subject than those who say we didn't go."

Those who are more "knowledgeable" are often less trustworthy at the same time. George W. Bush certainly knew more about the White House than I do.

"Claiming that something 'could be' faked if there's no actual signs of fakery and no good reason to suspect fakery has no value."

If you're a serious student of logic or conspiracy science, then it means everything. It's possible to be right for the wrong reasons, and your "logic" is all over the map.

As I said earlier, I'm sitting on the fence regarding the authenticity of the moon landing. Faking it would have obviously been one helluva conspiracy, but so was no one - regardless of who plotted it.

However, if Neil Armstrong walked up to me and said, "Hi, I'm Neil Armstrong, and I really walked on the moon," why should I believe him? What evidence or logic could he offer to back up his claim?

Your suggestion that Hollywood couldn't create a set as simple as this one - https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2019/11/18/charles_conrad_jr-1-2_custom-bccd44de012e9a0c09835601efeec9d5462fc5dc-s1600-c85.webp - is utterly absurd.

posted on Saturday, Jun 25, 2022 07:48:11 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To David Blomstrom]

My apologies, instead of saying "no signs of fakery" what I should say is that "anything that might be interpreted as fakery has been explained." If you wish to argue against that claim please put forward what you think is an example of fakery which hasn't been explained or not explained convincingly.

You do realise the onus is on you to provide evidence of fakery.

"No signs of fakery, no signs of fakery, no signs of fakery . . . we could say the same thing about any number of conspiracies. We often don't see signs of fakery until they're pointed out to us."

Sure, we may not see signs of fakery until they're pointed out but I have to say I think I've become quite good at identifying psyop fakery at least - give me an Old Master fakery and I wouldn't have a clue. I've indicated that I've identified fakery where very few others have indicated they've identified it such as Collateral Murder and the Bologna Station bombing. The thing is if the moon landings were faked surely they would come under "psyop" so if they were faked as realistically as possible then that would break all psyop rules and we'd have to wonder about that. Why would they fake the moon landings as realistically as possible while for every other psyop they do it "hidden-in-plain-sight" style. I like to follow the Law of Parsimony, David.

It's really so simple, David. Burden of proof. For every event I believe is faked I put forward the evidence ... and psyops make it so very, very easy because part of the MO is to make it obvious. I mean, they're simply a gift! If you want to claim the moon landings were faked you need to prove it. So far, you've put forward nothing I can see that in any way calls their reality into question ... and nor has anyone else.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 28, 2022 11:34:17 PM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:

"Part of the MO is to make it obvious."

Yes, who needs logic when you have a mountain of evidence that no one else has.

posted on Wednesday, Jun 29, 2022 10:41:06 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:
[To David Blomstrom]

"... no one else has" ???

What are you talking about? Everyone has access to footage of planes melting into buildings and the showcasing of the very obvious implosion that is the destruction of WTC-7. Everyone has access to film of Larry Silverstein saying he said to "pull it", etc.

And there is loads of audio and footage of the moon landings.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Jun 30, 2022 06:33:01 AM
...
0
David Blomstrom writes:

"What are you talking about? Everyone has access to footage of planes melting into buildings and the showcasing of the very obvious implosion that is the destruction of WTC-7."

Yes, footage of planes melting into buildings is powerful evidence that no one died.

"And there is loads of audio and footage of the moon landings."

Amen. And if the moon landing was a hoax, there would be no video or audio at all. It would have been impossible to fake, so they would have just told the world that they never communicated with the astronauts, who never filmed their foray onto the moon.

Like I said, you're so obsessed with what you call "evidence" you give logic the middle finger. Like a dog chasing its tail, you keep going round and round with your circular logic claiming you're proving something or other when you're really just digging yourself a deeper rut.

But I'm glad you've seen green screen fakery, even if you can't give us any examples. How cool is that?

So long, and thanks for the laughs.

posted on Thursday, Jun 30, 2022 11:54:21 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:
[To David Blomstrom]

Green screen fakery is easy to find. I could easily provide it but I don't see how my providing it is relevant. What I say about green screen is that it is detectable and if the moon landings used green screen it would be evident. Are you saying green screen is not detectable?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-easy-for-you-to-recognize-when-a-green-screen-is-in-use

"Footage of planes melting into buildings is powerful evidence that no one died."
Wow! Straw man argument of the highest order. Where did I say planes melting into buildings was evidence no one died? I didn't although it does provide evidence that no one died in an airliner crashing into a building. You do agree with that don't you ... or? I have put my case for staged death and injury on this page to which you've made no response.
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/3000-dead-and-6000-injured-a-lie.html

"And if the moon landing was a hoax, there would be no video or audio at all. It would have been impossible to fake, so they would have just told the world that they never communicated with the astronauts, who never filmed their foray onto the moon."
Another straw man argument. My case for the validity of the moon landings is that all the footage is 100% consistent with the lunar conditions which are completely different from the conditions on earth. In fact, everything we turn to is consistent with expectations. When there is no reason to doubt the veracity of a claim and there is ample evidence supporting it, the Law of Parsimony says we accept it as true. That's logic.

So far, David, you still haven't provided a single - not a single - piece of evidence that contradicts the claim that death and injury were staged on 9/11 or the claim that astronauts landed on the moon. Not a single piece of evidence ... and you call that logic??

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jul 01, 2022 07:55:08 AM
...
Trevor Folley
0

There seem to be two elements in play here,
 1. Who is responsible for the event
 2. The consequences of the event


an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party.

The term ‘false flag’ as expressed above relates to who is responsible for the event (irrespective of the consequences). It would be legitimate to call an event ‘false flag’ before you were aware of the consequences.
 
Subterfuge or deceit in relation to the consequences is an additional activity. 

I agree that, when the term is used, the audience is given two options. In line with your definition, I would replace ‘did the crime’ with ‘is responsible for the event’
 A. Entity A’s claim that entity B is responsible for the event is correct
 B. Entity A is lying and it was really entity A who is responsible for the event

I agree that this does not offer the full range of options. I propose four:
 1. Entity B is responsible for the event and the consequences (expressed by A) are real
 2. Entity A is responsible for the event and the consequences (expressed by A) are real
 3. Entity B is responsible for the event and the consequences (expressed by A) are not real
 4. Entity A is responsible for the event and the consequences (expressed by A) are not real

Using the definition above, ‘false flag’ would denote both option 2 and option 4.

...which brings us back to the dichotomy that either,

 A. Entity A’s claim that entity B is responsible for the event is correct (would be true with options 1 and 3)
 B. Entity A is lying and it was really entity A who is responsible for the event (would be true with options 2 and 4)

I don’t see a false dilemma (or dichotomy) here merely incomplete information.

answered on Monday, Jun 20, 2022 03:38:49 AM by Trevor Folley

Trevor Folley Suggested These Categories

Comments

...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

Merely incomplete information, Trevor?

Well, why is it that the vast majority of people tend to either believe terrorists were responsible for [EDIT: alleged] deaths and injury on 9/11 or the US government was. Only a tiny percentage recognises - or has even contemplated - that the US government was responsible for 9/11 but staged the death and injury.

The sophisticated propaganda strategy, that's why. It's not so much incomplete information as groups of people with different tendency-to-believe profiles being targeted with propaganda that directs their thoughts in a particular way. The thing is though that when you blow away the magic propaganda dust, all is revealed. The real information is actually there hidden in plain sight, it's just that we don't see it. It truly is a magic trick. The supreme confidence that they could get away with it like that, pushing it under our noses and right in our faces does give me pause I have to say ... but they're very, very experienced in these things.

posted on Monday, Jun 20, 2022 09:42:10 AM
...
0
Trevor Folley writes:

[To Petra Liverani]

I answered your original question. 

Does the use of the term false flag tend to create in our minds the fallacy, false dilemma?

You have asked another one,

Why is it that the vast majority of people tend to either believe terrorists were responsible for the deaths and injury on 9/11 or the US government was?

This is an interesting question but not one best suited to a forum that focuses on logical fallacies.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jun 20, 2022 03:43:46 PM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:
[To Trevor Folley]

I'm afraid I don't understand your claim that the question isn't suited, Trevor, as it relates to the logical fallacy, false dilemma.

The propaganda strategy for 9/11 was to curate two propaganda streams creating a false dilemma that means virtually everyone gets it wrong. I don't think anything could be more relevant than showing how a logical fallacy can be weaponised by those in power against global citizens in that way.

What amazes me is how long it took me to figure it out when in 2018 after about four years of study I finally understood the basics of the two-pronged propaganda strategy. It's literally only a few days ago that I was able to articulate it as the logical fallacy of false dilemma prompted by an article in Off-Guardian, The function of the fake binary, and even there the penny didn't drop till a month after I'd read the article and I happened to notice the article title in passing.

The creation of the false dilemma

Propaganda stream 1: Terrorists did it - aimed at those who are more inclined to believe the authorities

Propaganda stream 2: The US government did it - aimed at those inclined not to believe the authorities and/or who judge by the evidence: planes don't melt into buildings; high rise steel frame buildings don't crash to the ground in a matter of seconds - or ever - from fire; the mightiest nation's multi-trillion dollar military and intelligence infrastructure doesn't collapse in a screaming heap including by allowing a passenger airliner to sail into its Defence HQ. None of these things happen in the real world, they could only happen in a psyop. 

Reality: The US government (with a lot of assistance) was responsible for the "event" but they faked the planes and staged the death and injury, only the building damage and destructions were real.

Gerard Holmgren encapsulates best how the propaganda strategy of the false dilemma makes it so incredibly difficult for people to reason rationally about 9/11 although at the time he articulates it, he actually doesn't recognise it is a false dilemma, he believes the second option is true.

"The official story required either that one descended into total intellectual senility in order to still believe it – perhaps deliberately made ridiculous for that very purpose – or else that one keep one's intellect alive but destroy almost everything that one had previously believed about how society works."
Gerard Holmgren, A Theory

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Jun 20, 2022 10:34:39 PM
...
0
Trevor Folley writes:

[To Petra Liverani]

The original question was whether the term 'false flag' creates a false dilemma.

My thinking as outlined in my answer is that, by the definition you gave, it doesn't.

It can still be true that,

  1. Those who use the term 'false flag' want to propagate a false dilemma
  2. A different definition of 'false flag' would mean it creates a false dilemma

The tendency for some people to see only two options doesn't, per se, mean the term 'false flag' implies only two options, just that they have only thought of two.

The creation of the false dilemma.

What you write underneath this sentence gives three options but doesn't explain what in the term 'false flag' stops someone being able to infer the third option. By your definition of false flag, it is possible to infer that...

The US government (with a lot of assistance) was responsible for the "event" but they faked the planes and staged the death and injury, only the building damage and destructions were real.

It can still be a false flag event - by your definition.

The reason that your quesion,

Why is it that the vast majority of people tend to either believe terrorists were responsible for the deaths and injury on 9/11 or the US government was? 

is not best suited for a forum that focuses on logical fallacies is because it invites us to speculate on what led people to believe what they believe - this is the field of psychology, not logic.

The short answer would be - there will be different reasons for different people.

It is compatible to conclude that the majority of people tend to either believe terrorists were responsible for events on 9/11 or the US government was and that the term 'false flag' does not create a false dilemma.

If you want to dig into the language in order to find the source of a false dilemma then pay attention to how you phrased your question,

Why is it that the vast majority of people tend to either believe terrorists were responsible for the deaths and injury on 9/11 or the US government was?

By writing the deaths, you have expressed the question so that it can only make sense where there are deaths.

There is an inherent presupposition that people died - no wonder then that people tend to miss the third option.

The culprit for any false dilemma is not in the term 'false flag' but in the assumptions that arise from the way questions are phrased.

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 21, 2022 08:31:09 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To Trevor Folley]

Thanks, Trevor. OK, I'm a little slow and now I get that my question relates to psychology rather than being strictly in the realm of logic. Also, I have edited the question you quote to read "alleged deaths and injury".

So to keep it strictly in the realm of logic I believe I should have phrased my question:

"Do the two main opposing explanations accepted by the vast majority of people for 9/11 constitute a false dilemma?"

EDIT 1 hour after posting: I think I can revise my question without falling into the realm of psychology as follows - see entire comment for explanation.
"Is a propaganda strategy responsible for creating a false dilemma with regard to the two main opposing explanations for 9/11 believed by the vast majority of people?"

The two main explanations believed are:

A. The official story stating terrorists hijacked planes which ultimately led to the deaths of 3,000 and injury to 6,000
B. The US government was responsible (including the deaths of 3,000 and injury to 6,000).

Another explanation C, however, fits the evidence perfectly while A and B do not. That explanation is that the US government (with a great deal of collaboration and complicity) was responsible for 9/11, however,
that responsibility did not include the deaths of 3,000 and injury to 6,000 because the evidence shows that death and injury were staged and that, in fact, the "event" was really a massive Full-Scale Anti-Terrorist exercise comprising numerous smaller exercises and drills, some of which we were informed but a crucial few we weren't.

Do you agree?

I could have just left the term false flag out of it altogether and that would have made it much clearer and simpler.

I will say regardless though that the term false flag is misleading. It is a term that includes a number of possible types of event which causes confusion and never, AFAIK, involves a simple switch of perpetrator, it's always something different from a simple switch of perpetrator and sometimes - as in the case of 9/11 - the two opposing explanations have absolutely nothing in common except the alleged ultimate crime of killing and causing harm. No one thinks that government-sponsored people hijacked planes and piloted them into buildings ultimately leading to their destruction. The two mainly subscribed-to explanations for 9/11 have zero in common apart from the ultimate alleged crime - for which, ironically, the evidence clearly favours fakery. The two explanations so very conveniently simply converge at the very end. 



What you write underneath this sentence gives three options but doesn't explain what in the term 'false flag' stops someone being able to infer the third option.

 

People do, in fact, infer different options which sometimes depends on the event itself so while Sandy Hook is often referred to as a false flag by disbelievers of the official story absolutely no one (AFAIK) thinks the government was responsible for killing children in that event, of course, they just think the event was a Capstone Exercise pushed out as real or at least simply "staged" whatever that comprises. It would be utterly preposterous for the government to have done the alleged killing but people who disbelieve the official story for 9/11 do believe that that event included real deaths and injury while the evidence clearly shows in both cases that they were fundamentally Full-Scale Exercises conducted by response agencies, media personnel and others.

There is no propaganda targeting anticipated disbelievers of the Sandy Hook "event" to say that the government was responsible for the alleged deaths at Sandy Hook, of course. That simply wouldn't fly at all but there is for 9/11. Thus we have:

A. Evidence of huge amounts of propaganda, including people acting as loved ones (more convincingly than the Sandy Hook parents although still "giving it away" hidden-in-plain-sight style), pushing the idea that the government really killed and injured people on 9/11 that we can only infer is targeted to the anticipated disbelievers of the preposterous 9/11 story.
B. Most disbelievers of the official story believing the government really killed the people when the evidence clearly favours staging.

I don't think it's fair to say it's only speculation that the reason the majority of disbelievers of the 9/11 official story believe the government really killed people on 9/11 is due to the propaganda. It is not speculation. It makes absolutely no sense for this propaganda to exist in such abundance if it didn't have the effect of making people believe in real death and injury, does it, if it didn't work or wasn't necessary? And it obviously does. Just as, despite its preposterousness, the official story of 9/11 works on the rest of the population.

There is zero speculation in the claim that those in power understand how we divide in our propensity to believe certain ways and target us accordingly.



“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”


Sun-Tzu, The Art of War

[ login to reply ] posted on Tuesday, Jun 21, 2022 10:40:33 PM
...
0
Trevor Folley writes:

[To Petra Liverani]

Hi Petra

You have clearly researched this topic thoroughly and been diligent in your reading.

I don't feel qualified to comment on whether your inferences are true but I can see how your rephrasing has brought your contributions back into the realm of logic rather than pscyhology. I think your first rephrasing does this most successfully as it asked whether the two main explanations constitue a false dilemma. You provide a compelling argument that it does - that is, you demonstrate that there are at least 3 explanations.

Your second rephrasing asks whether the vast majority of people believe something. This is moving away from logic again as it invites people to speculate about what someone else if thinking.

I think you have a strong case for saying that the term 'false flag' is misleading, especially when it is combined with the factive language (language that only makes sense if something is true).

I think your sentence below is particularly interesting.

I don't think it's fair to say it's only speculation that the reason the majority of disbelievers of the 9/11 official story believe the government really killed people on 9/11 is due to the propaganda.

The reason I mentioned speculation is because it involves drawing conclusions about something we cannot verify. Even where you have a cogent case for inferring something, it can still be speculation.

Your sentence is particularly interesting as it might be an example of two logical fallacies.

causal reductionism - Even where propaganda contributes to people's beliefs, there might be other causal factors (e.g. They want to believe it (confirmation bias) or they have a friend who works in a hospital and that person told them they had seen dead bodies related to 9/11)

post hoc ergo propter hoc - the assertion that because people believed something following something else (e.g. statements put out by the government) their beliefs have been caused by it. It might be the case but it is possible that it is not (even if we don't know of any other possible causes).

Logical fallacies are not to do with whether something is true - they are related to the way conclusions have been drawn. An inference can be factually correct and still logically fallacious.

e.g. (affirming the consequent)

If it rains then the ground gets wet
The ground is wet
It has rained

It may well be that it had rained so the third sentence can be factually correct but it doesn't follow from their line of thinking. It is possible that someone had been washing their car which made the ground wet.

[ login to reply ] posted on Thursday, Jun 23, 2022 11:14:56 AM
...
0
Petra Liverani writes:

[To Trevor Folley]

Thanks, Trevor.

I see your points so I'd revise my claim to say that the evidence indicates that the "false dilemma" propaganda strategy played a significant role in the reason for most disbelievers of the 9/11 story believing that the US government really killed and injured people on 9/11. I'd agree, in fact, that even without the disbeliever-targeted propaganda many disbelievers would probably still believe that the US government really were responsible for the alleged deaths on 9/11.

It's the same for the moon landings. Those in power pushed propaganda saying "we didn't go" in the form of agents such as Bill Kaysing and Dave McGowan (author of Wagging the Moondoggie - what a great title) targeting those who fit the disbeliever-by-default profile, however, even without that propaganda the disbelievers-by-default would probably still not believe in the moon landings because, after all, they do seem easy to disbelieve in a number of ways. It's just that when you examine in an unbiased, open-minded manner, the evidence for that astonishing achievement stands strong and proud. I believe (yes, speculation here) for those in power even when they know the disbelievers-by-default won't believe the moon landings all by themselves and thereby undermine themselves (and others like me who are not disbelievers by default) when they call out the real lies, they like to feel they're playing a role in influencing their minds to make that error of disbelief, they like to think that they can control the disbelievers-by-defaults' minds as they do the believers' minds ... and they can!

It's only those of us: committed to the evidence rather than belief of disbelief of the authorities; willing to recognise when our minds have been controlled and accept it and willing to do 180 degree turns on our beliefs at a moment's notice whose minds are far less controlled by those in power than others.

[ login to reply ] posted on Friday, Jun 24, 2022 01:19:44 AM