Views on Conspiracy(or Theories)

[Makeherhappy]

What are you views on them? Do you believe or not believe? In my day to day interaction with a lot of people. I'm finding more and more people asking more and more questions. They are doing more and more research also.

You hear the arguement prove it, isn't it difficult to prove something that is deemed classified?

Not just the ones now, but since the Wealth of Nations(1776)

 

[Spectrum]

What are you views on them? Do you believe or not believe? In my day to day interaction with a lot of people. I'm finding more and more people asking more and more questions. They are doing more and more research also.

You hear the arguement prove it, isn't it difficult to prove something that is deemed classified?

Not just the ones now, but since the Wealth of Nations(1776)

I've been reading about theories for years. For instance..the one about the Federal Reserve System(The Creature from Jeckyl Island)..which you can find a stong trail of damning evidence of this conspiracy. Also, you can answers the hows, whys, whos, etc and it all logically connects. You can do this what alot of "conspiracy theories". However some of them don't connect..or in some cases the evidence just hasn't discovered. I just think that when one is making decisions on things like this..it is best to analyze what one takes as "evidence" and what one takes as a "suggestion" That is my point. Also, I found much "WTF" type of info than the Able Danger cite that makes one think of conspiracy when speaking of 9/11. However, I don't think citing Able Danger is enough to jump to huge government plot...especially when explicity using Able Danger as evidence. Independently is doesn't stand up.


Even if you can't "prove" it you can make all the connections. I.E...in some cases, a lawyer can "prove" a person what the murderer even without witnesses, dna evidence, or the body....if they can provide the "motive", the "means", "whereabouts", premeditated "Actions"..like researching or stalking the victim, etc. You don't necessary have to have all the HARD evidence to make the connections explicitly;however, you must still do the hardcore analysis to make the connections implicitly.

 

[Makeherhappy]

I've been reading about theories for years. For instance..the one about the Federal Reserve System(The Creature from Jeckyl Island)..which you can find a stong trail of damning evidence of this conspiracy. Also, you can answers the hows, whys, whos, etc and it all logically connects. You can do this what alot of "conspiracy theories". However some of them don't connect..or in some cases the evidence just hasn't discovered. I just think that when one is making decisions on things like this..it is best to analyze what one takes as "evidence" and what one takes as a "suggestion" That is my point. Also, I found much "WTF" type of info than the Able Danger cite that makes one think of conspiracy when speaking of 9/11. However, I don't think citing Able Danger is enough to jump to huge government plot...especially when explicity using Able Danger as evidence. Independently is doesn't stand up.


Even if you can't "prove" it you can make all the connections. I.E...in some cases, a lawyer can "prove" a person what the murderer even without witnesses, dna evidence, or the body....if they can provide the "motive", the "means", "whereabouts", premeditated "Actions"..like researching or stalking the victim, etc. You don't necessary have to have all the HARD evidence to make the connections explicitly;however, you must still do the hardcore analysis to make the connections implicitly.

Point taken,

But we know so much about secret societies and there's still we don't know. Does that not give evidence as to motive? We know, i believe, that certain societies are bent on world dominations, True? If these socities and certain agencies(CIA, DIA, NSA, ...), isn't that "like researching or stalking the victim, etc."

Or....

Have people just given to much credit to secret societies, and it is no way they could have infiltrated government or governent agencies?

 

[Spectrum]

Point taken,

But we know so much about secret societies and there's still we don't know. Does that not give evidence as to motive? We know, i believe, that certain societies are bent on world dominations, True? If these socities and certain agencies(CIA, DIA, NSA, ...), isn't that "like researching or stalking the victim, etc."

Or....

Have people just given to much credit to secret societies, and it is no way they could have infiltrated government or governent agencies?

Do you mean like the illuminati or the grand daddy of dominant families "the Rothchilds"?

This is what I think. Information has become so damn transparent over the last 15 years and especially now that it is pretty freakin difficult to do anything in secret anymore. If Bush takes a shit in his office, someone is blogging about it ten minutes later how he didn't use enough toilet paper to wipe his ass. I think that in the past..when people could very easily maintain a monopoly on information, you saw much more willingness to conspire because the possibility of getting exposed was minimal. Now, with satellite technology, gps, transactional history of credit cards, banking, phone records...and global information medium of the internet, etc...you can hardly do anything anonomously, especially on a grand scale with multiple organizations as the possibility of some type of "leak" is too great.

However, I do believe there is a lot of merit to certain factions organizing for their own selective aims. The secret societies which spawned organizations like The trilateral commission, Bilderberg, etc have an agenda..but I think it is often much like any groups gets together and conspires for their own interest..except this group is of the elite and very powerful...like how the banking families of Europe conspired to create a central bank for the U.S.(the Fed) and for them to control is and thus control banking policy in the New World. Yes, that shit was real! So I do believe that some of the conspiracy theories do have merit, but it's picking through all the gibberish is what takes the time.

No. Obviously secret societies have infiltrated our governments. There is no secret on that...they are the ultimate old boys networks. Our previous election with both Bush and Kerry being from the same secret society Skull and Bones speaks of that. I guess the question is do these organizations have some long term insiduous plan like some conspiracy theories would like to believe or are they have elitist organizations that recruit the wealthiest, most well connected, people they can and then look out for each other and promote their political views.?

I think in some ways they are giving too much credit. Most well read people don't give them more credit than they deserve because world events are very difficult to stage in most instances, however they do happen (i.e. the creature from jeckyl Isle...the Fed).

But when you read about the History of families like the Rothchilds one has to raise an eyebrow...because they literally were behind some of the worlds biggest events.the sole financier on both sides of wars, etc.

 

[Makeherhappy]

Do you mean like the illuminati or the grand daddy of dominant families "the Rothchilds"?

This is what I think. Information has become so damn transparent over the last 15 years and especially now that it is pretty freakin difficult to do anything in secret anymore. If Bush takes a shit in his office, someone is blogging about it ten minutes later how he didn't use enough toilet paper to wipe his ass. I think that in the past..when people could very easily maintain a monopoly on information, you saw much more willingness to conspire because the possibility of getting exposed was minimal. Now, with satellite technology, gps, transactional history of credit cards, banking, phone records...and global information medium of the internet, etc...you can hardly do anything anonomously, especially on a grand scale with multiple organizations as the possibility of some type of "leak" is too great.

However, I do believe there is a lot of merit to certain factions organizing for their own selective aims. The secret societies which spawned organizations like The trilateral commission, Bilderberg, etc have an agenda..but I think it is often much like any groups gets together and conspires for their own interest..except this group is of the elite and very powerful...like how the banking families of Europe conspired to create a central bank for the U.S.(the Fed) and for them to control is and thus control banking policy in the New World. Yes, that shit was real! So I do believe that some of the conspiracy theories do have merit, but it's picking through all the gibberish is what takes the time.

Yes the Illuminati, the order's, and the like.

So being what you just said, is that not motive? I hope everyone knows the FRB, is private. "Privatization" begun a long time ago.

 

[Spectrum]

Yes the Illuminati, the order's, and the like.

So being what you just said, is that not motive? I hope everyone knows the FRB, is private. "Privatization" begun a long time ago.

Movite doesn't equate guilt. You have to make more connections than desire. Just because an individual may have had the "motive" to rob a bank doesn't mean he was the one who do it. Also, "private" isn't the best term to apply to the Fed. It is more adequately described as a quasi-private/governmental instituation. It is a hybrid structure than can't be exclusively classified as public, private, or government explicitly. It is a hybrid entity.

 

[Makeherhappy]

Movite doesn't equate guilt. You have to make more connections than desire. Just because an individual may have had the "motive" to rob a bank doesn't mean he was the one who do it. Also, "private" isn't the best term to apply to the Fed. It is more adequately described as a quasi-private/governmental instituation. It is a hybrid structure than can't be exclusively classified as public, private, or government explicitly. It is a hybrid entity.

As a financial advisor, i'll differ with you on that. "In my learned opinion"

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/fedprivatelyowned.htm

a good explanation

 

[Spectrum]

As a financial advisor, i'll differ with you on that. "In my learned opinion"

http://www.worldnewsstand.net/today/articles/fedprivatelyowned.htm

a good explanation

You being a financial advisor means nothing. That link has been cited all over the web and I've already read it. However, have you evaluated any of the past 70 years worth of provisions and legislations that has altered the Feds status since its inception? No you haven't. Otherwise you would have made your reply. The Fed isn't even remotedly "privately" owned in any sense of what "private" semantically implies. Even upon its inceptions, if you look at the corporate structure of the stock and wasn't what one would commonly calls a "private" corporation. That was the trick of it. However, its present form doesn't even remotely resemble its form upon inception as the Federal Reserved System has evolved tremendously.

Again, this is a case where you must read something and then evaluate and check the references and make your own conclusions. You are taking too many things at face value. One decent book on central banking and then do a google search for a timeline on the provisions to the Fed since it was conceived will illuminate its current status as a quasi private/governmental hybrid instituation.

 

[Makeherhappy]

You being a financial advisor means nothing. That link has been cited all over the web and I've already read it. However, have you evaluated any of the past 70 years worth of provisions and legislations that has altered the Feds status since its inception? No you haven't. Otherwise you would have made your reply. The Fed isn't even remotedly "privately" owned in any sense of what "private" semantically implies. Even upon its inceptions, if you look at the corporate structure of the stock and wasn't what one would commonly calls a "private" corporation. That was the trick of it. However, its present form doesn't even remotely resemble its form upon inception as the Federal Reserved System has evolved tremendously.

Again, this is a case where you must read something and then evaluate and check the references and make your own conclusions. You are taking too many things at face value. One decent book on central banking and then do a google search for a timeline on the provisions to the Fed since it was conceived will illuminate its current status as a quasi private/governmental hybrid instituation.

If correct in your statement, then you reading books mean nothing. Since we discredited each other in that way I guess we can move the subject on..

 

[Spectrum]

If correct in your statement, then you reading books mean nothing. Since we discredited each other in that way I guess we can move the subject on..

You haven't descredited me at all. You are descrediting youself by citing web pages with outdated information.

 

[Temujin]

Come on Ewell and Makeherhappy I am patiently waiting to hear the debate on this one. I read the article by MHH and also went to the federal reserve board website http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm

I noticed what is key in my mind to whether or not the fed is in effect private or public. It is clear from both websites that the Fed does make investments and it does make a profit off of those investments. MHH website says that money goes to the stockholders, the Fed says that after expenses (and this may be the catch) all funds are turned over to the U.S. Treasury. My question is where does the money go.
Is money transfered to private individuals other than federal reserve employees?
If so is this considered a business expense for the FRB?

Another question I had is on the nature of investments of the fed. Who oversees the policy behind these investments? Do they relate to the feds main goal of "conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices" or is the goal simply to make a profit?

I know this wasn't the topic of the thread but I am very curious to hear some info from others who may have read more about it than me.

Thanks

 

[Makeherhappy]

You haven't descredited me at all. You are descrediting youself by citing web pages with outdated information.

******sigh********

And the 9th circuit court says

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html

 

[Spectrum]

******sigh********

And the 9th circuit court says

http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html

Sighs..

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frseri3.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty4.html

That first statement doesnt make it so. If you read the the actual writing in that 1982 case it states that the Fed can't be consistered a "Federal Agency". That is never a claim of mine. The claim is that it is "quasi" private and governmental based on its unique position and affiliation with our governments is position of printing our government currency. Again, I don't think you are understanding the stuff you are reading..and it makes sense because you can't expound. You just keep citing links which you dont understand the content. Even that court case speaks of its quasi private/public status and states that is isn't explicitly federal.

 

[Makeherhappy]

Sighs..

http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/frseries/frseri3.htm
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/flaherty/flaherty4.html

That first statement doesnt make it so. If you read the the actual writing in that 1982 case it states that the Fed can't be consistered a "Federal Agency". That is never a claim of mine. The claim is that it is "quasi" private and governmental based on its unique position and affiliation with our governments is position of printing our government currency. Again, I don't think you are understanding the stuff you are reading..and it makes sense because you can't expound. You just keep citing links which you dont understand the content. Even that court case speaks of its quasi private/public status and states that is isn't explicitly federal.

That's funny you also use a "Think Tank" as a source. It's also funny how the same myth questions is posed at another website, different answer:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty4.html

Let me get this straight you want me to expoud for you, but you can't answer questions. Just saying you put the book down doesn't mean anything. Hell you could have been in the store or at a friends house(making that assumption you have) and put the book down.

YOU ARE JUSTIFIED ANY EXPLANATION

 

[Spectrum]

Come on Ewell and Makeherhappy I am patiently waiting to hear the debate on this one. I read the article by MHH and also went to the federal reserve board website http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm

I noticed what is key in my mind to whether or not the fed is in effect private or public. It is clear from both websites that the Fed does make investments and it does make a profit off of those investments. MHH website says that money goes to the stockholders, the Fed says that after expenses (and this may be the catch) all funds are turned over to the U.S. Treasury. My question is where does the money go.
Is money transfered to private individuals other than federal reserve employees?

All funds as stated by policy are returned to the U.S. Treasury.The conspiracy has never been the the banking families used the fed to profit indirectly...the claim what that central banks are used to inflate currencies and cause panic by tightening the money supply, causing markets to plummit..and these already wealthy family that are behind these central banks buy stock, corporations, bonds, etc for pennies on a dollar during depressionary market conditions. This is exactly what happened with the great depression and policy enacted by the FED prolonged the depression...it didnt bring us out of it.
If so is this considered a business expense for the FRB?

Another question I had is on the nature of investments of the fed. Who oversees the policy behind these investments? Do they relate to the feds main goal of "conducting the nation's monetary policy by influencing money and credit conditions in the economy in pursuit of full employment and stable prices" or is the goal simply to make a profit?
The policy of the Federal Reserve Banks are overseen by the Federal Reserve Board..with Alan Greenspan currently setting banking policy with really unparalled power because his record is go great. However, he is stepping down now.

I know this wasn't the topic of the thread but I am very curious to hear some info from others who may have read more about it than me.

Thanks

Response above

 

[Spectrum]

That's funny you also use a "Think Tank" as a source. It's also funny how the same myth questions is posed at another website, different answer:
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/3616/flaherty4.html

Let me get this straight you want me to expoud for you, but you can't answer questions. Just saying you put the book down doesn't mean anything. Hell you could have been in the store or at a friends house(making that assumption you have) and put the book down.

YOU ARE JUSTIFIED ANY EXPLANATION

How about the other source that you failed to mention: the actual Federal Reserve website that I listed. Stop being so emotional about this and trying to "win" the argument. I'm just about talking about the facts and calling speculation what it is..speculation. I've answered everything put forth to me and even questions that weren't directly addressed to me. I've read the book and others that I stated and many more. If you want to expound the book, fine. I would like to hear it. If you don't, fine..I'm not going to drag it out of you. Your brought the book up..I didn't.

I'm certainly not "justifying your explanation". That speaks more to the fact that you don't understand what quasi private/governmental means. This is pretty much as accepted reality as much as gravity is accepted as a theory, unless you subscribe to the hardcore conspiracy theories that even the government websites and the Fed websites purposely have misleading and fictatious data on them...and all the definates of what private, public, etc are incorrect.

Furthermore, you haven't given any explanation. You "stated" the Fed was private and then provided a link to data from the 1920's and then a 1982 judgement still spoke in terms of the Feds special status of uniquely intertwined but not explicitly just federal. You haven't explained or expounded or anything..just just dropped a link.

 

[Makeherhappy]

How about the other source that you failed to mention: the actual Federal Reserve website that I listed. Stop being so emotional about this and trying to "win" the argument. I'm just about talking about the facts and calling speculation what it is..speculation. I've answered everything put forth to me and even questions that weren't directly addressed to me. I've read the book and others that I stated and many more. If you want to expound the book, fine. I would like to hear it. If you don't, fine..I'm not going to drag it out of you. Your brought the book up..I didn't.

I'm certainly not "justifying your explanation". That speaks more to the fact that you don't understand what quasi private/governmental means. This is pretty much as accepted reality as much as gravity is accepted as a theory, unless you subscribe to the hardcore conspiracy theories that even the government websites and the Fed websites purposely have misleading and fictatious data on them...and all the definates of what private, public, etc are incorrect.

Furthermore, you haven't given any explanation. You "stated" the Fed was private and then provided a link to data from the 1920's and then a 1982 judgement still spoke in terms of the Feds special status of uniquely intertwined but not explicitly just federal. You haven't explained or expounded or anything..just just dropped a link.

So let me get this straight, you want me to go into my closet of papers, put together a book report, and present it to you. You are smoking some of the best ishit ever. The fact that you referred to it as "hardcore conspiracy theories," says a lot.

Has their even been a "conspiracy theory" proven? Not to my knowledge.

Just like the meeting of the VP Cheney's energy task force. Won't ever get out who was in that meeting. It was very easy for gas prices to jump the way they did. And we've seen the results since then.

You do a great job of sifting through speculation.

 

[Spectrum]

So let me get this straight, you want me to go into my closet of papers, put together a book report, and present it to you. You are smoking some of the best ishit ever. The fact that you referred to it as "hardcore conspiracy theories," says a lot.

No one asked you to write a book. However if you can take the time to say something IS something. You should take the time to write 3-4 sentences to substantiate your claim and maybe provide one piece of SUBSTANTIAL evidence.
Has their even been a "conspiracy theory" proven? Not to my knowledge.

Tuskegee Experiment
U.S. ties to Drug Trafficking
Mass Stock Market Manipulations
U.S. involvement in several coups or regime changes
list goes on an on


Just like the meeting of the VP Cheney's energy task force. Won't ever get out who was in that meeting. It was very easy for gas prices to jump the way they did. And we've seen the results since then.

I won't even speculate on this..gas prices are effected by a wide range of issues.most of them being easily contributed to supply and demand issues.Again one can speculate anything, but you cant attempt to pass it on as Fact. Do I think politicians take advantage and do deals and pass info behind the scenes....let me just say this...you don't raise and spend million of dollars to meerly "win" a job...however, I don't contribute everything to a conspiracy theory.

You do a great job of sifting through speculation.

Replies above. You seem to think this a personal battle. My request is that if you are making a proclamation...just support it and don't expect us to take your word for it..and especially don't post like you are dropping knowlegde on us if you aren't going to expound. There are several articles posted here daily that i didn't know about..keeps me abreast of issues..however I do have issues with people making strong claims without supporting them as opposed to just sharing knowledge.

 

[Makeherhappy]

And the list of examples you just stated, were proven with security clearence, right? It just dawned on me, you have been replying to my responses all day. I'm home because I am studying for a security license exam, what's your story?

 

[Spectrum]

And the list of examples you just stated, were proven with security clearence, right? It just dawned on me, you have been replying to my responses all day. I'm home because I am studying for a security license exam, what's your story?

Proven after materials became declassified or after investigations by regulatory boards.

It's funny that you mention that..because I just replied in the other thread that we have to cut this back and forth out because I can't get any work done. I'm an enterpreneur..i've developed homes in the midwest and california..owned franchises, and even owned an outsourcing firm in India which I recently sold. Now I'm working on the platform for my new company Koove Inc.(www.koove.com). It is a project dealing in cognitive science/artificial intelligence and will bring together some of Tim Berners Lee's (father of the www) principles of his real vision of the internet: The Semantic Web.

 

[Makeherhappy]

Proven after materials became declassified or after investigations by regulatory boards.

It's funny that you mention that..because I just replied in the other thread that we have to cut this back and forth out because I can't get any work done. I'm an enterpreneur..i've developed homes in the midwest and california..owned franchises, and even owned an outsourcing firm in India which I recently sold. Now I'm working on the platform for my new company Koove Inc.(www.koove.com). It is a project dealing in cognitive science/artificial intelligence and will bring together some of Tim Berners Lee's (father of the www) principles of his real vision of the internet: The Semantic Web.

I also responded, and agreed, and noted.

Hmm to your project, interesting. Link didn't give me much to go on, but i understand it's in the making.

 

[Spectrum]

I also responded, and agreed, and noted.

Hmm to your project, interesting. Link didn't give me much to go on, but i understand it's in the making.

I'm in private alpha testing of the application...stealth mode is probably a better term so there purposely isn't much information there..however i will begin to upload before the beta launch.

 

[Makeherhappy]

Listening to the radio,

talked about this book.

written in the end of the 1800s

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/comingbattle/cbtabcon.htm

more info on the way.

WHOA.

Catch the Alex Jones Replay tonight at 9 p.m.
http://www.gcnlive.com/winmedia.htm

listen live to network 2

The segment is in the 11:00 pm hour. around the 15min mark.