David Icke: Was he right? C5 11pm (boxing day)

[Blagsta]

Are suggesting that you know me after reading a few posts on a bored?

Lovely Freudian slip there!

No, I'm pointing out that you obviously have difficulty working out what constitutes a decent source.

 

[editor]

I'm curious to know how you distinguish between a reliable and unreliable source?

Go on. Have a stab at working that one out yourself.

But you could start by taking a closer look at Jazzz's source (Joe "No Facts" Vialls) and seeing what you think.

 

[Pavlik]

Go on. Have a stab at working that one out yourself.

But you could start by taking a closer look at Jazzz's source (Joe "No Facts" Vialls) and seeing what you think.

I don't have any firm beliefs but I do have trouble believing anything that comes out of Bush or Blair's mouth.
I'm interested in how 'you' decide what is real or not.

 

[editor]

I don't have any firm beliefs but I do have trouble believing anything that comes out of Bush or Blair's mouth.
I'm interested in how 'you' decide what is real or not.

How about looking at the credibility of the sources: e.g. the independent academic analyses of the NIST report by two UK universities and a Beijing university versus a load of woefully unqualified, conspiraloon-led conclusions posted on way dodgy websites?

I know which of the two I'd find more likely to be true. How about you?

 

[mikeinworthing]

Do any of you believe what the government tells you?

Not automatically no, which is why I quoted Al Jazeera’s coverage.

Are you suggesting they are controlled by the US/UK governments?

 

[Pavlik]

Not automatically no, which is why I quoted Al Jazeera’s coverage.

Are you suggesting they are controlled by the US/UK governments?

No, but through my own experience of life I have come to understand that people in power lie a hell of a lot.

 

[editor]

No, but through my own experience of life I have come to understand that people in power lie a hell of a lot.

So do people that get a bit obsessed about things.

 

[max_freakout]

How about looking at the credibility of the sources: e.g. the independent academic analyses of the NIST report by two UK universities and a Beijing university versus a load of woefully unqualified, conspiraloon-led conclusions posted on way dodgy websites?

I know which of the two I'd find more likely to be true. How about you?

But they could both be completely wrong, what difference does it make which one is "more likely" to be true?

 

[editor]

But they could both be completely wrong, what difference does it make which one is "more likely" to be true?

What's your technical grounds for suspecting that the analysis from three separate independent, academic investigations might be wrong?

The stuff that dribbles out from the conspiraloon sites invariably bears no relation to proper scientific procedure and is often written by woefully unqualified individuals clearly pursuing an agenda, so I'd know which source I'm going to take more seriously (against a background of all the other academic analysis that has taken place).