July 22, 2005
Those to whom information is presented must deal with their personal unwillingness to hear new facts.
We
have to make a serious effort to distinguish between the expression of
an unfounded theory and the disclosure of verifiable information and
facts.
They
absolutely refuse to accept even the most convincing proof
because they dare not admit to themselves that they have been lied to
by officials in whom the placed their trust.
It
is currently standard practice in America to simply dismiss any piece
of information that punches a hole in any widely accepted explanation
of a disturbing event. In many cases, especially when a serious crime
is in question, the "conspiracy theory" tag is immediately attached to any new discovery about the event. Information related to such important topics such as 9/11, election fraud, the new world order, secret societies, or globalization is too often ignored as part of a baseless conspiracy theory even before any of it is ever presented, discussed, or evaluated.
There
seems to be no set criteria for dismissing information as a foolish
conspiracy theory. The only prerequisite for information to be so
categorize seems to be the desire to reject it. The reason for
the rejection does not seem to matter. It appears that anything people
do not want to believe is simply set aside as not believable. It almost
seems that if you set some people of fire they would dismiss the flames
as non-existent, simply because they did not want to believe what was
happening. The pain and damage done by the fire, no matter how
devastating, would not be evidence enough to convince these people that
the fire was real. Their need to believe otherwise would win out. In
the same vein, people dismiss information and apply the conspiracy
theory tag to anything they chose to disbelieve at their own
discretion, regardless of any hard evidence that accompanies the
"theory."
It's
time to put an end to this nonsense once and for all. It's also time
dispense with the name calling and and understand the dynamics of what
is happening when new information is rejected. We have to deal with the
resistance to any tampering with accepted "truths." And we have to find
ways to convince people to seriously consider the new information, new
discoveries if you will - that so many refuse, under any circumstances,
to acknowledge.
It is absolutely accurate to say that conspiracies exist all around us every day of our lives and and in all walks of life Conspiracies are a very common part of life. Children
conspire to play jokes on their friends, football teams conspire (in
the huddle) to outmaneuver their opponents; the rich conspire with one
another to get richer and governments conspire about virtually
everything. Any time two or more people are involved in setting private
plans to do anything, you have a conspiracy. And every single
time you have a powerful government, you have secret organizations
conspiring to remain secret. Conspiracies, by definition are shrouded
in secrecy. In turn, their secrecy begets speculation and that
speculation spawns new theories about the conspiracy itself. .Is there
any wonder that theories arise about things we do not fully understand
and events we find suspicious? In the end, theories are
inevitable. Truths, however, are essential.
It
is perfectly acceptable for curious parties to evaluate or theorize
about conspiracies. It is natural to assume that conspiracies take
place and it is perfectly understandable for people to speculate on
potential or known conspiracies. Trying to figure out what trades your
favorite baseball team might make is a perfect example of this. The
team is conspiring to make changes and you are theorizing about the
changes. There is nothing wrong with that. Strangely, when you call
your local sports radio show to speculate on the trade, no one will
call you a conspiracy theorist, despite the fact that the name does
apply. By speculating about the secret plans of others, you
actually are expressing a theory about their conspiracy.
Conspiracy
"theories" are just that; theories. Theories are based on a logical or
a reasonable theses that take known information into account and draw a
conclusion based on those known facts. Theories, in essence, are
educated guesses, and conspiracy theories are educated guesses about
conspiracies people perceive around them. The sinister nature of
conspiracy theories, then, is totally undeserved.
When
new facts are brought out about controversial issues, something strange
happens. Minds close and battle stations are taken. A confusion
arises between unfounded theories and actual facts, discoveries, clues
or evidence that may or may not support existing beliefs about those
issues. We have to make a serious effort to distinguish
between the expression of an unfounded theory and the disclosure of
verifiable information and facts.
Today
there is an ongoing battle between those in possession of newly
discovered information and those who do not want to even consider the
validity of that information. Real evidence and factual
information are being lumped with baseless theories. This is not always
the fault of the person to whom the information is presented. In many
cases, the presenters offer unpopular conclusions too quickly
that alienate their audience. This is often the case when new information about the events of 9/11 are revealed.
When people are involved in discussions about the attacks, they are
prone to dismiss verifiable evidence because they are offended or
distressed by greater ramifications that arise. . This is both
unproductive and dangerous. Information has to be examined and
evaluated, regardless of its wider implication. That is the
responsibility of the recipient. But there has to be a way to clearly
present valid, tangible, verifiable and often undisputed information so
that it is more readily accepted. That responsibility belongs to
the presenter, who must deal with facts rather than conclusions.
Another
thing to keep in mind is the possibility that a simple discovery can
disprove a great deal of what is previously accepted as truth. At the
same time, however, it may not completely prove the validity of an
alternative theory. It only proves that an existing belief is wrong.
This is the case regarding the mountains of evidence uncovered by
the independent 9/11 researchers. What they have discovered easily disproves the official version of the events and the Kean Commission findings. What it does not prove conclusively is what actually took place.
There
is also another factor to deal with when dealing with the truths, half
truths, and lies that surround events not clearly resolved in the minds
of the public. Holding on to half truths is often easier than
accepting that one has been fed a truckload of lies in the first place.
Suffice it to say there is a large segment of the American population
that continues to dismiss every one of the verifiable findings of the
independent 9/11 research community. They absolutely refuse
to accept even the most convincing proof because they dare not admit to
themselves that they have been lied to by officials in whom the placed
their trust. Betrayal by those who lead the country they love is
simply too painful to accept. Denial is too often the best defense of
the deceived.
My
own venture into educating the public about media deception has led me
into a world of information that has been hidden from the public.
Actually, it is not completely hidden, but it surely can not be found
in the mainstream media. If we use Iraq as an example, even the
most rudimentary research into the history of the first Gulf War will
uncover a reality that is very different from the common folklore. When
I bring up issues regarding the first Bush administration and Iraq,
such as the hiring of a PR firm to lie to Congress about atrocities committed by the Iraqis in order to garner support for war, people immediately tag my information as my conspiracy theory. In part, they are correct. There was a conspiracy, but it was not mine. And there was no theory, there was only truth... The account is factual, it really happened and it was a conspiracy to lie to the Congress and the nation.
Fortunately, this particular issue is verifiable. It is also no longer
denied. Sadly, like so much people should know, these events are
destined to remain in the dustbin of history, thanks to our mass media.
And it might explain why I, along with many other people, are working
hard to bring the truth to the people.
When
researchers, history buffs, truth seekers, conspiracy nuts or whatever
you want to call us, present newly discovered, yet verifiable
information to the public, we are directly attacked as promoters of
a conspiracy theory and lambasted with the usual assortment of insults.
. This is totally unacceptable. We can no longer allow the
conspiracy theory tag to be indiscriminately used whenever anyone has
new discoveries to reveal. There has to be a concerted effort to
clarify the goals of those with information to impart. Presenting
new evidence can not be perceived as an attempt to establish a forgone
conclusion. At the same time, new information must be dealt with
in isolation of any other ramifications or another resistance
relating to its possible reality.
9/11
remains the perfect example with which to illustrate my concerns. A
massive amount of valid evidence exists to show that elements of the
official story (itself a conspiracy theory because it is not
verifiable), are false. It is not possible, however. to use the newly
discovered evidence as the basis for a conclusion about what actually
happened and who was responsible. At least not yet. There are
many indications, and there is a long trail of evidence suggesting US
government complicity, but that is all there is. That much is a theory,
but the evidence itself is comprised of facts. That evidence can not be
dismissed simply because the theories that are wrapped around them are
inconclusive. The proverbial baby cannot be thrown out with the bath
water.
In conclusion, let me summarize two "conspiracy theory" problems that must be dealt with:
- Those
who opt to disclose new discoveries must clearly separate the
theoretical elements of their presentation from the information they
disclose.
- Those
to whom information is presented must deal with their personal
unwillingness to hear new facts. They must become more receptive
to new evidence and avoid dismissing verifiable evidence simply because
the ramifications are distressing or difficult to conceive.
We
have to discourage the misuse of language that wrongly labels and
categorizes people with information to share. Hostile or incorrect
terminology only serves to interfere with our mutual and communal
education. It is vital that we examine evidence and discoveries for
what they are. We must be careful not to expand evidence beyond its
empirical reality. Facts must not be confused with folklore, but
must be presented within the limits of their validity. By doing
this, we may convince the skeptics among us to listen with less
resistance and to end the practice of dismissing evidence solely
because it disproves their initial beliefs. If we deal
effectively with these obstacles, we all may become better
informed about the things we need to know. And perhaps one day we will
come to know the reality that continues to evade us to this day.
Jesse - Editor, TvNewsLIES.org
WHY AMERICANS REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE 9/11 EVIDENCE!!!
- The attacks of 9/11 were so unthinkable that most Americans would
refuse to believe the complicity of their own government, even if
presented with a mountain of evidence. - Very simply, it is possible to
escape blame if you do something that nobody in the world believes you
could do.