Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Confused About Who To Believe In The Alternative Media?

  1. #31
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    24th March 2015
    Location
    Mayberry Lane
    Posts
    576
    Thanks
    1,531
    Thanked 2,746 Times in 571 Posts
    Why is General Petraeus former director of Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) running from reporter’s questions at Bilderberg 2016? What’s he doing at Bilderberg in the first place?

    Could it be he’s a globalist? Could it be he’s in violation of the oath he took? Are you thinking... what a sell out ‘General’? Ya me too! Glad to see these people being called out for what they are...Enjoy watching this coward run:


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNmxbtWWOG0




    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3x0mSdGY9I


    Here’s an opinion about Petraues from a fellow military colleague


    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yik9xhRrldo


    Who is David Petraeus?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Petraeus




    Gee why is it the CIA seems to be heavily embedded in all aspects of American society?
    Last edited by Divine Feminine, 13th June 2016 at 18:43.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Divine Feminine For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (13th June 2016), Aragorn (13th June 2016), bsbray (14th June 2016), Fred Steeves (13th June 2016), modwiz (13th June 2016)

  3. #32
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,644
    Thanks
    4,968
    Thanked 12,015 Times in 2,615 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Divine Feminine View Post
    Why is General Petraeus former director of Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) running from reporter’s questions at Bilderberg 2016?
    Holy crap that was both the funniest, and yet one of the most pathetic public displays I've seen in quite some time! The former head of the CIA, CENTCOM, and commander of US forces in Iraq, being chased through the streets of Dresden by some guy with a camera like a little ninny? Really???

    Quote Originally posted by Divine Feminine View Post
    What’s he doing at Bilderberg in the first place?
    Hell if I know, it's like asking what the eff you see kay, was up with him kissing his dear friend Henry Kissinger a couple of years ago?

    Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5CkBv79azM



    Quote Originally posted by Divine Feminine View Post
    Gee why is it the CIA seems to be heavily embedded in all aspects of American society?
    Let me take a wild stab at that one, because it is?
    Last edited by Fred Steeves, 13th June 2016 at 20:59.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (13th June 2016), bsbray (14th June 2016), Divine Feminine (13th June 2016), modwiz (13th June 2016)

  5. #33
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    24th March 2015
    Location
    Mayberry Lane
    Posts
    576
    Thanks
    1,531
    Thanked 2,746 Times in 571 Posts
    It's hysterical...and for some reason all I can think of is 'Run Forest, run!!!'



    I just about lost it when I caught Rob Dew(Infowars reporter) laughing...at least I think that was him, as he was running after Petraeus trying to ask serious questions at the same time,.... totally effing funny. It's so absurd isn't it? Luv the street flute musician playing in the background as they race by, lol.

    The reason I posted more than one video was to show that Petraeus wasn't out for jog as one could think by the way he was dressed. He was walking normally in one of the videos until the reporters caught up with him.


    And to think this guy is a recipient of the Intrepid Award himself, LMFAO...What is the Intrepid Freedom Award? You'll be disgusted by the recipients...These are the 'Legends In Their Own Minds' or 'LITOM' award recipients, see link:

    "The Intrepid Freedom Award is presented to a national or international leader who has distinguished himself in promoting and defending the values of freedom and democracy, the core beliefs of our nation."
    https://www.intrepidmuseum.org/About...-Freedom-Award

    Definition of Intrepid:

    intrepid
    [in-trep-id]

    See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
    adjective
    1. resolutely fearless; dauntless:

    Source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/intrepid


    Uh...sorry Petraeus..dauntless you are not....Dare I suggest he needs to give all his medals back along with all the other traitors in the upper eschelon who swore an oath to protect us from enemies both foreign and domestic?

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Divine Feminine For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (13th June 2016), bsbray (14th June 2016), Fred Steeves (13th June 2016)

  7. #34
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,644
    Thanks
    4,968
    Thanked 12,015 Times in 2,615 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Divine Feminine View Post
    It's hysterical...and for some reason all I can think of is 'Run Forest, run!!!'


    Good one, but at the same time I actually feel kind of bad for this fallen man. I don't sense that he's a true sociopath like most of the others listed on your "Intrepid Freedom Award" link below (nice job btw!). I see a sad and confused aging man, in the battle of his life for his own soul.

    This really is worth a peeksy...
    https://www.intrepidmuseum.org/About...-Freedom-Award


    Cheers

    LATE EDIT:

    Quote Originally posted by Fred Steeves View Post
    ...it's like asking what the eff you see kay, was up with him kissing his dear friend Henry Kissinger a couple of years ago?


    Just did my own little bit of digging, and Chuck Hagel won that same award the very next year. No kiss on the cheek, interesting...
    Last edited by Fred Steeves, 13th June 2016 at 22:09. Reason: Added To Post
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (13th June 2016), bsbray (14th June 2016), Divine Feminine (13th June 2016), DNA (14th June 2016)

  9. #35
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    24th March 2015
    Location
    Mayberry Lane
    Posts
    576
    Thanks
    1,531
    Thanked 2,746 Times in 571 Posts
    It is sad Fred....I have to admit, I can only wonder if he sold his soul long ago, and now finds himself in a pickle he can't get out, blackmail comes to mind. Let's hope for his sake there's some soul growth to be obtained.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Divine Feminine For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (13th June 2016), bsbray (14th June 2016), Fred Steeves (13th June 2016)

  11. #36
    (account terminated)
    Join Date
    5th March 2015
    Posts
    322
    Thanks
    1,927
    Thanked 1,796 Times in 315 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    The above looks like a typical example of how this guy is judging who is "genuine" and who is disinformation. I'm not particularly impressed by this because it looks like he's just employing his personal biases to make judgments on these people. It's almost as if the process is: "Who says things that I agree with and believe, and who says things that I disagree with and don't believe?"

    For Graham Hancock in particular he says this:



    http://netteandme.blogspot.com/2014/...ls-art_29.html


    Graham Hancock's bio on his own website says that he was an "East Africa correspondent of The Economist from 1981-1983." (https://grahamhancock.com/bio/) But he was going into journalism and wrote for more than that: "...he went to school and university in the northern English city of Durham and graduated from Durham University in 1973 with First Class Honours in Sociology. He went on to pursue a career in quality journalism, writing for many of Britain’s leading newspapers including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and The Guardian. He was co-editor of New Internationalist magazine from 1976-1979 and East Africa correspondent of The Economist from 1981-1983."

    As de Rothschild was chairman of the newspaper The Economist from 1972 to 1989, Graham could in some way be said to be working for de Rothschild, the same way as all of the journalists and everyone else working there were, and Hancock was also writing for other publications before and after his ~2 year position covering events in East Africa. The significance of this is obviously not as clear as van der Reijden (the author of this information) makes it out to be, and he goes on to say that Hancock was also a "likely MI6 foreign policy asset," apparently also based on the fact that he worked for The Economist for two years, because I don't see any other reasons ventured.

    Btw there have been estimates that in the mid 1800's, the Rothschild family controlled about half of the world's material wealth through their various enterprises. It's a much more complicated situation today, but by van der Reijden's reasoning, an awful damn lot of people are working for the Rothschilds, even if it's just menial labor. When this becomes a significant item of concern is another discussion, and one that van der Reijden skips over.


    This is the part that I really have a problem with:



    Hancock does not manipulate data, and the data in his books is not even his data. He reports what other researchers have said (his background is in journalism), and cites those sources meticulously in his books, which is something that cannot be said for van der Reijden's research here. I have read Hancock's work and I have checked out his sources. He footnotes hundreds of sources from credible academic work of the best kind: the kind that inadvertently yet consistently supports a theory that the original researchers didn't even consider, which is a great way to circumvent bias.

    The real problem for van der Reijden seems to be that he does not accept the idea of "Atlantis" or an advanced pre-historic civilization around the year ~10,500 BC. Because he does not accept this, without going into the details of why here (except that he believes that the idea is basically a cult), he rejects anyone who talks about this kind of thing out-of-hand and judges them to be disinformation. Maybe we should go back and have a discussion with him as to how exactly he has been able to discount all of this information in the first place.

    Hancock doesn't support Wilcock's nonsense either. Even though what Hancock talks about is considered "alternative," he's still rather conservative as far as that goes, not to mention scholarly, and he does not get into all of the fast and loose gibberish that Wilcock is usually talking about. Lots of independent researchers are talking about the period of ~10,500 BC because there is a lot to be said for it. It was the end of the last glacial maximum. It was a time when there appears to have been a globally catastrophic meteor or comet impact, which is probably why the glacial maximum ended. It is also uncannily close to the date Plato gives for the sinking of Atlantis in a flood, which matches both the results of a catastrophic impact and the enormous rise in sea levels all over the world after the glacial maximum ended and all the ice melted.


    I could go into other examples but just what I see from this one case is enough to show me the depth that this research actually goes to, and it's not very deep. It really looks to me like it's based on a lot of biases and assumptions. Even if there is a lot of good information in the article about various think tanks, the way individuals are linked in is very tenuous and through the same bias, which at least in Graham's case revolves around the fact that van der Reijden rejects the idea of an ancient advanced civilization.
    Thank you BSBRAY, you've nailed it on the head here. Especially with Hancock.
    You can't say everyone that worked for "The Man" is evil, because "The Man" owns everything.
    I'm betting most of us here have worked for "The Man" at one point or another in our lives.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DNA For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (14th June 2016), bsbray (14th June 2016), Dreamtimer (14th June 2016)

  13. #37
    (account terminated) United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,901
    Thanks
    17,558
    Thanked 12,648 Times in 2,895 Posts
    I wonder if the reporter trying to get Petraeus to answer the question about Hillary Clinton's email scandal realizes that it involves the attack on the embassy in Benghazi, which Petraeus was also involved in from an administrative position. Clinton was calling Petraeus the very night of the attack, so we are told, for information.

    I posted another thread the other day about how there is a factional conflict going on between the Pentagon and CIA in Syria. It's not just some dog and pony show but a real conflict that will determine whether or not the "rebels" trained, funded and armed by the CIA are going to be wiped off of the map or not. The forces in Syria backed by the Pentagon have actually been directly fighting the forces backed by the CIA (which want to overthrow Assad, something the Pentagon is not supporting), and the CIA-backed forces are not doing so well in the face of Russian and Pentagon antagonism. It's a literal proxy war between the Pentagon and CIA in Syria.

    I would wager that Petraeus has been working with the CIA faction in the US, but he was outed and removed from power by others. It looks like the same people that removed him are pushing to have Clinton indicted as well, over the same type of offenses, but we'll see how that goes since the attorney general was appointed by Obama just as Clinton herself was. I cannot understand why anyone would still be keeping him (Petraeus) in this corrupt loop unless he actually retains some form of power or influence. What is he doing since he was fired, anyway?

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (14th June 2016), DNA (15th June 2016), Dreamtimer (14th June 2016), Elen (14th June 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •