Pericles: <"Anyway, back to work.">

haha!

Love your rationale:)

When I get a chance I might observe with greater attention than I have been recently.

In your investigations you might discern for me why Marilyn or
JFK or Watergate or something can't get a look in.

Do conspiracy theorists specialize to one topic?

Daggett: <"The evidence I have given is just the tip of a massive, incontrovertible and damning body of evidence against the US Government, and it's inconceivable that Pericles could not have been unaware of its existence well before now.

Yet, he persists in peddling this and other lies on this forum in the apparent hope that I will eventually desist and leave and allow his lies to stand here unchallenged.">

Daggett, are you saying that Pericles is part of the conspiracy ? An active, purposeful conspirator ? In league with the US government or something ? If true that would be very scary.

In a sense they do, Pynchme.

>>Do conspiracy theorists specialize to one topic?<<

But the "topic" is that of a secret cabal of "elites" (they tend to use that word a lot) who actively control the various governments of the world. With this as a starting point, absolutely everything becomes fair game for a conspiracy - the financial meltdown, 9/11, wars, oil production, individual surveillance and so on.

I have found the "single issue fanatic" a rare breed amongst true conspiracy theorists.

Incidentally, this last post of daggett's is highly typical of the genre.

>>Pericles, somebody in authority lied and repeatedly lied to the First Responders that it was safe to breathe that dust, and you are lying here now to cover up that obvious truth<<

Worthy of note are:

- "somebody in authority" is a universal substitute for the "secret cabal". Since he is unable to show the connection of a "lie" with the cabal - in this case, Bush/Cheney/Rice - daggett is forced to dredge up the minor players, and use them as analogues.

Here he has found a minor functionary, in this case the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health . The next step will be to tell us that i) he deliberately lied, so that the rescuers would suffer horribly and die, and then ii) will state that he did so on the direct orders of Condoleezza Rice.

My task at that point, according to him, will be to "disprove" this rubbish.

(Note: what he doesn't like, at this point, is my upbraiding him for using the sufferings of others for his own self-gratification. That hurts. Or at least, it should)

The other noteworthy phraseology is the repetition of "lie". He knows he cannot prove that there was any deliberate falsehood, so simply calls it a “lie”, over and over again, as if it were. It's like a (slightly) grown-up version of "'Tis-'tis not-'tis- 'tis not", with the victor being the last man standing.

Weird. But consistent, and predictable.

This next part is essentially meaningless, and is the sort of thing he feels it necessary to say every now and then.

>>The evidence I have given is just the tip of a massive, incontrovertible and damning body of evidence against the US Government, and it's inconceivable that Pericles could not have been unaware of its existence well before now.<<

The games here are interesting. By calling it "just the tip", he effectively excuses himself from the need to provide any detail.

And as you pointed out, the "inconceivable" part is desinged to implicate me. Which is, I suppose, somewhat flattering, in an obtuse sort of way.

>>he persists in peddling this and other lies on this forum in the apparent hope that I will eventually desist and leave and allow his lies to stand here unchallenged<<

This is also a classic.

As he well knows, I have only been arguing against his specific hypotheses. At no point have I made any direct statement about the happenings of 9/11, except in the context of his absurd propositions. So it is dreadfully important for him to brand those objections as "lies" as well.

It is of course the justification he makes to himself, for carrying on this absurd correspondence. Which of course, suits me just fine.

It is actually quite a rewarding pastime, Pynchme, for anyone fascinated by the diversity of human nature.

Pericles: Just checking back.

Don't tell me Dagget and Co have given up the good fight.

I was holding out hope for a new conspiracy. I saw on the web
that it's now thought by some insightful scally-wags that Michael Jackson staged his death so that he could make a fresh start. It's thought that he is copying Elvis.

I eagerly await more 'details' :)

(From Paul Craig Roberts: American Naifs Bringing Ruin to Other Lands)

... Professor Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph says that "false flag" operations have the advantage over truth: "research shows that people are far less willing to examine information that disputes, rather than confirms, their beliefs." Professor Steven Hoffman agrees: "Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe. In fact, for the most part people completely ignore contrary information." Even when hard evidence turns up, it can be discredited as a "conspiracy theory."

All that is necessary for success of "false flag" or "black ops" events is for the government to have its story ready and to have a reliable and compliant media. Once an official story is in place, thought and investigation are precluded. Any formal inquiry that is convened serves to buttress the already provided explanation.

An explanation ready-at-hand is almost a give-away that an incident is a "black ops" event. Notice how quickly the U.S. government, allegedly so totally deceived by al Qaida, provided the explanation for 9/11. When President Kennedy was assassinated, the government produced the culprit immediately. The alleged culprit was conveniently shot inside a jail by a civilian before he could be questioned. But the official story was ready, and it held.

Professors Manwell and Hoffman's research resonates with me. I remember reading in my graduate studies that the Czarist secret police set off bombs in order to create excuses to arrest their targets. My inclination was to dismiss the accounts as anti-Czarist propaganda by pro-communist historians. It was only later when Robert Conquest confirmed to me that this was indeed the practice of the Czarist secret police that the scales fell from my eyes.
( ... http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18180)