It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former FBI Attorney LISA PAGE is Spilling The Beans and Coming Clean.

page: 11
84
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme



And then you tell me I jump off bridges because I don't believe the conspiracy theories. The best minds on the planet scoff at the whole genre I'll have you know

WHERE do you get your information?
Read up
Why Smart People Still Believe Conspiracy Theories
time.com...

People who are educated in our colleges tend to deny they believe, but IQ is not a factor in who believes in conspiracy theories.

I like the way this guy put it

Jim Duyer, Cryptographer, Semiotician, historian, writer.
Answered Apr 23, 2016 ·



Perhaps some of our scientists and skeptics would say that their measurements fit an inversely proportional scale - in that, the lower the IQ the greater the belief in Conspiracies and their theories. I find the opposite to be true. My belief is that the dull witted do not care to consider anything more than this months cell phone and car payments, and where they will watch the ball game, in which bar, etc. While the medium to higher IQ individuals begin to question what they hear. Unlike cattle or sheep, they have a mind, and from time to time like to exercise it. If you have worked under a Top Secret special category clearance, or dealt with our crooked government in person, or seen the trails of scientists who buried evidence to keep it from us, as I have had the pleasure of all of these, then you might, as I do, believe that a conspiracy theory is really just a hypothesis, with only one or two pieces yet to fill, in order to become a full blown publishable finding.




posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6


Good analysis



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Good article.

Think about how many truths today were once considered conspiracies.
Galileo was convicted of heresy for spreading the "conspiracy" that the earth revolves around the sun.
It was considered a conspiracy that the earth is round.
MK Ultra was a conspiracy, until the truth came out that the CIA was indeed experimenting with LDS.

The list goes on and on.

May we never stop seeking the truth.... Including .....
What the heck is really going on with our DOJ right now?


edit on 7/14/18 by BlueAjah because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah

Good article.
Pretty good. It's about confirmation bias.

What’s most troubling — and a little mystifying — is the fact is that so many people in the studies score high on all of the rational and intellectual metrics and yet nonetheless subscribe to disproven theories.


In these cases, the study concluded, the reason may simply be that they’re invested—emotionally, ideologically—in believing the conspiracies, and they use their considerable cognitive skills to persuade themselves that what’s untrue is actually true. If you want to believe vaccines are dangerous or that the political party to which you don’t belong is plotting the ruination of America, you’ll build yourself a credible case.

There’s a lesson here for all of us: It’s not enough just to have the ability to think analytically, but the inclination to do so too. A little more cold, rational thought may not only help us free ourselves from the silliness of conspiracies, but open us to new ideas.

time.com...





Think about how many truths today were once considered conspiracies.

Perhaps you should first define what you mean by conspiracy.



Galileo was convicted of heresy for spreading the "conspiracy" that the earth revolves around the sun.
Not a conspiracy.


It was considered a conspiracy that the earth is round.
By whom?



MK Ultra was a conspiracy, until the truth came out that the CIA was indeed experimenting with LDS.
Mormons?
edit on 7/14/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

I would love to take a ball bat to his smug little head.



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It does depend how you are looking at conspiracy.
In this context I was considering things that people believed and tried to convince others of, but were condemned and ridiculed. And then these things turned out to be true.

The current DOJ situation is much closer to the classic definition of conspiracy.
There is something huge going on.



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: BlueAjah




The current DOJ situation is much closer to the classic definition of conspiracy.

As would be Americans taking an active role in working with the Russians to subvert the election process.

Much speculation on both sides. And, as with all conspiracy theories, the less evidence the better. Speculation and innuendo are far more effective. Add confirmation bias and voila!

edit on 7/14/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Speculation and innuendo are far more effective. Add confirmation bias and voila!


Then throw in the idea that facts are a matter of opinion - and we're probably screwed



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

No. Facts are facts.
You seem to be referring to confirmation bias, which is used to claim which facts are to be ignored.



edit on 7/14/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Confirmation bias - yes. I understand what you're saying. Facts stand on their own. Or rather, they should

What good are they if nobody trusts the source? Even when they're verifiable - as facts

This is where we are now. I'm not feeling optimistic. I wish you could change my mind :-)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




In these cases, the study concluded, the reason may simply be that they’re invested—emotionally, ideologically—in believing the conspiracies, and they use their considerable cognitive skills to persuade themselves that what’s untrue is actually true.


This describes mainstream science just as well if not better.



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy


This describes mainstream science just as well if not better.

Nah. Because there are just as many scientists who would love to prove all the other scientists wrong. It's what they get off on.

But those pesky facts get in the way, all too often.

But what's this doing in a thread about Lisa Page?



edit on 7/14/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Galileo was convicted of heresy for spreading the "conspiracy" that the earth revolves around the sun. Not a conspiracy.

there was a conspiracy to hide the truth that many top officials already knew but thought it would mess with their version of the biblical history.



It was considered a conspiracy that the earth is round. By whom?

The same as above




But what's this doing in a thread about Lisa Page?

Think on it a moment it will come to you!;-)



MK Ultra was a conspiracy, until the truth came out that the CIA was indeed experimenting with LDS. Mormons?


Well, I have seen that slip up enough times
edit on 14-7-2018 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SeaWorthy


This describes mainstream science just as well if not better.

Nah. Because there are just as many scientists who would love to prove all the other scientists wrong. It's what they get off on.

But those pesky facts get in the way, all too often.

But what's this doing in a thread about Lisa Page?



Yes if they could do so and keep their jobs there are some not " too invested".



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

Not so much.

Coming up with a new idea that works, or proving an established theory is wrong, could provide quite a lot of funding.

However, has little to do with Lisa Page.



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I didn't see any american names on Rod Rosenstein's list.



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Aallanon

You read the document then.
Awesome.



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Wait...scientists are trying to prove LISA Page wrong to get funding and show up other scientists? Sounds like a conspiracy to me. Phage is wrong ( or maybe drunk), as usual.





posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy

This quote from your post is especially applicable:

My belief is that the dull witted do not care to consider anything more than this months cell phone and car payments, and where they will watch the ball game, in which bar, etc. While the medium to higher IQ individuals begin to question what they hear. Unlike cattle or sheep, they have a mind, and from time to time like to exercise it.


This is evident in this entire Russia issue. The dull witted believe what MSM tells them without questioning.

Some of us pay attention to what is going on, and investigate what Strzok did, and wonder what Lisa Page had to say, and wonder what was really going on with those FISA warrants, and wonder what McCabe was up to, and read the IG report 5 times, and watch every hearing and read the documents available. We have a questioning mind and exercise it.



posted on Jul, 14 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: carewemust


Because a lot of KEY, classified documents were received from the DOJ, due to Rod Rosenstein being threatened with "Contempt of Congress" 7 days ago, there was quite a bit of additional information corroborated by Ms. Page today.

You know this how?


“I found Lisa Page to be more credible than Peter Strzok. I didn’t agree with her characterization of every text message and every piece of evidence, but we did not see the smug attitude from Lisa Page that we saw from Peter Strzok,” said Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) as he left the hearing. Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, agreed, calling Page a “credible witness.”

Because she wasn't smug? If smugness is evidence of dishonesty, then HRH is done for

Credible - even though they didn't agree with her characterizations of the texts. Meaning - what?



Though they offered no specifics, several GOP congressmen characterized Page as “cooperative,” “forthcoming” and “transparent” during her interview with the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform committees. The closed-door session lasted nearly five hours and was expected to resume Monday afternoon.


I'm sure they do feel better about their closed door hearing. They would have to - not a good look for them on camera




top topics



 
84
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join