Are you a Conspiracy Theorist?

Hi everyone,

Do you believe in conspiracies like....NASA never went to the moon?
Do you believe NASA landed on the moon and found an abandoned alien space base?
That NASA found a dead alien crew and a dead alien female with dread-locks and a pretty sexy looking face (for an alien)?
Do you believe that aliens live in the core of the Earth?
Do you believe that aliens on the moon told the last Apollo astronauts or NASA to never return to the moon and that's why NASA has never been back on the moon?

Do you believe that ancient man (more like apes) were genetically modified by the Annunaki to be a slave race to mine the gold from the Earth?
Do you believe that Nibiru will cause the Earth to be flipped again when it passes (again)?

So many questions to ask...but really, it all boils down to is...do you believe in conspiracy theories?


Babe,
xoxo

Nope, can't say that I am.
...and definitely don't believe in any of the posted examples so far.

...also don't believe in 911 Truther stuff or Haarp weather control.

What if conspiracy theorists part of the conspiracy? Yikes!

Yes I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

...also don't believe in 911 Truther stuff...

---

Hi there fred,

Thank you very much for your New Yorker's opinion.

I, personally, can't believe that jet fuel caused the towers to come down at the rate at which they fell.

I hope you can take the time one day or night to listen to the remarkable Dr Judy Wood. She wrote a fantastic book called, Where Did the Towers Go?
She does not accuse anybody really, BUT she does point to a special energy that may have been used to bring the towers down.

Think about it. Check this out.
I'll post a video for you and i hope you can give her a chance to maybe help you to see something that not many people have considered.

youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg

She talks about things that nobody has.


I hope you have a listen to her lecture
She's really interesting and smart.


Babe,
xoxo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lovecox

What if conspiracy theorists part of the conspiracy? Yikes!

---

Hi lovecox,

Yes, that coild be part of the whole conspiracy thing. lol

It would be really a BIG "yikes"!! indeed.

Thanks for that comment. You really do strike a chord in many people.

Cool.

Babe,
xoxo

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...71&postcount=4

When you consider the many crazy ideas conspiracy theorists hold, you see a list of some of the world's most repellent ideas. HIV-denial, Holocaust denial, the 9/11 truth movement, denial of the descent of man from other species over hundreds of millions of years, the myth that vaccines cause autism, or that the polio vaccine was a western trick. Paranoid, ignorant, dishonest, and often hateful. The ideas don't come out of nowhere. They start with some sort of bias and from there spring forth every logical fallacy and means of obscuring reality known to man.

I am not personally denying the possibility that there could be conspiracies or that people could be systematically wrong in their perceptions. But the ideas that are categorized as conspiracy theories are defined by a pathological form of thinking.

The conspiracy theorist purports to do the one thing (tell the truth) that by disposition and ideological orientation he is incapable of doing. He will ignore mountains of evidence and yet cling to a sliver of something aberrant to support an untenable thesis.

A Holocaust denier will ignore the words of thousands of survivors for a quotation from a camp guard that he thinks sounds exculpatory for the Nazis. An HIV denier will ignore the dozens of like-minded people dying of opportunistic infections and rare forms of pneumonia for someone who has survived a few years on carrot juice and eschewed anti-retrovirals. It is definitely a human sickness.

conspiracy theories are...

really hard to disprove, and prove. so people go back and forth with the "yes it happened", "no , it didn't happen" things.

Did NASA put men on the moon?
Well, they told us they did. They have pictures and video and testimony that "proves" they did. *proves is in quotes, because, that's them telling me they did. which is just as valid as me saying I was on the moon too, if I make up some convoluted fake story and have perfectly photoshopped pictures, testimony and other evidence ( i know, bad example, but the reality is in alot of these "theories" , you can not believe either side fully, until you see it for yourself)

Can i get on the fucking moon , and see the footsteps or equipment left behind? No. So, the theorists are not entirely wrong be default. The CAN have a point too...

Do I believe they did land on the moon ? yes.

Like Broncofan said.

I personally believe that the Holocaust did happen. Can i prove it 100% without a shadow of a doubt? I don't have access to "real" holocaust survivors, or witnesses. All i know about the holocaust, is from what I've read. and I believe it.

People want proof. some people want even more proof. others want 100% proof. some people don't give a fuck.

I know I ate this morning, but because I'm skinny, some theorist (a neighbor) perhaps might think I'm sick (i'm not, i have a very good metabolism). But in his eyes, I'm sick, and even If i tell him "i eat healthy, and have a clean bill of health" , he might go home and still think I'm sick.

go figure.

One issue that my my my raises here is the accessibility of proof. Can anyone go to Moon and see the footsteps left by the Apollo 11 astronauts? In theory, Yes. In practice, No. The Apollo 11 team did, however, leave an array of mirrors on the Moon. Anyone with a sufficiently powerful laser and the means to aim, can get the location of those mirrors and bounce a laser beam of the array. Divide the duration of the round trip by the speed of light and you’ll obtain the distance from the laser on the Earth’s surface to the mirror array on the Lunar surface. Can anyone do that? In theory, Yes. In practice...well...No...but a hell of a lot more people can do that than can actually go see the footsteps. Just about every observatory in world inside and outside the iron curtain did just that experiment in 1969 when the mirrors were first put in place. It’s a popular class project or undergraduate thesis for many astronomy majors. The independence of these hundreds of individual verifications lends a significant ‘certainty’ to the claim that we landed a spacecraft on the Lunar surface in 1969 and placed there an array of mirrors that wasn’t there before. When conspiracy theorists are confronted with this they often retort the craft wasn’t occupied by human beings, but piloted by robots. They maintain robots placed the mirrors, not living, breathing astronauts. This in 1969, when a roomba would’ve have wowed the entire robotics community as a significant advance. A conspiracy theorist will cling to any straw of self-deception in his or her attempt to keep belief (or disbelief) afloat.

Sometimes, the accessibility of proof is merely a matter of honesty (in the form of self-integrity) and effort. Take the proof that there is no procedure for trisecting any given angle using the classical Greek rules of construction with straight-edge and compass. It’s not a trivial proof. It takes a year or two of preparation for the average interested student to follow (i.e. verify the correctness of each step of the proof) and completely comprehend the argument. Of course you don’t have to be a tuition paying student at a college or university. You could be an interested amateur. You don’t need to be an expert. You don’t need a lot of money. Just some free time, determination and intellectual honesty. In this sense, mathematical proof is accessible to everybody. It might then come as a surprise to learn that every year mathematicians get emails from self-deluded amateurs convinced that they’ve squared a circle or trisected an angle with straight-edge and compass or proved the axioms of arithmetic are consistent. The delusion of having done what the experts say is impossible is just too tempting for some people to resist, even when “impossible” means “mathematically impossible.”

Conspiracy theorists are expert wannabes. They wannabe regarded as knowing something few other people know. They wanna dominate the conversation. Rather than meet criticism honestly, the conspiracy theorist will attack the character of the critics, assigning to them dark motives cloaked in the secrecy of governments, agencies, religions and bizarre non-existent organizations. The motive of the conspiracy theorist is simple: he wants to be regarded as the expert... no...he wants to be regarded as smarter than the experts. These most gullible persons want to be regarded as rare wise ones, people who can't be fooled, the opposite of gullible, a gnostics, in possession of secret knowledge. They are swallowed up by their hyper-gullibility, fooling themselves into thinking they are what they are not. I agree with bronofan: the tendency to subscribe to conspiracy theories, at least to the point where unreal fantasies dominate your world view, is a sort of mental illness.

Edit: Oops! Multiply by half the speed of light, not divide. (Just woke up in the middle of the night and knew I had to correct this. Now I can go back to sleep. Night.)

My experience is that when "strange" things happen it's either a conspiracy or a cock-up. My money is always on "cock-up".

Here's ten points to test such theories

1.Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy, or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections - or to randomness - the conspiracy theory is likely false.

2.The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need superhuman power to pull it off. Most of the time in most circumstances, people are not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

3.The conspiracy is complex and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

4.The conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets.

5.The conspiracy encompasses some grandiose ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, it’s probably false.

6.The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probabilities of being true.

7.The conspiracy theory assigns portentous and sinister meanings to what are most likely random and insignificant events.

8.The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

9.The theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private organizations.

10.The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence for his theory and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence.

youtube.com/watch?v=NIDX18Xl16s

Good morning everybody,

Here she is in a video of her naked corpse.

They named her, Mona Lisa. She looked like she could have been quite a pleasant being to be around.

Everything can't be fake just because it's a new discovery. Hamans have NOT seen it all. We only think we have seen it all because of Hollywood's science fiction movies.

Me? I believe this is a real corpse.

Meet Mona Lisa
youtube.com/watch?v=lAKNlP7reus
youtube.com/watch?v=XqR8zDGIwMo

Babe
xoxo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babe

...Hamans have NOT seen it all...

---

Humans.



Sorry, i think my eyes were half-closed when i typed that.
I woke up at 5am, prepared my breakfast which took an hour,washed a few dishes, sat down and ate my breakfast, and here i am typing. Now, i am eating half of an antelope...ooops...i mean, half a cantaloupe.

The rich and powerful disseminate conspiracy theories amongst the masses to occupy our minds and distract us from the real truth.
But that could just be a conspiracy! :shrug

Another conspiracy debunked?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEJSfDL67nw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dahlia Babe Ailhad

...Everything can't be fake just because it's a new discovery. H[u]mans have NOT seen it all. We only think we have seen it all because of Hollywood's science fiction movies....

---

I very much agree. Everything can’t be fake (not unless you believe the conspiracy where we are all trapped within a virtual reality known as The Matrix and ruled by machines).
The Apollo 11 Moon landing: not a fake.
The supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way: not a fake.
The discovery that energy has inertial mass: not a fake.
The germ theory of communicable disease: not a fake.
Fossil discover of the Giant Spinosaurus in China: not a fake.
All exciting stuff when you think about it. Every bit as alluring as aliens autopsies in area 51 with the added benefit of being true and also approachable by anyone who genuinely wants to study and contribute to our growing knowledge, rather than sit in their armchair in front of the History Channel and be wowed by mind rotting brain candy.

Certainly we haven’t seen it all. I don’t anyone who thinks they have. My colleagues are intense and hopeful that they will make the next big discovery that advances their particular field.

Human knowledge is never certain. That’s why those who truly seek knowledge are the biggest critics of claims to knowledge, including their own claims. It’s why professional journals are peer reviewed. One of the reasons Socrates was brought to trial in Athens is he relentlessly poked holes in everybody’s pet theories and made them look like fools. A testable theory that has survived the preliminary tests, has explanatory power and makes further testable predictions may merit further development. Evaluation of a claim’s veracity rarely comes down to “should you believe it or not.” It’s more about how reliable the consequences of the claim are, and in what domains of application is the reliability weakest and strongest. Have you noticed that conspiracy theories are rarely about the conspiracy? They’re about hibernating aliens, civilizations thriving beneath the Earth’s mantle, ancient astronauts etc. The conspiracy is added to circumvent the criteria that knowledge seekers normally apply to knowledge claims. Because the evidence that would support the claim (if it exists) is in the custody of conspirators. The conspirator’s cloak of secrecy renders the claim untestable. How convenient!

The Apollo 20 Mona Lisa Conspiracy was “revealed” in a series of YouTube videos on the internet (the most reliable source of information in the known world). The first was posted on April Fools Day in 2007. Four months later a person who claims to be the William Rutledge interviewed in the YouTube series says he and a handful of friends made and faked those videos on a lark. So now we have three conspiracy theories 1) the claim that Apollo 20 found a hibernating alien and the government and all the scores of personnel involved in a mission of that magnitude are keeping it under wraps, and 2) the conspiracy by a handful of pranksters (including a William Rutledge) to invent and propagate an April Fool’s Day hoax via the internet, or 3) the conspiracy, on the part of NASA, to control leaks about the Apollo 20 mission by inventing the April Fool’s Day cover story and posting it on the internet.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave: When first we practise to deceive! ___Wm. Shakespeare

Hi martin48,

That was an interesting video you had posted.

I have one, too, from the 1980s.

First of all, the Ho Ho Ho Santa Claus and we all know today was actually invented by the Coca Cola company.

But what about the religious holiday called, Christmas.

See this informative video.

youtube.com/watch?v=wzzL6JcMnfk

Babe,
xoxo

Hi trish,

You never cease to amaze me. You're really smart. You make me think too hard - but that's okay.

Conspiracies are not always about what you've so eloquently pointed out, though, i think.

I agree with there are many conspiracies about HOW all the conspiracies are just there to make us talk so much about until nobody wants to hear about it anymore.
Example: All the hidden symbolism of the Illuminati in music videos and live performances of today's biggest pop stars. They do it so much that every kid starts doing the same moves in front of the mirror with the "hairbrush microphone". It all becomes part of the culture and people know not the real meanings of what they are doing. So in that sense, they (the Illuminati) are really brainwashing us abut telling us that it's "just a show" and "it's not real".
Think of a mafioso convincing you he's just a honest and legit businessman denying any affiliation with any organized crime syndicates.
Meanwhile, all the shady characters coming and going, all the secrecy, all the "cloak and dagger" behaviour, all grown men kissing the guy's ring. This tells another story which leads us to know that the guy lied to you to protect his real interests.

Think of all the high-tech alien movies hollywood puts out. They desensitize the world until the whole topic of "i believe in aliens" makes other people raise their eye-brows at the person saying that, as if they are nuts or very gullible.
Even people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are afraid to say so because of the public opinion. It's too bad most of society has been/is being educated about such things by a such misleading and very manipulative medium - television and the movie business.
Nowadays, even the press is controlled, and Mr D. Rockefeller has even tipped his hat to them, openly, in thanks, for all those years of secrecy that has allowed their Empire to rise up all around us, and now, it's possibly too late to stop the big wheels from crushing us in time. They own the police and even your USA Constitution. Police state and FEMA camps are becoming more and more real, and yet, they deny it all to the citizens. Going as far as rolling their eyes at us or even mentioning how crazy it seems. My mom would con me by telling me all the candies were gone even when i told her that i saw her hand in the bag.

This video sums the media just right. Only thing wrong with this old clip is that nowadays, the newspapers are owned by the same people who now own most of the major television networks and most radio stations.
I try not to rely on any thing that is from the media - i prefer to rely on LOL youtube for the truth, and from there, i try to figure what is real and what is fake.
It's hard, though, because as you've said, there is always one person saying that clip is a hoax, and they even go out of their way to debunk it - even falsely.

youtube.com/watch?v=HFvT_qEZJf8

There is just too much to post on the topic as it's been going on for so long, and we are only now getting wind of it all, thanks to the internet, and we are called paranoid if we talk too passionately about it all. People would rather watch The Simpsons than hear about "that crap" again.

It's been designed to dumb us all down to the point where we just agree with it all because it's so widespread and causes us to believe that if the TV is making fun of it, it can't really be happening. Personally, i can't watch TV for too long.

Geez. I need lunch, now.

Babe,
xoxo

Have you ever heard of a conspiracy theory that's only about the conspiracy but never about a single thing the conspirators did, or found or covered up? A conspiracy with no point? I’ve no doubt there are people who conspire together to have a good time, but those make rather dull stories for we outsiders. Most conspiracy theories (the false ones) feature an object, a discovery or a deed. It may be a wild, wonderful, mind blowing revelation or a scandalous deed or unscrupulous action underway as we speak. It’s what Hitchcock might call the MacGuffin. It’s the hook that draws you the story in the first place. The conspiracy is there to cover the ass of the story teller, who can’t provide any evidence because the conspirators have destroyed it, covered it up, or otherwise hid it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dahlia Babe Ailhad

...Think of all the high-tech alien movies hollywood puts out. They desensitize the world until the whole topic of "i believe in aliens" makes other people raise their eye-brows at the person saying that, as if they are nuts or very gullible.
Even people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are afraid to say so because of the public opinion.

---

I tend to think alien movies have the opposite effect. Desensitivity to a topic (imo) renders the topic more approachable. The movies show us how all the objections from science might be met in practice (albeit uncritically).
I don’t believe anyone who is motivated by the need for attention is really afraid to speak. Saying “I’m afraid to speak of it,” is part of the abductee’s fiction, unless the alleged ‘abduction’ is a psychological construct that allows them to speak of episode in their life that is otherwise very difficult for them to address. Perhaps an actual rape. In that case the story teller needs help of a different kind.

Hi trish,

I do agree with what you say about science fiction preparing the public for the arrival of aliens - these days. With all the UFA sightings pouring in these days, people are more accepting.

I was referring more to when these type of movies came out in the early days back in the 40s, 50s or earlier. It was only "science fiction" then, and really just imaginary stuff. So when someone said they were abducted or saw a UFO or had a close encounter of some kind, people immediately were reminded of all the kooky movies and would roll their eyes.
People were fired from their jobs, were ridiculed by friends and neighbors, severely, in those days. Even these days people don't really believe an abduction story. Comments which follow are usually like. "Oh so snd so forget his/her meds, again."
That's what i was referring to when i mentioned people being afraid of telling others or authorities that they had a close encounter, it was more back in those days.

Ever since the internet became a household item, the times have been changing.

Television shows like the X-Files (Mulder and Scully) and television movies like V (for Visitors) really made it okay to say you were abducted.
But still, people will look at you funny if you told them you met an alien or even saw one. The first reaction is to ask," How big was the joint you were smoking?"

I feel that people who are only looking for attention, would welcome all the bad reactions because they know they are just trying to trick people. They are getting the attention they wanted. So they don't really care what the reaction is - good or bad - so long as they become "special".

But the REAL abductees would become really troubled by people not believing them because these people didn't want "attention" - they just really needed to talk about what happened to them so they could deal with what happened. And the ignorant people would think they (the abductees) were becoming upset only because no one would, or wanted to, believe the abductees' experiences.

Once someone has been ridiculed for telling an INCREDIBLE (true) story, they want to avoid the bad feedback and negative repercussions - and that's why they are/were afraid to speak out.
That's what i meant to say.

I'm sure you've heard of that happening before.

Just think of our good friend, Stavros, he chuckled at the mere mention of Valiant Thor - a case in point in 2014.

Know what i mean, jelly bean?


Babe,
xoxo

I was sure i saw two ufo's last summer flying, what looked like, in a row (like follow the leader). They were quickly changing speeds and stopping as they passed through the sky when i was standing on my back balcony looking around.

When i realized what i thought i was looking at, i went to get my camcorder.
But it was too dark, and they were too far away, and i couldn't get the automatic focus to focus on them.

They were silent BUT far away.

“A paranoid is someone who knows a little of what's going on. A psychotic is a guy who's just found out what's really going on.”
― William S. Burroughs

There's a little truth in every joke; the question that remains is, "How much?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfTTRwbzrHo Conspiracy theories that turned out to be true.

More: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlVXw4RPqg

Every crime, carried out by two people, successful or not, is a conspiracy. Every deal signed behind closed doors is a conspiracy. The eleven different herbs and spices in the Colonel's recipe are a trade secret known to just a few conspirators. The attempt to rescue the U.S. hostage from Al Qaeda last week was an extremely well funded government conspiracy involving the most modern, complex weaponry and machinery available. The world is brimming with conspiracies. Unfortunately for every actual conspiracy you can make up another dozen that aren't true.

The epistemological issue with conspiracy theories is that their clandestine nature requires a particularly astute and critical examination of the discoverable evidence to render a judgment as to the theory's veracity. The true believers among us who have the gift of self-deception, coupled with the desire to believe the fantastical and disbelieve the mundane, are unable or unwilling to apply their critical faculties to these sorts of knowledge fantastical claims (i.e. conspiratorial claims that most demand critical scrutiny).

I cant put my finger on it but there is something suspicious about what youre saying here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Every crime, carried out by two people, successful or not, is a conspiracy. Every deal signed behind closed doors is a conspiracy. The eleven different herbs and spices in the Colonel's recipe are a trade secret known to just a few conspirators. The attempt to rescue the U.S. hostage from Al Qaeda last week was an extremely well funded government conspiracy involving the most modern, complex weaponry and machinery available. The world is brimming with conspiracies. Unfortunately for every actual conspiracy you can make up another dozen that aren't true.

The epistemological issue with conspiracy theories is that their clandestine nature requires a particularly astute and critical examination of the discoverable evidence to render a judgment as to the theory's veracity. The true believers among us who have the gift of self-deception, coupled with the desire to believe the fantastical and disbelieve the mundane, are unable or unwilling to apply their critical faculties to these sorts of knowledge fantastical claims (i.e. conspiratorial claims that most demand critical scrutiny).

---

Yeah, it was the word order in the last sentence: should've been "sorts of fantastical knowledge claims" rather than "sorts of knowledge fantastical claims." Otherwise it's all straightforward and transparent.

Conspiracy

1. The act of conspiring.

2. An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secretly two or more persons; plot.

3. A combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:
He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

5. Any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.




Conspiracy Theory

1. A theory that explains an event as being the result of a plot by a covert group or organization; a belief that a particular unexplained event was caused by such a group.

2. The idea that many important political events or economic and social trends are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

youtube.com/watch?v=MZZklPnVs-Y

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...postcount=3627

The term "new world order" has been used to refer to any new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power. Despite various interpretations of this term, it is primarily associated with the ideological notion of global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve.

New world order (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi trish,

When the Rockefellers and their high-powered billionaire "buddies" talk about a New World Order, i tend to lean my ears in that direction for a definition.

As a conspiracy theorist, myself, i would think that certain entries in the Wiki are misleading or they don't mention enough.

Rockefeller makes it perfectly clear, what it is.

Babe,
xoxo

youtube.com/watch?v=FuinaIm-kd4

Full interview here.
youtube.com/watch?v=N3NA17CCboA


youtube.com/watch?v=8f85mSQKq6w

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dahlia Babe Ailhad

As a conspiracy theorist, myself, i would think that certain entries in the Wiki are misleading or they don't mention enough.

---

I apply the same caution to "certain" YouTube postings. It all depends on how one applies the "certain"-filter.

Hi trish,

I agree that some videos are really misleading - SOME videos.

However, in many youtube videos, we can see people using Mr Rockefeller's OWN book and they've underlined his own words - and in those quotes from the book, in youtube, we can read what the man has written about what he intends to do, or what they all have in store for us.

It's like having the book yourself.

I doubt we can call that sort of a video misleading or that it is a misrepresentation of what Mr Rockefeller says he wants to do.
Can't argue with the book that Rockefeller wrote - in English.

I hope you don't say that because the person quoting from the book on youtube in lying JUST because it's on youtube.

Babe,
xoxo

The problem is that these quotes or admissions don't actually prove that what they assert is true. David Rockefeller could say he has been running one world government and it would not change the fact that no such institution exists. The only reason people find these quotes useful is because they think they're an admission against interest. But what one person says is not a substitute for the actual facts objectively confirming that what they say is true.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen people try to parse what some guy named Silverstein has said in an attempt to prove that he blew up the wtc for insurance money. If somebody has carried out something so dastardly and so elaborate, you'd think you'd have more than a few aspirational, perhaps misguided quotations to wrench out of context.

I don't doubt that Rockefeller thinks he and his friends know what's best for everyone and want their money to equal influence, which it does to some extent, but they are not puppeteers pulling the strings behind every governmental action by referendum. If he wants it to be the case, it doesn't make it the case. If he thinks it's the case, it also doesn't make it so.

As a conclusion to that last post, let me say one more thing. A "confession" is very good circumstantial evidence of guilt when there are tangible and obvious consequences for committing the crime the person is confessing to. But when someone is admitting moral guilt without any consequence and speaking extemporaneously, their self-incriminatory statements do not provide any great assurance of truth.

Also, imagine that a man confesses to a crime but is known to be in another country at the time. What speaks more loudly, his words or his location? If someone is not speaking with his liberty at stake then what assurance is there that his statement is true? He is not making the statement in spite of the prospect of lifetime confinement...so what is the corroboration? The facts themselves speak louder than one man's words.