Conspiracies and seditious activities within secret societies: the evidence thread

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
The primary and secondary sources are out there, you just need to look for them.

I'm not the type of person who memorizes citations, sorry.

Uh......vcwxvwligen?

Your assertion, your job to back up your assertion (aka defecate or get off the toilet).

Why should anyone be expected to do your work for you?

You're kidding, right?

Uh....no. Like I said, Your assertion, your job to back up your assertion. That's how conversation/debate works. Otherwise, things devolve into an unsupported/unsupportable slanging match which wastes your time, my time and the time of anyone who bothers to read it.

Support your assertion or show the character to withdraw it; is it really that much to expect?

reply to post by Extant Taxon


It's intellectually dishonest of you to deny my claims outright with doing the research yourself.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
It's intellectually dishonest of you to deny my claims outright with doing the research yourself.

And it is essentially lazy of you to make your drive by posts without any supporting evidence.




[edit on 23-5-2010 by AugustusMasonicus]

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by Extant Taxon

 

It's intellectually dishonest of you to deny my claims outright with doing the research yourself.

Uh......vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon
Your assertion, your job to back up your assertion (aka defecate or get off the toilet).

It's intellectually lazy of you to expect others to do your work for you. It isn't anybody else's job to disprove any wild assertion you may choose to make. It's yours to prove.

Really.

reply to post by vcwxvwligen


I haven't denied anything, since you have not presented an adequate argument whatsoever. Here, I shall help you towards that:

Wikipedia: Key components of argumentation:

Key components of argumentation

* Understanding and identifying arguments, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.
* Identifying the premises from which conclusions are derived
* Establishing the "burden of proof" — determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance
* For the one carrying the "burden of proof", the advocate, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked.
* In a debate, fulfillment of the burden of proof creates a burden of rejoinder. One must try to identify faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument.

I'm as interested as the next researcher into secret societies concerning any conspiratorial activities conducted by them. Look back into this thread at my posts, in the thread I begun.
Unlike you I actually provide evidence to back up my argument.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
It's intellectually dishonest of you to deny my claims outright with doing the research yourself.

And it is essentially lazy of you to make your drive by posts without any supporting evidence.

You might wanna rethink your positions before you start trolling on here.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
You might wanna rethink your positions before you start trolling on here.

No need, I stand by my laziness commment. You parachute in every month or so with only your opinion and never any citations or evidence to back up your statements.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
It's intellectually dishonest of you to deny my claims outright with doing the research yourself.

And it is essentially lazy of you to make your drive by posts without any supporting evidence.

You might wanna rethink your positions before you start trolling on here.

Pot? Meet Kettle!

My but don't you share a visage!

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
You might wanna rethink your positions before you start trolling on here.

No need, I stand by my laziness commment. You parachute in every month or so with only your opinion and never any citations or evidence to back up your statements.

Plus ce change......

Leopards....spots.

See a pattern?

reply to post by Extant Taxon


I wasn't engaging in a debate. I was providing some direction, but apparently my help is not needed.

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
reply to post by Extant Taxon

 

I wasn't engaging in a debate. I was providing some direction, but apparently my help is not needed.

Ah! So this was a unilateral diatribe was it? No proof required?

Why didn't you say so? Save the reading public a lot of wasted time on a Sunday.

reply to post by vcwxvwligen


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9984c244805e.jpg[/atsimg]

The following videos are four in a series broadcast on the BBC back in 1987 called "Secret Society." The title is a pun, referring not to the stereotypical clandestine organization pulling strings behind the scenes, but refers to a more diffuse, subtle, and sophisticated machinery that operates in a classic "deep state" of political influence; it is the dermal layer to the flesh of the body politic that engenders the larger society we live in (and crucially, the data that dictates its operation) a secret one. That is, it is founded on secrets and thus, by its very nature, is such.
The original documentary series included six episodes, but only four survive, as the following Wiki entry details:

en.wikipedia.org... l_%28investigative_journalist%29#Secret_Society_.281987.29

The Secret Society series caused a political furore in 1987. BBC Director General Alasdair Milne's support for this series was one of the key reasons he was sacked (and replaced by Michael Checkland, an accountant).[citation needed] This journalistic coup d'etat was conducted by Lord Victor Rothschild, Margaret Thatcher and Marmaduke Hussey in 1986.

The production team behind the series was threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. Campbell's front door was kicked down and his home searched. In 1987, Strathclyde Police raided the corporation's Scottish headquarters in Glasgow and seized the tapes from the offices of BBC Scotland where the series had been made. Campbell's home was also raided, The tapes were later returned and the series broadcast on the BBC except for episode one. The BBC decided that the episode (one) about secret cabinet committees was too sensitive to show before the 1987 general election. Then Thatcher government leaned on the BBC to prevent its damaging allegations being made public.

See also the Wiki entry on the Zircon Affair.

Four episodes available for viewing and download at Internet Archive:

Secret Society Part 1: Secret Constitution - Secret Cabinet Committees

Secret Society Part 2: We're All Data Now - Secret Data Banks

Secret Society Part 3: In Time of Crisis - Government Emergency Powers

Secret Society Part 4: Association of Chief Police Officers - ACPO

Good interview with Hank Albarelli, author of the book A Terrible Mistake: The Murder of Frank Olson and the CIA's Secret Cold War Experiments conducted by Jan Irvin of Gnostic Media:

Hank Albarelli interview – “MK ULTRA – The CIA, '___', and Mind Control”

See also: CIA: What Really Happened in the quiet French village of Pont-Saint-Esprit by Hank P. Albarelli Jr

French Government Queries U.S. State Dept. about '___' Attack, Prompted by New Book Release