Ark of Idiocy

 

I don’t always agree with Bill Nye (he seems corrupted by Monsanto propaganda), but on this I do agree:

Bill Nye visits Noah’s Ark theme park

“The influence is strong. I spoke with a lot of kids (and took a great many selfies). Almost all of them do not accept that humans are causing climate change — and that is the Answers In Genesis ministry’s fault. Through its dioramas and signage, the organization promotes ideas that are absolutely wrong scientifically, while suppressing critical thinking in our students — which is in no one’s best interest, conservative or progressive.”

What the fuck happened in San Bernadino?

 

And what the fuck is happening now?

“A handful of victims interviewed by police still maintain they saw a third attacker.”

 

Not one witness. Not two. Not even three, but a “handful.” And that’s supposed to be insignificant.

 

San Bernardino police chief blames reports of a third shooter on the ‘fog of war’

 

And the point of the “story” in LA Times is to dismiss these people and insert the official story. Despite the claims that FBI can’t get into the cell phone of one of the perpetrators (hire a hacker, and it would be done in two hours). The police chief keeps repeating the mantra that there were only the two shooters.

 

Pseudoscience & the “study” of “conspiracy beliefs” from message board postings

Pseudoscience & the “study” of “conspiracy beliefs” from message board postings

An open letter to Michael J. Wood et al.

mw337@kent.ac.uk

Regarding: “What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

I read with some interest your “study” of some message board postings concerning the September 11th attacks. I found your efforts less than compelling. Random samplings of arguments on message boards are a legitimate way to understand the September 11th 2001 attacks? No. But it is a convenient way of lumping large disparate groups of people into simplistic categories in order to smear them.

As someone who has intensely studied the issue for some 13 years and counting, I would have to say that your approach is hamfisted, ignorant, and even juvenile. You and your partners have relied upon your own concepts of “belief” and “theory” and the utterances of message board posters, but lack a firm foundation to compare or contrast any of the information that was analyzed.

In other words, you don’t have an expert knowledge of the US government cover-up of the September 11th event (or even acknowledge it), nor of the many high-level government whistleblowers surrounding this issue. You lack an even rudimentary understanding of the event, and therefore have no basis to judge the competing arguments, at all. Nor do you concede the obvious fact of conspiracies throughout history, actual state crimes, of which there are numerous examples. This would lead to an examination of motive, and that the state gains an incredible amount of power after failing to stop an attack, including the power to wage foreign wars of aggression with impunity.

You know: 1 + 1=2 type stuff.

It is not difficult to engage in a conspiracy. Any two individuals on planet earth can commit a crime together, and voila: there’s a conspiracy. The idea that conspiracy is rare or even non-existent(!), as some mainstream media pundits have argued, is absurd on its face and should discredit the author entirely. As an obvious example, you–as someone purportedly studying government conspiracy–should be well versed in the Iran-Contra fiasco of the 1980s. Colonel Oliver North was convicted, with ten others, to refresh your memory. So, is someone who “believes” in the Iran-Contra conspiracy more or less prone to “belief” in conspiracy, as per your definitions and comprehension?

Clearly we have a problem when you divide the public based upon generalizations that cannot possibly hold true when tested against real historical facts. The knowledge, or ignorance, of these facts is paramount.

So, Mr. Wood, did the Iran-Contra conspiracy happen? Are you a “conspiracist?” Do you engage in “belief” about it?

Next, your “psychological study” has not even a mention of the concept of disinformation. This omission discredits your work. Disinformation is the deliberate seeding of the public debate with false data in order to muddy the waters and make discovery of the true facts of the conspiracy more difficult. It throws off the dogs. Disinformation is rampant and easily achieved as soon as any individual concocts a false narrative and presses “send” or “post.” Apparently this has never occurred to your team, as it received zero scrutiny.

Some number of message board trolls will turn out to be posting disinformation, in my decade-plus experience with them, a situation your study failed to even conceptualize, nevermind correct for. Others post misinformation. This is the problem with relying upon message board flame wars for your data.

Therefore your study is tangential and irrelevant to learning what actually happened. Its approach reinforces the idea that psychological pseudoscience has relevance to the facts of real world crimes and terrorist events. It champions a specious view, one founded upon ignorance and random arguments over misinformation and disinformation, rather than seeking to understand what is actually known and what is unknown, to date, about the criminal attacks you purport to study.

Similarly your “study” commented on other controversial topics without any accompanying examination of something the rest of the world likes to call “evidence.” You and your cohorts feel supremely confident in pronouncing sweeping generalizations about “belief” without providing context as to why someone would hold such a belief (factual evidence). It is for this exact reason that I have labeled your efforts “pseudoscience.” You have divorced some abstract concept called “belief” from the hard evidence that causes such “belief.” Cause and effect are alien to your own theories, at least as presented in your “psychological study.” Your article ends up lightweight pondering and lacks the gravity of facts, or the due diligence required to examine and test those facts.

You have come to this party from ignorance, and you remain there, blissfully unaware of the veracity of any of the data, whatsoever. That’s a pretty harsh criticism, but is warranted.

PS.

Mr. Wood, was the September 11th attack not a “conspiracy?”

Joe Giambrone

NY Times Spins Big Lie on Cluster Bombs

NYT Claims U.S. Abides by Cluster Bomb Treaty: The Exact Opposite of Reality

The use of these weapons was criticized by all 117 countries that have joined the treaty, which took effect five years ago. Their use was also criticized by a number of others, including the United States, that have not yet joined the treaty but have abided by its provisions.

Blatant lie.

PBS Fabricates 100 Deaths From Measles

PBS NEWSHOUR (Lies)

“The bill gained momentum after a measles outbreak that started at Disneyland and killed more than one hundred people.”

This is a fabrication at a time of increased controversy over forced vaccinations of children. One person died from complications related to measles, a woman in Washington State, the only US case in a decade. What’s more the woman WAS vaccinated against measles, putting a new spin on the manufactured hysteria:

Woman who died of measles WAS vaccinated: First patient to die of disease in U.S. for 12 years succumbed to disease because of other health problems 

Multiplying 1 death to “more than 100,” in order to scare the public, should rightly be considered unlawful propaganda. The public airwaves were just used to spread demonstrably false disinformation.

As long as those 100 fictional deaths are relevant, how about these real ones?

…as of December 14, 2014 there have been 6,962 serious adverse events reported to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in connection with measles vaccine since 1990, with over half of those occurring in children three years old and under. Of these events 329 were deaths, with over half of the deaths occurring in children under three years of age.

It’s not so simple, so cut and dry.

Merck, the main manufacturer of the measles vaccine is being sued in a class action suit for shitty quality and ineffectualness. Plus they rigged the tests (which the companies control rather than having independent labs as referees).

We are drowning in a sea of propaganda on every issue of any public importance. The corruption, as demonstrated, reaches right into the newsrooms of PBS.

Lee Camp Does GMOs

Study: Media Bias About Fukushima & Radiation

“The mainstream media — in print and online — did little to report on health risks to the general population or to challenge the narratives of public officials and their experts,”

News coverage of Fukushima disaster minimized health risks to general population

“It’s shocking to see how few articles discussed risk to the general population, and when they did, they typically characterized risk as low,” said Pascale, who studies the social construction of risk and meanings of risk in the 21st century. “We see articles in prestigious news outlets claiming that radioactivity from cosmic rays and rocks is more dangerous than the radiation emanating from the collapsing Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.”

Also see: The Children of Chernobyl