Alex Jones - The Truth Seeker

[Ross]

As for the director of Snowden, the movie, Oliver Stone

So I guess you haven't watched it then?

I did say a reasonably accurate take on his life and whistle-blowing, of which Snowden was involved in making sure the movie was on point.

If your saying his release of stolen data to the press and the subsequent fallout is bullshit then I'm not buying.

What I will say, is that in typical fashion, nothing happens after the fact, as usual. The deputy director of the NSA directly lied in the congressional hearing. The NSA infiltration of all countries, of all traffic on all devices, personal, shared, commercial, with the USA having the most targets, was important for the common Man to understand...however, again we see 'nothing to see here' move on. In other words, truth can make high level exposure with almost zero fall-out, in this case, Snowden himself taking the brunt of the media coverage...fu ck all coverage as to the extent of the enormous spying on a global scale.

All countries with enough budget do this, nothing new and as the tech has advanced, so too has the scale of access to all data in the digital world.

Like I said, it's a worthy watch.

[Zook_e_Pi]

So I guess you haven't watched it then?

Have I watched another Oliver Stone video after his previous two propaganda pieces: World Trade Center and JFK (1991)?

No. I'm a truthseeker, not a timewaster. Question begs, have you seen those two other Oliver Stone films? I doubt it, for if you had, you wouldn't now be asking if I had seen another Oliver Stone film.

I did say a reasonably accurate take on his life and whistle-blowing, of which Snowden was involved in making sure the movie was on point.

I'm not interested in the celebration of a fraud, just the documentation of it. Oliver Stone is not documenting the Snowden fraud. He's promoting Snowden as a protagonist, not the willing patsy that he really is. Then again, we shouldn't be expecting anything from Stone. That you are expecting something genuine from Stone is a hint that you should be more vigilant with your research.

If your saying his release of stolen data to the press and the subsequent fallout is bullshit then I'm not buying.

What I will say, is that in typical fashion, nothing happens after the fact, as usual. The deputy director of the NSA directly lied in the congressional hearing. The NSA infiltration of all countries, of all traffic on all devices, personal, shared, commercial, with the USA having the most targets, was important for the common Man to understand...however, again we see 'nothing to see here' move on. In other words, truth can make high level exposure with almost zero fall-out, in this case, Snowden himself taking the brunt of the media coverage...fu ck all coverage as to the extent of the enormous spying on a global scale.
All countries with enough budget do this, nothing new and as the tech has advanced, so too has the scale of access to all data in the digital world.

Like I said, it's a worthy watch.

The NSA and its secretive spying was already known before Snowden. Snowden merely hopped on a pre-existing horse and started riding it away in another direction. Here are two youtube videos by Stuart Hooper that make all the points I would have made. I didn't know who Hooper was before yesterday, so I can't verify the integrity of the messenger across a whole spectrum of issues ... but I can affirm Hooper's veracity on this particular issue, the Edward Snowden psyop.





(In the second video, there's this in the comments section below the youtube video)

Stuart Hooper:

Today, Snowden's documents CONFIRMED that bin Laden's DNA was taken from the raid. What kind of 'whistleblower' causes a 'hailstorm' by supposedly confirming the official story? DISINFORMATION - Case closed.

Very astute observation. Bin Laden succumbed in the months following 9/11/2001 ... not a decade or so later in a raid in Pakistan. Snowden is publicly embracing previously exposed NSA spying information so that he can embed kernels of disinformation about other events and false flags, e.g. in the minds of the masses. He did the same thing wrt Boston Bombings; he was confirming that false flag event as a real event (using purported documents).


Pax

[Ross]

Sorry Zook, forgot you have it all covered.

Thank god...you set me straight on Sandy-hook. Yes I'm being sarcastic. I only take some of what you write as reliable, Zook.

He's promoting Snowden as a protagonist, not the willing patsy that he really is.

He believed the story...The National security propaganda, he 'was' a patriot. He was a 'young' Man, Zook, when he joined the ranks of elite IT/coding/programming within the agencies, after being a school drop-out and discharged from the Army due to injury. He was 'still' a patriot at that point and one VERY smart dude (his ability to formulate and code) and the ability to hack the hackers. He was recognized as such after failing the required educational qualifications when applying for the CIA, He was offered the job and basically groomed from that point...smart young men like him were rare. Albeit underdone in the streets smarts area. Not so now.

He was 25 yrs when he joined the CIA and later moved into the ranks of the NSA. He had concerns at that point but his handlers were able to keep him on task as to a patriot doing good for his country and man-kind. Like every other govt/military personal who's numbers throughout the world are in the 100's of millions, all thinking they are the good guys.

As he aged from a youngster to the wise old head of 29 yrs, he realized and wrote this...

"I'm just another guy who sits there day to day in the office, watching what's happening, and goes, 'This is something that's not our place to decide.' The public needs to decide whether these programs or policies are right or wrong," he said.

that was the bases of his whistle-blowing. Had he been caught, under the treason act, he would have been jailed for life.

You lack a wider understanding at times, Zook. As to how some folk become complicit and then, within the system try to do something about it...not some dude behind a keyboard thinking he's got it all figured out, and doing fu ck all but bash those that comes forth, calling them a willing patsy, a willing complicit agender-ist. It's NOT that simple mate.

However, I enjoyed the Movie. And for the record,

The NSA and its secretive spying was already known before Snowden.

The everyday Joe and Martha knew fu ck all, Zook. Neither did the average keyboarder realize the extent, the programs used and the social data collected, of every Human activity and behaviour, beliefs systems and all and every aspect of GLOBAL Human existence. Never in the history of Man-kind had such access been available to Govt agencies, right at their finger-tips and used against the folk of good Earth. Fact.

So from that point alone, It's a worthy watch for most...

[Adam Bomm]

Hi Ross,

yeah, i'll definitely watch it now that you have peaked my interest. What I found compelling about the Citizen Four movie was that it provided some insight into the nature and motivation of Snowden. He did make a serious sacrifice in doing what he did but I was getting a tinge of rich kid acting out much like the high profile dissidents of the 60's. I have no idea what his economic status was growing up but that was the vibe I got. I had only seen Glenn Greenwald once on tv before and the impression I got from that brief exposure was that he was a right wing dick. In watching the movie I got a much different perspective. As in he's gay or at least that was my impression. Gayness and right-wing political leaning don't go hand-in-hand unless the individual is closeted within a closet or a public bathroom whichever is handier. I got a much better impression from him in the movie.

As far as vociferously discounting any perspective but one's own, it betrays a lack of ability to actually process conflicting concepts to arrive at meaningful syntheses of a world full of ideas.

[Zook_e_Pi]

Sorry Zook, forgot you have it all covered.

Thank god...you set me straight on Sandy-hook. Yes I'm being sarcastic. I only take some of what you write as reliable, Zook.

Keep sleeping, Ross. We can bring the horse to the fact repository ... but we can't make it think. Sandy Hook is a proven false flag. As are the Boston Bombings. As are the other false flag incidents manufactured by the secret state to increase the security apparatus within. But I get it. Horses like to run with blinders on. Who am I to frighten them?

*boo* Oops ... sorry.

He believed the story...The National security propaganda, he 'was' a patriot. He was a 'young' Man, Zook, when he joined the ranks of elite IT/coding/programming within the agencies, after being a school drop-out and discharged from the Army due to injury. He was 'still' a patriot at that point and one VERY smart dude (his ability to formulate and code) and the ability to hack the hackers. He was recognized as such after failing the required educational qualifications when applying for the CIA, He was offered the job and basically groomed from that point...smart young men like him were rare. Albeit underdone in the streets smarts area. Not so now.

He was 25 yrs when he joined the CIA and later moved into the ranks of the NSA. He had concerns at that point but his handlers were able to keep him on task as to a patriot doing good for his country and man-kind. Like every other govt/military personal who's numbers throughout the world are in the 100's of millions, all thinking they are the good guys.

I don't give a flying squirrel whatever real or made up bio-story the handlers of this monkey are putting out. The monkey may be superintelligent. Then again, many monkeys are. You're pretty intelligent yourself. If you didn't have an interest in music, I'm sure you could program at or near the level that Edward Snowden is purportedly gifted with.

Nay, it's their integrity that I'm interested in. And Edward Snowden is a dishonest monkey. His stance is not neutral wrt the subject matter revealed in his purported exposee of the NSA. He was fully endorsing the fabricated story of bin Laden's DNA being found in Pakistan during a purported raid long after bin Laden had already succumbed due to health problems. The fact that they purportedly dropped bin Laden's body into the sea after the purported raid in Pakistan is another clue for the critical thinker that what's been promoted as a raid never really took place ... or took place in a controlled pre-determined covert operation without bin Laden's body having any role in it. Who gets rid of forensic evidence in a crime as big as 9/11/2001 (such as the identity of bin Laden's body) if they didn't have something to hide, like a false flag raid being staged to make it seem like bin Laden was captured in Pakistan?

I have no quarrel with the level of Snowden's intelligence ... I do have tremendous objection to his dishonest endorsement of the bin Laden DNA tall tale; as well as his tall tale claiming evidence that the Tsaernaev brothers were responsible for the Boston Bombings. Another problem with Snowden is that he is being endorsed by two other dishonest monkeys: Daniel Ellsberg and Julian Assange. Monkey lie. Monkey lie. Monkey lie. Banjo strum slow. Banjo strum fast. A variation on the three monkeys and the two dueling banjos.

As he aged from a youngster to the wise old head of 29 yrs, he realized and wrote this... that was the bases of his whistle-blowing. Had he been caught, under the treason act, he would have been jailed for life.

You lack a wider understanding at times, Zook. As to how some folk become complicit and then, within the system try to do something about it...not some dude behind a keyboard thinking he's got it all figured out, and doing fu ck all but bash those that comes forth, calling them a willing patsy, a willing complicit agender-ist. It's NOT that simple mate.

I follow where the evidence leads me. That's a bit more than **** all. I've made more than 15 years of posts and arguments on usenet and the forums. Go ahead, disparage me at your own risk of credibility. I'm confident that in attacking an honest critical thinking bloke like myself - who can actually back up his arguments with facts, logic, and a discerning opinion - is not going to do your credibility any favors. Especially when you end up applauding dishonest monkeys like Snowden. The double negative only ends well in mathematics.

In any event, I doubt that you ever spent all that much time on probability clouds or the meaning of preponderance, Ross ... for each time some establishment monkey is promoted as the new savior of the world ... you fall for the bait, hook, line and sinker ... deja vu, dittoed once more all over again. As if the exposures of all the previous false saviors meant nothing ... as if they didn't constitute a preponderance in itself.

However, I enjoyed the Movie. And for the record, The everyday Joe and Martha knew fu ck all, Zook. Neither did the average keyboarder realize the extent, the programs used and the social data collected, of every Human activity and behaviour, beliefs systems and all and every aspect of GLOBAL Human existence. Never in the history of Man-kind had such access been available to Govt agencies, right at their finger-tips and used against the folk of good Earth. Fact.
So from that point alone, It's a worthy watch for most...

Agreed. For Joe and Martha, I concede that it can be considered as an eye-opener; just like the propaganda film Loose Change was an eye-opener for me, before I distanced myself from the contents of Loose Change with my own research.

That said, you didn't present the video as if it was for Joe or Martha. You presented it as if you yourself believed in the veracity of Edward Snowden. Don't expect any genuine truthseeker to give you quarter, not even me, when you promote dishonest monkeys as genuine articles. I like you ... but I like the truths even better. Which is why I always end up as a lone ranger. And that's fine with me.

The truth is bigger than you or I ... and will out no matter how many cannonballs are fired at it. You just fired a big one, Civil War cannon issue ... those things are not very surgical and cause a lot of damage.


Pax

ps: The first free clue about the propaganda aspect of the movie, is its director: Oliver Stone. His earlier propaganda piece World Trade Center is even more egregious than Loose Change, the latter appearing quite scientific by comparison.

[Adam Bomm]

ps: The first free clue about the propaganda aspect of the movie, is its director: Oliver Stone. His earlier propaganda piece World Trade Center is even more egregious than Loose Change, the latter appearing quite scientific by comparison.

Oliver Stone is a movie maker that intends to stir controversy...his word or presentation is not golden...it is food for thought...and he's quite good at that. To lay more status and weight to his gig than it deserves is ludicrous. We cannot believe anything we see or hear...we have to use our own intuition, earned by each and everyone of us over whatever the lifetime might be to make our own decisions. Some people have an inborn capability to place experience within a context of extant reality. We have to do that or we are no better than the guy that went to the Pizzeria with an assault rifle.

[Ross]

Sandy Hook is a proven false flag. As are the Boston Bombings.

Ok Zook, we'll disagree and that's all fine and dandy. However, both above examples have NOT been proven beyond a reasonable doubt as false-flags, very far from it, is the rational analysis.

I said ways back, when all sundry of folk submitting to the online 'evidence' that Sandy Hook was a false flag, and vehemently so, that extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. None was ever provided to 'prove' it as a false flag. I also wrote to some, Go yourself and visit Sandy hook and do your own investigation, meet the parents, meet the teachers, meet the first responders. Then you will gain an insight into the 'ground zero' of truth.

But of course no-one in the online community, that I know of, did such, but instead relied on speculative evidence from all kinds of self-promoting detectives, using footage that had zero reliability as to it's original account, from folk like Jim Stone, who's another 'fly off the handle' and assume, with little actual evidence, that Hook was a false-flag. All actors with a large group of folks complicit in the ruse. That being Teachers, surviving school kids, parents, policeman, ambulance staff, media personal, Coroners, undertakers, florists, neighbours...etc etc...

So before you tell me I lack sufficient preponderance when looking at reported 'facts' you need to re-think that one and check your own.

I agree with plenty that you have written, but there's been some doozies where I've shaken my head thinking "C'mon Zook" your smarter than that... Hook, Fukushima, to name two that I remember clearly as being Jim Stone influenced, and taken hook line and sinker...but hey, none of us gets it right do we...

Extraordinary Claims always REQUIRES proof beyond a reasonable doubt ...without it, it remains only as 'possible' and 'highly speculative'.

For the Average Joe and Martha, the Snowden Movie is a worthy watch.

[Zook_e_Pi]

Ok Zook, we'll disagree and that's all fine and dandy. However, both above examples have NOT been proven beyond a reasonable doubt as false-flags, very far from it, is the rational analysis.

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. But proof is not a matter of opinion, Ross. The forensic evidence is all over the place proving that both Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombings had been staged. The rational analysis is to study the forensic evidence and derive conclusions from them. Apparently you have not studied the forensic evidence thoroughly. All doubt - including reasonable doubt - is removed once the evidence is looked at. The only doubt left is unreasonable doubt. Unfortunately, there are still many out there who hold to unreasonable doubt because to not do so is to stare a dark dark world right in the eye. I've already presented the forensic science behind both false flags on this forum.

I said ways back, when all sundry of folk submitting to the online 'evidence' that Sandy Hook was a false flag, and vehemently so, that extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. None was ever provided to 'prove' it as a false flag. I also wrote to some, Go yourself and visit Sandy hook and do your own investigation, meet the parents, meet the teachers, meet the first responders. Then you will gain an insight into the 'ground zero' of truth.

When false flag after false flag is being waged on the peoples of the world as a rule and not an exception ... in the century of rapid communications, we can start with the staged Great Depression in 1929, then proceed to Pearl Harbor (an Australian newspaper in your neck of the woods reported the attacks before they even happened!! ... shades of Building Seven and BBC pre-planned reporting), then to the JFK assassination in 1963 for sundry motives, to the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 to extend the Vietnam war ... etc. etc. to April Glaspie, Kuwait, the Gulf War against Iraq under Bush Sr.-fronted hegemony in 1990-91 ... etc. etc. to the Oklahoma City bombings in 1995, ... to 9/11/2001 ... to all the recent smaller false flags such as Sandy Hook, Batman shootings, Boston Bombings, Virginia Tech shootings, etc. ... here, I haven't even mentioned the other smaller false flag operations around the world such as the alleged lone Australian shooter (Martin Bryant) who in 1996 purportedly ran amok and gunned down 35 people (at an incredible kill rate) so that the elites could confiscate guns in Australia ... or the staged Paris shootings ... or the staged London 7/7 bombings ... the staged Madrid 3/11 bombings ... or the staged 2008 Mumbai attacks ... operative word staged (abundant forensic evidence in all cases) ... when false flag operations are the norm, the extraordinary claim seamlessly shifts to the exception. The exception being the genuine event. IOW, the extraordinary claim in both Sandy Hook and the Boston Bombings is that they were both genuine events. No. They were not. The claim that they were is an extraordinary claim. The forensic evidence - not your opinion or mine - confirms that such a claim is an extraordinary claim.

But of course no-one in the online community, that I know of, did such, but instead relied on speculative evidence from all kinds of self-promoting detectives, using footage that had zero reliability as to it's original account, from folk like Jim Stone, who's another 'fly off the handle' and assume, with little actual evidence, that Hook was a false-flag. All actors with a large group of folks complicit in the ruse. That being Teachers, surviving school kids, parents, policeman, ambulance staff, media personal, Coroners, undertakers, florists, neighbours...etc etc...

So before you tell me I lack sufficient preponderance when looking at reported 'facts' you need to re-think that one and check your own.

I don't make arguments that I cannot support. Apparently, you haven't done research about crisis actors and what not. Or for how long the Manhattan Project was kept a secret. A very large community can be managed/threatened or otherwise persuaded to hold secrets. For the young children involved, it's all just a frightening game with bogeymen in it. Compartmentalization is one of the methods. The method of compartmentalization can absorb a lot of innocent participants in both the Sandy Hook and Boston Bombings. Only a fraction of the community needs to be in on the deception. The rest are fooled by legerdemain. Study the forensic evidence of the crime scene and you will get a better understanding of what happened.

But if you want an opinion over the forensic evidence, I'll give you mine. Sandy Hook was staged to profit the ongoing push for gun control in America. That's different from say, the San Bernardino shootings which was staged to profit the Clash of Civilizations meme pitting the world against the Muslims. Our opinions may very, but the forensic evidence of an event is singular and abiding.

I agree with plenty that you have written, but there's been some doozies where I've shaken my head thinking "C'mon Zook" your smarter than that... Hook, Fukushima, to name two that I remember clearly as being Jim Stone influenced, and taken hook line and sinker...but hey, none of us gets it right do we...

I don't endorse Jim Stone across the spectrum. There are some instances where I find his claims to be incredible. Like his support for Donald Trump as the lesser of two evils. That's plain bullshit, IMO. Because the Hidden Hand has its fingers up both Hilary's and the Donald's butts. So they both are representatives of the same evil. There is no lesser or greater evil to choose from. That's a false dichotomy. You already know how I feel about false dichotomies (e.g. we have our own resident false dichotomist in Adam Bomm). To endorse either of the candidates is to fail as an agent of good. But his stuff on Fukushima is spot on. As well as his stuff on the Zika virus in latin America. As well as other important exposures. I can only hope that Jim Stone is the genuine article. But because my own intuition is not fully satisfied by some of his other claims, I remain eternally vigilant whenever I read his website.

Extraordinary Claims always REQUIRES proof beyond a reasonable doubt ...without it, it remains only as 'possible' and 'highly speculative'.
For the Average Joe and Martha, the Snowden Movie is a worthy watch.

Extraordinary claims are being made, true enough. The question then becomes who is making those extraordinary claims? Are these claims being made from the perspective of normal occurrences, or rare occurrences? To me, it's as obvious as pink on Clouseau's panther and a hole on any doughnut ... that false flag operations are normal occurrences and genuine events are rare occurrences. I can't speak for your perspective, Ross.

One thing we do agree upon in this particular thread is Joe and Martha ... and any value they may receive from what is obviously a propaganda film to me, equally, a credible story to you. Let's leave it at that.


Pax

[Zook_e_Pi]

I was in a rush to get out of the house this morning and forgot to make a salient point wrt this:

I said ways back, when all sundry of folk submitting to the online 'evidence' that Sandy Hook was a false flag, and vehemently so, that extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence. None was ever provided to 'prove' it as a false flag. I also wrote to some, Go yourself and visit Sandy hook and do your own investigation, meet the parents, meet the teachers, meet the first responders. Then you will gain an insight into the 'ground zero' of truth.

We don't need to be at Pearl Harbor or interrogate the witnesses to understand the deception there. We don't need to be at Daley Plaza or interrogate the witnesses to understand the deception about the JFK assassination. We didn't need to be at Ground Zero on 9/11/2001 or interrogate the witnesses to understand the deception there. And we don't need to be at Sandy Hook or interrogate the witnesses to understand the deception there. Witness testimony is in lower priority to the forensic evidence. That witness testimony that corroborates the forensic evidence is credible. And that which contradicts the forensic evidence is incredible.

Also, it's not necessary that we do our own investigation at the ground zero of truth. It's only necessary that we understand the forensic evidence. To wit, it's not required that we be Philo Vance, Dick Tracy, or Lieutenant Columbo ... but we do need to understand Philo Vance, Dick Tracy, or Columbo when they explain the forensic evidence.


Pax

ps: No new argument is being ventured. Just tying up the loose ends of the previous argument.

[Ross]

Lets just stick the SH for the time being...As you know I'm fully aware of past FF events but SH is not one.

You mentioned more than once forensic evidence is all that's needed, going to ground zero is a waste of time.

All your evidence has come from the Web. I can counter all of the stated FF evidence with more than an equal amount of counter evidence.

I'm sorry to say Zook, but on this one, you've been suckered, like 10,000's of others, fueled by over-zealous Conspitards. AJ, infowars has promoted much, and like all others, jumped to some very serious false conclusions.

Here's one of the main instigators in this disturbing shameful act.

Wolfgang Halbig sandyhookjustice.com

In the wake of the massacre, Halbig started the website sandyhookjustice.com. He touted his credentials as a former security director for schools in Seminole County, Florida, and claimed he worked on the official investigation into the mass shooting at Columbine High School in 1999. He said his knowledge of security protocols and procedures provided him with a singular ability to analyze what happened that day in Newtown, and highlight what he believed to be the government’s many lies. Other hoaxers rallied around Halbig’s alleged resume, and donated tens of thousands of dollars to his GoFundMe account. On his show, Alex Jones championed him as a “leading expert” on Sandy Hook.

In November, the HONR Network released an ebook on Halbig, called “The Hoax of a Lifetime.” The volume runs more than 100 pages, and digs deeply into his past. One of the things the group reports is that it could find no evidence that Halbig ever worked on an official investigation related to Columbine. But that is not the most interesting revelation. It seems Halbig’s tenure as director of security of Seminole County schools was rather unremarkable, save for one particular incident: in 1997, a student stole his gun.

Now that's a tiny taste...for every other reported anomoly/crisis actors etc etc go here...
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp

And there's ton's more to be found, that at the very least throws the 'forensic evidence' into turmoil, and I'm hoping it may prompt you to re-visit the 'set in stone' view on this matter...forget the past FF's, concentrate on one at a time...Thoroughly and unbiased

Now I'm hoping you can take an objective role and look VERY carefully at numerous amounts of info debunking the SH hoax...

Here's the thing, since 911, every major event, all you have mentioned too, have been hammered as a FF, and I'm saying, many keyboarders are too quick and lazy (I'm not saying you are personally) to stand the fu ck back and remove all the bias. Each event must be taken as an isolation, first and foremost. Rational analysis must be used in an absolute objective mindset because we know absolutely that there are instigators of hoaxes, then those that join the viral orgy, then those who authentically uncover MSM propaganda only to fall foul of dodgy sources...that's the key word right there, sources All sources must be considered unreliable until there is irrefutable evidence, undeniable.

Often there is a lack of irrefutable evidence, so your left in a position of doubt. It's possible, even probable but absolute is a rare find in the truth seeking business, let alone reality in general. You can't say absolute without the irrefutable...