reply to post by Amagnon
It all comes down to perception. What you see as evidence I find to be a lack of any. But that doesn't invalidate your perception. See, I can really
respect people who are honest about what they believe or accept. Even if they do seem cracked in the head to me sometimes. That's not always the case
though. But even you see how she is either taking advantage of people with her nonsense or that she is being taken advantage of by this nonsense. I
think she is mentally ill honestly.
When someone like you speaks about these things I can at least read, listen or entertain the possibilities if even for entertainment value. So respect
for the full fledged tin foil conspiracy theorist is given by me but this lady seems like a crackpot. You seem perfectly sane to me though and I mean
edit on 3-12-2014 by Flint2011 because: Typos
I appreciate the independent validation of my sanity
The video in the OP is of course not evidence of any kind, its just someone making a lot of statements. The evidence is scattered around a lot, and
involves a range of different disciplines. To detail the conspiracy she is talking about would require thousands of pages of text - just to describe
- in addition, unless you are happy to take 'expert' testimony from people who are ridiculed by the mainstream (which I am not) then you also need
technical and scientific knowledge - so you can actually understand the evidence.
There are other very good reasons why people cite lack of evidence, even if there is in fact a body of quite good evidence.
1. Evidence is discarded, ignored or adjusted due to it being too far outside of the current perception of reality. Objectivity is actually very
difficult when encountering evidence that requires many central beliefs to be discarded. The problem is these beliefs need to be discarded first, to
even allow objectivity. The best position is to believe nothing with regard to physical reality - then there is nothing to be over turned when
viewing new data.
2. Often people do not seek out the places where good evidence is, because they simply dont believe something exists. An example would be that most
people would not look for evidence of the existence of Santa Claus, and study the topic - because they are already 'sure' that Santa doesnt exist.
While there is an infinite number of things that people might claim - and looking into everything in detail isnt possible - many people chose to not
look at any such weird topic, considering it a waste of time. (I must confess, Ive never looked into whether Santa actually zooms around in a
reindeer drawn sleigh though - call me closed minded
3. People cant find the evidence, are not motivated to go looking for it, or cant understand it (due to lack of technical or scientific training -
this doesnt mean people are stupid - just means that the evidence requires specialized methodology to interpret).
There is always evidence of some kind - no matter what the claim is, however if I cant find physical evidence, then I generally reject the premise.
While I consider testimony to be almost completely unreliable - some human testimony should be considered, for example, where there is an incentive to
with-hold testimony - where multiple and independent sources are available etc. Human testimony is the worst kind of evidence though - and can
generally only be useful in conjunction to physical evidence.
In short - watching video's about something is useful only to hear about a theory or premise - I dont consider anything someone might tell me to be
evidence - evidence means something I can verify either physically, or in the case of documents and such - it needs to be verified first hand or
Its possible that Karen Hudes might be losing her mind - that doesnt mean that the information she is presenting can be discarded. In fact it makes
no difference whatsoever - because whatever she says is meaningless - its is only an outline of some premise that might be worth finding evidence
Anyhow - I think Nicola Tesla and Howard Hughes may have both been poisoned with a substance that made them go crazy (maybe mercury) - so in my mind,
there is a possible precedent, even if she is crazy
PS: Obviously its a huge mistake by anyone to mention Jesuits, Jews and ET's unless the entire thesis is composed only of those premises - because
nothing in physical reality can be 'proven'. So she can easily be attacked on these points, leading the discussion away from her main thesis (an
economic conspiracy). Thats why I always speak of banksters (non specific) when talking about economic issues - and might mention the corruption of
science, philosophy, culture and so on, only in the context of 'political or economic entities'. I usually only talk about Annunaki when I am
discussing their existence or non existence, and possible evidence for it. Jews for example only in historical context - Holohoax, Bolshevik
Revolution, Aparthied in Israel .. its only worth going there when that is the entirety of the premise and argument, otherwise they should be ignored,
because the discussion will be derailed into that tangent.
edit on 12-3-2014 by Amagnon because: (no reason given)