Alex Jones- Debunked!

[Clock]

Hey guys, this thread is going to be a sort of "mega center" for debunking everything about Alex Jones. The problem with this man is that he releases so much content, that it would be hard for a debunker to keep up at his pace. (or have the patience)
Anyway, anyone is welcome to add on to this thread. I'm hoping this could become a comprehensive view of Alex Jones and that what he says does not hold up to facts and reality.

The first part is Jones' predictions, and uses his 'Intel evidence'
​

​

Next, the guys from Skeptic Project debunk his movies:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/alex-jones/

And finally, Illuminutti.com exposes one of his endorsements.

http://illuminutti.com/alex-jones-what-does-he-believe/

Feel free to add on! Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence! Jones does not have any evidence to his claims, nor his he extraordinary!


-Clock

 

[Jay Reynolds]

I listened to Jones' Y2k broadcast, and William Cooper had him pegged back at the turn of the century:

​

 

[Clock]

Here's a fun video, called "The Wacky World of Alex Jones" pretty funny.

​

Another:

​

 

[Clock]

​

​

 

[HappyMonday]

This is unbelievable.

​

Gish gallop par excellence.

 

[Met Watch]

This is unbelievable.

​

Gish gallop par excellence.

Classic Alex Jones. How on earth Piers managed to conduct an interview with him, I have no idea. What a jerk.

 

[Mick West]

Alex was just using the opportunity to get some air time to spout his talking points, and is not at all interested in debate. I'm sure his base loved that performance.

 

[HappyMonday]

Alex was just using the opportunity to get some air time to spout his talking points, and is not at all interested in debate. I'm sure his base loved that performance.

Funny you should say that, I thought the premise of starting a petition (on a government website no less) smacked particularly of cynical publicity seeking.

I also just read the comments on a repost of this video by the comedian (who's considered a friend of Alex Jones in some circles) Doug Stanhope. Sure enough, plenty of conspiracy heads thought it was sticking it to the man. Not so much the more run of the mill pro-gun types though, many of whom thought he'd made them all look like idiots, on that thread at least.

 

[Clock]

This is unbelievable.

​

Gish gallop par excellence.

Yes, I watched the interview as well, and I have got to say, Alex was either ranting like a child, being racist towards the British, and hypocritical.
What I mean about hypocritical is when Morgan began his sentence about gun deaths, and Alex yelled back that he was pointing out "factoids". He was pulling out "factoids" as well, especially in the beginning. Also, can anyone check if that statement he made about the UK being a "Police State" valid? I cannot take Alex Jones seriously because I doubt he has ever been out of the U.S.

 

[Clock]

Yay! Alex Jones also says that Climate Change is BS!

​

​

In the first video, he states that thousands of emails of leaked Climate-Gate had been found which state that Climate change is faked, but that the earth is actually cooling. It's a shame that Alex and nobody else can actually show us any of these e-mails.
Then, he mentions that Al Gore lied and that Temperature goes up first, and C02 later, not the opposite. While Alex does not show any evidence of this, I did find this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-does-CO2-lagging-temperature-mean.html This website states that Gore over simplified the explanation of C02.

With a recent British court case critiquing An Inconvenient Truth and the news that Al Gore just won the Nobel Peace Prize, the attacks on Gore and his slideshow have stepped up in recent times. A common criticism is his use of the CO2/temperature record to show that in the past, CO2 caused temperature increase. A close look at ice core records finds that CO2 actually lags temperature. In fact, a study came out just a few weeks ago (Stott 2007) that confirms CO2 increases around 1000 years after temperature rise. This raises an important question - does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? The answer is both.

So where does that leave Al Gore? What he says in An Inconvenient Truth is this:

"The relationship is very complicated but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others and it is this - when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer because it traps more heat from the sun inside."​

This statement, while an oversimplification, is essentially correct. A more accurate and informative statement would've been

"A change in Earth's orbit warmed the southern oceans which released more CO2 into the atmosphere. The extra CO2 trapped more heat from the sun and amplified the warming. It also mixed through the atmosphere, spreading the warming to the tropics and northern hemisphere"​

Later, he talks about Carbon Taxes. He goes on on his usual tangent that Carbon Tax proves the Global Domination Agenda and all of that other baloney. Alex seems to think that Carbon Tax affects everybody in the US. That is false. This is how Carbon Tax works:

Carbon tax is a form of pollution tax. It levies a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels based on how much carbon their combustion emits. The government sets a price per ton on carbon, then translates it into a tax on electricity, natural gas or oil. Because the tax makes using dirty fuels more* expensive, it encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency. Carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with cheaper, polluting fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.
Carbon tax is based on the economic principle of negative externalities. Externalities are costs or benefits generated by the production of goods and services. Negative externalities are costs that are not paid for. When utilities, businesses or homeowners consume fossil fuels, they create pollution that has a societal cost; everyone suffers from the effects of pollution. Proponents of a carbon tax believe that the price of fossil fuels should account for these societal costs. More simply put -- if you're polluting to everyone else's detriment, you should have to pay for it.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-tax.htm

Alex talks a lot about the leaked climate gate e-mails, to the point where it seems as if I have to look it up to see what it is. A website puts things into perspective nicely:

In late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.’s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:

• The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
• Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
• E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

The e-mails (which have been made available by an unidentified individual here) do show a few scientists talking frankly among themselves — sometimes being rude, dismissive, insular, or even behaving like jerks. Whether they show anything beyond that is still in doubt. An investigation is being conducted by East Anglia University, and the head of CRU, Phil Jones, has "stepped aside" until it is completed. However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer.

If you want to see the full article, go here: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

 

[Jay Reynolds]

And now for something completely different!

​

 

[Clock]

And now for something completely different!

​

Absolutely wild... this guy is so fun to debunk...

 

[MikeC]

Even Glenn Beck thinks Alex Jones is deceitful!

 

[Met Watch]

Back to the CNN interview - I think this image pretty much sums up what many people, who saw Alex Jones for the first time, thought after hearing him speak.

 

[Clock]

​

It's debunking time once again.

In the beginning of this video, Alex says some very true things, about the the earth and the universe, and how much humanity is capable of creating and doing things. It is actually very made, good job on Alex and his editing team. It all goes well until the 4:00 minute mark in the video above, when he mentions "The Globalists".

As I often say, before you start talking about the NWO or Globalists theory, you need to prove a correlation between the Governments, the industries and the media. If you cannot, then that automatically debunks the whole NWO thing. A good article (http://thrivedebunked.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/global-domination-agenda-debunked/) discusses this here. It is well worth a read, and lays the smackdown on the theory.

Alex Jones: The entire development of these systems [technology] are in the hands of The Globalists, super predators, who have a lustful disdain, and hate for humanity.
Clock: Why do they have a hate for humanity? They are humans themselves, and if they want to kill off to kill off half of humanity (or all of it, while you're at it), what's the point? Then, there will be nothing to run and nothing to do. This line is also very silly, it sounds like they are talking about the evil empire in the Star Wars movies.

Globalists and social engineers talk about the total population like we are animals, and our main use is to be manipulated
-Nothing to say here. This is Alex's typical line of paranoia and opinion.

...to be controlled, to be tested upon,
If they did not give a damn about us why would they bother testing us? Besides, most scientists test their experiments with rats or mice. If you see in this link, (http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/2012/20121101taffe.html) the journalists write that the first tests on the rats were successful. They would not test on humans.

Foster children have been used to be tested upon by the US Military for the past 60 years
-There have been cases of humans being tested (not children) for our safety during the cold war, in St. Louis/ Texas. However, this has been debunked here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/888-Army-Air-Sprayed-Poor-Americans-in-Texas-and-St-Louis
The whole "for more than 60 years" line lacks evidence and is false. He does not even bother to give us examples of children used for testing.

I'm asking humanity to realize that a very small group, of inbred, unhappy, twisted and wicked people, have seized control of human development, and are attempting to establish a total control system of technocratic surveillance systems and de-humanization. It is now that we must begin to struggle against their bureaucracy. Fighting their 1984 system, with liberty and enlightenment and truth, until the levers of technological development, are leveraged from the hands of the globalists. Humanity has a very dark future.
-Technically we all have control of human development. If you look up human development on google, you get this wikipedia page: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology)) Sex is human development, it is not only something the "ultra mean globalists" have. And if he is talking about alternating a human gene and cloning it, well think again. Many countries are banning genetic human testing and cloning,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cloning#Current_law) so this entire statement is false and plain feermongering.

The real threats facing humanity are not the fake environmental threats that Al Gore and the UN talk about.
-Extremely debatabe

There are unchecked, cross-species genetic engineering. Tens of thousands of biotech companies, universities and governments, randomly splicing viruses, bacteria from plants and animals and then injecting them into other animals, which is already giving a rise to mutated viruses and bacteria and irrevocable vandalization of the genetic code of the planet.
-Although he is right here, it is taken entirely out of context. Mutated virus are created by mistake, in which there is not enough protein in the gene of the substance. If there is a mistake in the mutation, it cannot give any offspring, and if a DNA system is broken, it can be fixed using the DNA Repair system in order to prevent mutation. Although mutations can be problematic, they have lots of benifits as well: for ecample a cell named CCR5 can help delay the AIDS disease from having an effect your body, and people who naturally have mutations in their body can help fight very harmful diseases, such as the mutation CCR5-Δ32 help the human body to be immune from the Bubonic Plague. "...Mutation may enable the mutant organism to withstand particular environmental stresses better than wild-type organisms, or reproduce more quickly. In these cases a mutation will tend to become more common in a population through natural selection."-wkipedia Also, Mutations are not unchecked, I am not sure where Alex got that from. They are obviously checked if they know it can cause cancer, as seen in the wikipedia article below.
sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_advantages_of_mutation

High tech chemical and most importantly biological weapons development, unchecked nanotech,
-Unchecked Nanotech is pure fiction. This technology is always checked, and some of the problems that conspiracy theorists say about it (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nanotechnology#In_fiction) are just plain false.
Sources: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nanotechnology

the artificial creation of black holes,
-Alex pulled that out of his @ss. This is what a phycisist has to say about it:

Not with any current, or remotely feasible technology. The method in use by the universe today; get several Suns worth of mass into a big pile and wait, is a pretty effective way to create black holes.

In theory, all you need to do to create an artificial black hole (a “black faux”?) is to get a large amount of energy and matter into a very small volume. The easiest method would probably be to use some kind of massive, super-duper-accelerators. The problem is that black holes are dense, and the smaller and less massive they are the denser they need to be.

Although I see where Alex saw his info about the 2 phycists in china creating a black hole, this is actually what their experiment was

after a related paper was published by researchers at Purdue University, Indiana. The paper proposed a device that could mimic the properties of a black hole in space, causing space-time in the surrounding area to bend and warp and spiral inwards toward the center of the black hole. But unlike a cosmic black hole, this one (hopefully) won’t rip us apart.

It mimics the properties of a black hole, the machine does not create a cosmetic black hole.

sources: http://www.askamathematician.com/20...ame-effects-if-so-how-small-could-it-be-made/
http://gajitz.com/suck-it-up-first-artificial-black-hole-built-we-survived/

any matter weapons of the airforce, who admits they developed a new viral vaccine that re-engineers the brain by attacking certain gangly i systems in which you could no longer feel emotions.
This is false, a pure fabrication. It you can't find it on google, where can you?

...and in the incoming years they are going to override every major life form on this planet without asking you.
Once again this is false, there are many groups that are against human cloning, again, look at the list of countries who refuse human testing.


That's a trillion times what Monsanto does planting your crops next to yours, and they come and charge in on your property and charge copyright infringement when they polluted your property.
Gmos debunked here: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/177-GMO-conspiracy-theories


And then... Alex goes on another well spoken about how unethical it is to do all of these transformations. He still says his typical BS of "NWO are trying to distract you" but alex is actually being a wellspoken person in this, and I must say that he is doing a good job. It's really a shame that Alex Jones is a Conspiracy Theorist, as he is pretty well spoken when he is not yelling and screaming like an ape. But then, he goes back to the whole wake up message, which is dumb.

At one point he talks about those times when scientists say the planet would be better off without us. Alex says that is a plan by the NWO to make humanity seem as a desease. And honestly? The Scientists who say so are right. Michael Chriton once wrote in The Lost World that humans are so destructive, that is so easy for us to manipulate things that we are somewhat like a disease on the earth, and we abuse its resources to hell. And to be fair? we sort of do. Would Climate Change be an issue if we were not extracting oils from tar pits or decomposed fossils? Would have less floods and landslides if we did not cut as many forests down? Alex takes these quotes by scientists way out of context.

He says that they are openly planning to release biological weapons in order to kill us all, which is false as the US, UK and Russia banned the developement of stockipiling bio weapons, and they is also a lack of proof that the other countries will launch all of them on us to kill us all.

More rambling on trying to dumb us down. Yawn.

And.. he talks about that for the rest of the vid. I hope you enjoyed this debunking. And now, I will take a nice shower, this guy is giving me a headache!

 

[Clock]

Another person (from a conspiracy website, interestingly) debunked Alex Jones-Piers Morgan interview. Here is the debunking:

[h=1]Fact-checking Alex Jones’ gun control interview on Piers Morgan[/h]
Here’s the viral-video interview Alex Jones had on Piers. He goes on about gun control and uprising/revolution that will occur if boundaries are overstepped. Jones calls him a “Hatchet Man” for the New World Order; tee-hee, Jones is always good for entertainment value, if nothing else.


Piers states that he supports a nationwide ban on semi-automatic, high-capacity clips, close gun-show loopholes that allow private dealers to sell guns without background checks. This is about the first and only point he will get during the interview because Jones proceeds to go off on him.



Here’s an unprofessional fact-check breakdown of Alex Jones’ statements, consisting of Wikipedia and other website references that I could find to the best of my ability to determine the truth. Please double check them to see what you think. I’m by no means an expert in this, but Wikipedia is supposed to be held to a similar validity and accuracy as an encyclopedia (I heard a whole story on this on the radio once), so for the most part I think Wikipedia is a fairly safe resource, but definitely not the end-all be-all.



Here we go:



1. Mao Zedong said “political power grows out the barrel of a gun.” –True.



Alright, we’re off to a good start here, maybe Jones’ arguments are going to have a nice, solid base. From Chapter 6 of ‘On Guerilla Warfare,’ in which Zedong explains that military action is necessary to attain political action.



2. Mao Zedong killed 80 million people because he had all of the guns. –Mostly false, but partially true.



Zedong is believed to have killed close to 77 million people in China’s genocide and mass murder, but that includes deaths as a result of his policies as leader of China, including famine upon his people due to his hunger for more international power. So to claim that the deaths are SOLELY due to gun control is pretty farfetched, but I’ll give him partial credit.
SOURCE , SOURCE#2


Mao Zedong was in power from 1949-1976 as leader of the Communist Party and of the People’s Republic of China. He executed and murdered millions of people, and even killed some land owners in order to give their land to poorer peasants. But to say that Zedong’s gun control policy killed every single one of the 77 million (estimated) people is far beyond realistic. Gun control was only introduced in China in 1966, after an incident in Tiananmen Square. It wasn’t until 1996 that full gun controls were put into measure; that’s 20 years after Zedong’s death.
SOURCE


3. The government buys 1.6 billion bullets, armored vehicles, tanks, helicopters, predator drones, armed now in U.S. skies, being used to arrest people in North Dakota. -True


They did in fact arrest people in North Dakota in 2012 through the use of a Predator drone, and it doesn’t look like it’s going to stop anytime soon. The FAA suggests we could have over 30,000 drones by 2020 in the American skies.
SOURCE , SOURCE#2


4. The Second Amendment isn’t there for duck hunting. It’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs. -Partially true.


The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights that has had the most recent Supreme Court rulings in 2008/2010 that the amendment is there to protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia. They didn’t really mention tyrannical government, but you could assume street thugs were included since they go on to mention self-defense.
SOURCE


5. Women in India are signing petitions to own firearms because they believe the police won’t protect them. -True.


274 license requests and 1,200 inquiries (from December 18th​- January 6th​) for firearms have been submitted by Indian women in response the recent rape incident of a woman being gang raped and murdered on a bus.

To play devil’s advocate, there’s evidence that guns would actually make these women more vulnerable because of domestic violence.
SOURCE


6. F.B.I. crime statistics from 2011 show a 20+% crime drop in the last nine years. –False… but only slightly.


As a 10-year trend (okay, that’s slightly longer than the nine year quote), violent crimes (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault) have gone down 15.5%, not 20+%. This is a bit nit-picky, so to keep this argument logical, let’s go ahead and further research this since Jones’ point is that the violent crime rates have gone down, even though gun ownership has gone up.


I believe Jones says nine years specifically because he’s referencing the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban which banned the manufacturing of semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines from 1994-2004. If that is the case, there have been several studies into the effectiveness and crime rates during that timeframe. Most of these reports found that there were very little, to know significant effect on gun violence. Even a report by the U.S. Department of Justice made the statement that assault rifles are rarely used in gun crimes.


It appears that Jones’ statement is true, but a point that I can honestly bring up (which is sort of covered by Piers during the interview) is that there have been several mass murders since 2004, all made possible through the use of assault weapons. Is the number of lives lost compensated for in these studies? I would think not, they are looking at crime rates and instances; not the 10+, 20+, 30+ dead bodies racked up in one mass shooting. And also, if you look at the Bureau of Justice’s violent crime rate trends since 1994, you can see that there has been a sharp decline since 1994, with numbers dipping to all-time lows since 1973. Does this show a correlation to the ban of assault weapons? According the studies it does not, but I’m just going to point that out.
SOURCE , SOURCE#2 , SOURCE#3


Another interesting source here shows what the law enforcement feels about the assault weapons.


7. Hitler took the guns. –False


The German government passed the ‘Regulations on Weapons Ownership’ that made all firearms illegal in 1919, well before Hitler. After that, in 1928, there were other gun laws that made it legal to own guns again, but only with several permits. In 1938 Germany made revisions that deregulated rifles and shotguns, and relaxed the gun laws to only consider handguns. The Nazi gun regulation of 1938 did in fact restrict handguns from the Jewish people, but not the entire country.
SOURCE


8. Stalin took the guns. -True
SOURCE


9. Mao took the guns. -False (see #2 above)


10. Fidel Castro took the guns. -False.


Cuba has a Constitution that specifically states they can be armed in Chapter 1, Article 3:


Article 3: In the Republic of Cuba sovereignty lies in the people, from whom originates all the power of the state. That power is exercised directly or through the assemblies of People’s Power and other state bodies which derive their authority from these assemblies, in the form and according to the norms established in the Constitution and by law.
When no other recourse is possible, all citizens have the right to struggle through all means, including armed struggle, against anyone who tries to overthrow the political, social and economic order established in this Constitution.
SOURCE

 

[Clock]

SOURCE


11. Hugo Chavez took the guns- True.



Only in 2012, but I’ll give this one to Jones.
SOURCE


12. Suicide is now the #1 cause of death in America. -Partially true and false.



Suicide has taken over motor vehicle crashes as the #1 cause of death by injury, not flat-out cause of death. Heart disease and cancer still takes the cake by almost ten-fold, which is the ultimate conspiracy theory; our food. Jones sort of implies that Prozac is one of the “suicide-mass murder” pills that is the cause of all this, I’m not sure how to fact check that one properly. Jones posted more about it HERE. My vote is that I don’t trust ANY of the drugs given out, although I feel that some people do benefit from them, but for the most part they are unnecessary and dangerous mind altering drugs. The doctors get compensated to hand them out like candy, which is a byproduct of our capitalistic-for-profit healthcare system.
SOURCE , SOURCE#2


13. Morgan asks “How many gun murders were there in America last year?” Jones replies, “About 11,458, and about 74% of those were gang related.” –Possibly True and DEFINITELY false


I couldn’t find the official statistics for 2012, but I did find charts for 2011 and further back on the FBI website. I don’t know how Jones got 11,458 precisely, but it doesn’t seem all that far off from the average of the last few years, so this one could be true.
SOURCE


As far as that 74% claim, let’s break that down: 74% X 11,458 = 8,479 gang related murders in 2012. This is far more than the average of 2,000 per year from 2006-2010, so this one is grossly false.
SOURCE


14. Jones then replies, “How many people die from infections in hospitals? 197,000.” -False.


This topic is one I’m more familiar with in my anatomy studies. He is referring to nosocomial infections, and there are an estimated 99,000 deaths caused per year due to this. It is still an alarming number (and higher than the number of gun related deaths in America).
SOURCE


15. This one is by far one of the funniest exchanges during the interview, so I’ll transcribe more of it below:


Piers says, “How many gun murders were there in Britain last year?” and Jones refuses to answer, calling it a trivial “Perry Mason factoid.” Alex Jones also replies, “How many great white sharks kill people every year but they’re scared to swim?” Jones says that the UK has “hoards of people burning down cities and beating old women’s brains out every day, they arrest people in England if they defend themselves, that’s on record, my god, you’ve got a total police state.”- False


Although I’m sure an old woman’s brains have been “beated out” somewhere in the UK, the English don’t arrest anyone for defending themselves. They do, however, favor gun control. The police are generally not allowed to carry guns though, which contradicts the police state argument somewhat. The UK does enjoy one of the lowest gun crime rates in the world, 40 times lower than that of America. The UK has a much lower intentional homicide rate with 1.2 per 100,000 residents, while the USA has 4.8 per 100,000 (which is actually still a fairly low rate, the world’s average is 6.9 per 100,000).
SOURCE , SOURCE#2 , SOURCE#3


16. Jones tells Piers to “go back and face charges for the hacking scandal.” -True


Piers was involved with a hacking scandal where he was involved with a phone hacking of Lord Leveson in 2012. He is also supposedly buddies with phone hacker Rupert Murdoch of Fox News.
SOURCE


17. Piers is a “Hatchet Man” for the New World Order. -Undetermined


With his ties with Rupert Murdoch I wouldn’t put it past him. The mass media types are sketchy at best. Although he does argue against the British Royal Family in the Princess Diana ‘Unlawful Killing’ documentary so maybe he’s not.


18. Piers claims there were 35 gun deaths in the UK last year. -Undetermined


There were 39 gun deaths in 2008-2009, so this one’s probably true.
SOURCE


19. Jones cites a study about a form of murder called ‘democide’ referenced in a Hawaiian university study that researches the number of deaths caused by government. He claims 292 million people were killed by the government in the 20th​ century. -True, (true enough).


After scouring around the internet, I think Jones is referencing professor of political science Rudolph Rummel out of the University of Hawaii, where he postulates that 262 million people were killed by government causes in the last century. Rummel coined the term democide, and has researched the topic extensively.
SOURCE


20. Jones says that statistically where there are more guns there is less crime. -Undetermined

Jones’ website uses violent crime offense figures to make an assumption, and this oversimplifies the statistics in my opinion. Although the article makes some good points and is worth a read. He references a DailyMail article (which is from clear back to 2001) that talks about the crime rates in the UK, but he conflates all crime with violent gun crimes, where the DailyMail article is talking about any crime, such as having your car stolen.



Overall though, this is a topic that could be misconstrued and overevaluated no matter which side you’re one. Pro-gun people cite NRA-sponsored gun studies, while Anti-gun types will cite more liberal sources, so it’s hard to find a non-biased and true solution. Hence the fierce debate over the subject.



To add one more option into this debate, I’d like to argue that less guns means less crime by citing the crime rate decrease we’ve had since the late ‘90s against the Gallup poll that shows the gun ownership in America decreasing drastically since the ‘90s. This same source (The Washington Post) posits more arguments that suggest gun rates increase as do violent crimes and vice versa.
SOURCE , SOURCE#2 , SOURCE#3 (Gallup Poll graph)


21. Jones says that knives murders are three times higher than gun murders. -False

I don’t know where he came up with that figure. The USDoJ has several years of data that suggest otherwise.
SOURCE


22. Mexico has a total gun ban and the most violent crime rate in the world. -False



Mexico has an intentional homicide rate of 22.7, compared to Hondoras (91.6), Jamaica (52.2) and dozens of other countries; it is probably not the highest violent crime rate in the world. Also, it is legal to own a gun in Mexico, they also have a Constitution with a right to bear arms. They have piles of red tape and applications to go through before getting it, but they are not completely banned as Jones claims. Ironically, most of the illegal guns in Mexico are from the U.S..
SOURCE , SOURCE


23. The U.K. has the highest violent crime rate. -Partially true.



In all of Europe, the U.K. does have the highest violent crime rate with 2,000 violent crimes per 100,000 people, as compared to the U.S. where we have 466 per 100,000. Note that violent crimes include murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. So does this have a correlation with guns? Not really, but it’s still true.
SOURCE

 

[Clock]

19. Jones cites a study about a form of murder called ‘democide’ referenced in a Hawaiian university study that researches the number of deaths caused by government. He claims 292 million people were killed by the government in the 20th​ century. -True, (true enough).


After scouring around the internet, I think Jones is referencing professor of political science Rudolph Rummel out of the University of Hawaii, where he postulates that 262 million people were killed by government causes in the last century. Rummel coined the term democide, and has researched the topic extensively.
SOURCE

In other words, Alex takes it entirely out of context. He's saying it as if a person of the government came in front of a random person and shot him on purpose. The stat that our fact checker is checking here is that 262 million men and women died because of Government causes, such as Military usage during both World Wars, Vietnam, USSR, Nazi party and various other events. Of course, you need to characterize what is a Government death, but it does not necessarily mean that Government killed someone on purpose for the fun of it. It's not directly the governments fault they died. It is very debatable and up in the air, however.

 

[someGuy]

In other words, Alex takes it entirely out of context. He's saying it as if a person of the government came in front of a random person and shot him on purpose. The stat that our fact checker is checking here is that 262 million men and women died because of Government causes, such as Military usage during both World Wars, Vietnam, USSR, Nazi party and various other events. Of course, you need to characterize what is a Government death, but it does not necessarily mean that Government killed someone on purpose for the fun of it. It's not directly the governments fault they died. It is very debatable and up in the air, however.

Hi

I do think A.J is not only all about the money
The gatekeeper thing seems to fit
I have no proof, just...Weird experiences with the guy's so called "social network" some years ago


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOswJyiVS0w

First, about the planetInfowars socialnetwork plateform, he claimed it was not like facebook, not gathering personal information on users blablabla
SocNet ?
...The Special Operations Community Network...
Imagine that...

And it's true, I was there at the time, I don't know if the source code of the site is still the same now, but socnet was mentioned inside like it is in the video
(btw, forget about the drama music, just follow what's explained in the video)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oz0MctVyBAw
Then , listen to this testimony
(btw, I "knew" that girl there, had quite few chats with her about her and many others (including me) getting hacked there, with admins acting like...let's say weirdos if not hackers )

Also, a guy called "Josh Eaton" was also in the basket...Now read the video's comments and conclude what you want
Maybe his youtube account was hacked, maybe Cat's youtube account was hacked, maybe both, maybe one of them is a total weirdo... I can't tell
All I know is that my account was hacked several times (had to create a new one each time until I get fed up) and my mail box has been hacked in the process too


So, to me, AJ is a bit more than just a scammer

 

[SeanDWalker]

I share your belief someGuy, but i think money is the reason he's doing....whatever it is he's doing; which is actually quite a lot of damage, because of AlexJones i spent the best part of 6 months down a imaginary rabbit hole with glimpses of some truth peering in once in a while, managed to dig myself out but now skeptical of everything, mainstream or not.

do believe he's part of a divide/conquer type operation, leading people up a stream which at any point could fall down on them - being able to herd people with extreme views to things like his youtube channel, twitter follow list etc (creating a rather neat database including 'severity' of disbelief or revolutionary stance) thus being able to filter out those who could be a danger to society. Or just simply feeding enough disinformation/non relevant information to keep people distracted, scared and confused to actually get off the computer swallowing the information and to begin acting on it. The thing you're saying about the forum for example is very interesting, are you someone of possible interest? activist? etc.

for it to really be that, not everybody who signs up for his FB alternative can be getting hacked, nor everybody who subscribes to his youtube screened properly but i can full well imagine the capability of screening people based on comments they've made, previous arrests, positions in society and ensuring they are more closely looked at; i can't imagine a better honeytrap than alex jones, he does after all throw out the occasional scary truth which you truly don't hear on mainstream media, i imagine people do what i do and listen once in a while in case that's happened again.

the guy touts so many products it's incredible.

 

[scombrid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxgP5vEFMVA

I just stumbled across a video of Alex Jones expounding on weather manipulation and chemtrails and thought I'd share.

 

[Cairenn]

I wonder if he has EVER had anything more than a HS science class

 

[someGuy]

Are you someone of possible interest? activist? etc.

Not at all, I'm a random guy

I know a bunch about the conspiracy field, not that much in fact, but listened to AJ for something like 4 or 5 years, so yea, the offshore banking cartel full of satanic secret societies trying to achieve what was written on the Georgia Guidestones among other stuffs
It's more or less David Hike's story without the reptilian thing on top of it

The only thing that could have turn me into a target could be the fact that I'm good at crawling the web and to find unusual stuffs
And the fact that I tolled DHS, a lot, with meme pictures
I like memes



https://www.google.fr/#hl=fr&output...98,d.ZWU&fp=b6d387aa5a25af3c&biw=1280&bih=634
This one is more interesting, I've posted it there, maybe the shit started because of this
It's a strange result returned by google when looking for "THE OWLS ARE NOT WHAT THEY SEEM" (th3 0WL$ @R3 N07 wh@7 7H3y 533M) translated into leetspeak with this particular leet translator http://www.ypass.net/misc/haxor/

4th and 5th result are this:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/19617/0000891092-07-004831.txt
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1334872/000119312508178289/0001193125-08-178289.txt

I don't even know if it's even relevant lol
It's just funny to find on a gov site, privacy documents about JP Morgan and Cape Fear Bank CORP while typing "th3 0WL$ @R3 N07 wh@7 7H3y 533M" in google



But seriously, I was not the only one hacked, and it happened several times, but more, it was not only 1 individual doing this, it was a bunch, and I mean at least 10, managing multiple accounts, it was huge
But the worst part was when I figured some of them where actualy close "friends" of staff members (mods/admins) O_O'
After several attempts to know more (creating new accounts, writting to admins to get no answers whatsoeveretc...) I left, it was just too creepy

My gmail was sold on the "black market" for 25$ btw
That's what the hacker guy, told me in the dating section...

lol
How creepier can it be ?

 

[walliswallis]

I listened to Jones' Y2k broadcast, and William Cooper had him pegged back at the turn of the century:

uh ... not that I disagree with the idea of debunking AJ, but should William Cooper really be the source to do that ?

 

[walliswallis]

disinfo, which is as sketchy as AJ sometimes, did a story on Alex Jones and the Rudolph Rummel connection ...

http://www.disinfo.com/2013/03/alex-jones-darpa-publicist/

... sadly it concludes with a conspiracy theory of its own

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

I remember seeing Alex claim that the bisphenol used in the lining of juice boxes was part of a government conspiracy to make everyone gay. Beer came out my nose.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2w2TRxSLxw

BTW I'd be much happier if we could get bisphenol out of our food packaging, it's definitely not good for us.

 

[Steve]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-alex-jones-20130418,0,1322244.story

Good to see the LA. times has taken notice of this clown.

 

[Cairenn]

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/0...ud-lets-go-over-his-failed-predictions-video/

addictinginfo is not always as accurate as I would like, but I think they nailed this one.

 

[Clock]

Skeptoid debunks what Alex Jones calls the "Oh so evil Bilderberg group".

Beware the Bilderberg Group!
Once a year, the world's top power brokers meet. Are they really planning Global Domination?

Once a year, the world's top power brokers gather behind closed doors for several days in a plush luxury hotel. The Bilderberg Group is an annual meeting of approximately 125 heads of state and leaders from business, politics, military, and economics from Western Europe and the United States. They discuss all the headlining topics: political, environmental, economic, and strategic issues facing the West. And when the meeting breaks up and everyone returns to his home nation — according to the conspiracy theorists — the "Bilderbergers" are armed with fresh orders, and each does his part in their master plan of World Domination. For the story goes that the Bilderberg Group is not a gathering of leaders for the purpose of discussion and the exchange of ideas, as it claims to be; but is in fact the secret world government. Sounds like a fine place to point our skeptical eye.

The Bilderberg Group was formed in 1954, and is named after the Bilderberg Hotel in Holland where the first meeting took place. The world had just come out of World War II and was entering into a new war of a much different character, the cold war. Malevolence was rising in the East, and many noted that anti-American sentiment in Europe was counterproductive to the shared goal of defending against the Communist Bloc. Polish politician Józef Retinger rallied support from Prince Bernard of the Netherlands and Belgian Prime Minister Paul Van Zeeland, who in turn contacted other leaders from Europe and the United States. The idea was to get one conservative and one liberal representative from each nation to get as broad a perspective as possible. Since the meeting was strictly unofficial, it was felt that discussion could be far more efficient and productive without the concern of binding resolutions or any sort of red tape. Fifty delegates attended the first meeting at the Bilderberg and discussed ways to improve cultural, economic, and strategic relations between the United States and Western Europe. The meeting was considered successful enough that a steering committee was formed to turn it into an annual event, with Prince Bernard as its first chairman.

Since then they've met about once a year, usually in May or June, at some 5-star hotel, usually in Europe but sometimes in the United States, and always in a different place. That first meeting was the only time they actually met at the Bilderberg Hotel.

There is nothing secret about the attendees. Part of the deal is that if you go to a conference, your name, title, and country are published on their web site and included in a press release. Every year, they've sent out a complete list of everyone who attended. Generally, if you're going to wield power from behind the scenes, you have to be behind the scenes. The Bilderbergers are not.

However, the content of their talks is a bit murky. Their meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which is a principle under which records can be kept of meetings without noting the identity or affiliation of any speaker. Each attendee is thus guaranteed anonymity. They have their own reason for doing this: By assuring their attendees some privacy, they encourage free, uninhibited discussion. However the use of the Chatham House Rule, quite obviously, appeals to the conspiracy theorists, as it could be seen as being consistent with secrecy.

Following this rule, the minutes are said to be taken down, but as they are the private property of the group they are not made public (see Wikileaks for leaked copies of their actual private minutes). This also throws fuel onto the fire of the conspiracy theorists. All that's made public are the general topics. For example, here is the information provided by the Bilderberg Group about the subject of their 2009 meeting in Greece:

Governments and Markets
After the G-20: Role of Institutions
Protectionism: How Serious
Cyberterrorism: Policy and Strategy
Sustainability: Post Kyoto Challenges
Iraq: Role and Responsibilities in the Region
Pakistan and Afghanistan
A New Order: US and the World
Lessons from a Crisis
Challenge to Market Economies and Democracies
New Imperialisms: Russia - China
Current Affairs: How does Industry see the Future

In short, basically the usual politicial/economic stuff that you'd expect such a group to discuss. But conspiracy theory radio host Alex Jones and other believers consider the information provided by Bilderberg to be just a front, and that they're actually there to plan the conquest of the world. They have two primary pieces of evidence to support this idea. The first is an article written by Fidel Castro, and the second is a radio interview given by a gentleman named Willy Claes. Let's look at these one at a time.

Castro, of course, was the President of Cuba for most of his career, and anytime a world leader speaks, one assumes he knows what he's talking about. On August 18, 2010, Castro devoted nearly 3 of the 8 pages of the Communist newsletter Granmato an article quoting the claims made in the 2006 book The True Story of the Bilderberg Group by conspiracy theory author Daniel Estulin. So in fact, Castro did not reveal any personal knowledge, he merely quoted from a book he'd read. As Cuba is not among the nations represented in the Bilderberg Group and Castro has never attended a meeting, there's little reason to suspect that he would have any particular insight, beyond having read that book. I don't see that Castro's article is evidence of anything.

The Willy Claes radio interview is more interesting. At the time he attended the 1994 Bilderberg meeting, Claes was the secretary general of NATO. A transcript of his radio interview, in Dutch, was reported on the conspiracy theory blog websiteZonnewind. It was a very short, informal interview, taken during the 2010 meeting in Spain which Claes did not attend, and described by listeners as being in a humorous and jovial tone. Claes explained that each session consists of a rapporteur, who is usually either Henry Kissinger or current Bilderberg chairman Étienne Davignon, who speaks on a topic for exactly ten minutes, with each topic being an important problem faced by the West. Following this is group discussion, during which the rapporteur takes notes and attempts to form a consensus opinion, or "synthesis", among the group. The conspiracy theorists latched onto the following statement made by Claes, and have widely trumpeted it as proof that Bilderberg does indeed set world policy and that attendees are required to follow its orders:

"...And everybody is supposed to use those conclusions in his circle of influence."

Sound suspicious? I had five different Dutch speakers translate that, to be sure it was accurate, and that's the consensus translation. But it's still ambiguous. Claes certainly did not say they're required to carry out orders, in fact it could mean nothing more than the attendees hope to gain some useful insight that they'll be able to put into practice. It could also mean anything between the two. I'm leaning more toward the latter, because Alex Jones and the others give the quote without context and omit the rest of what Claes said. When asked if decisions are made at the meetings, Claes said:

"No, no voting, no resolutions put to paper."

And regarding the way attendees are asked to sit next to different people at each meal, Claes explained:

"I think it is really meant to accomodate the exchange of different and even contradictory opinions."

An exchange of ideas, with no decisions made. This from the interview that the conspiracy theorists put forth as the strongest evidence that the Bilderberg Group forces its members to carry out its plans of World Domination. Class, this is what we call "quote mining".

One reason it would be difficult for the Bilderberg Group attendees to control the world is that it's a different group of people each year. The core group, the steering committee, only changes gradually over the years, but the majority of attendees are invited only once or a few times. Bill Gates attended the 2010 meeting. What would be the point of inviting Bill Gates to just one of your secret World Domination planning meetings? Do you threaten him into secrecy? Are all attendees threatened into secrecy every year? It would probably not be a very popular event if this were the case. If I were Bill Gates and received a threat as soon as I walked in the door, I'd tell them where they could kiss me and turn around and walk out. Most of these people probably have better things to do than attend someone else's World Domination meeting where their own opinions are ignored and they have to enter into some kind of bizarre obedience pact to attend.

It's also important to note that Alex Jones thinks that virtually every congregation of powerful people is gathered for the purpose of planning World Domination. Not only is the Bilderberg Group setting world policy, but so are the Bohemian Club, the Freemasons, and the alleged Illuminati. What if these groups come to different decisions? Do they fight it out? Is this the true cause of world wars? I've double checked my history book, but I don't see any wars between the Bohemians and the Bilderbergers.

All things considered, I wouldn't say that the charge that the Bilderberg Group "runs the world" is an entirely unfair one. I think it's overstated, and I think the conspiracy theorists' version suggests paranoia far more than it represents reality, but the Bilderbergers are influential people coming together to discuss mutual problems in an open forum. They don't do it for their health or for grins; they're hoping to find solutions and opportunities for cooperation. I don't see any rational reason for such people to voluntarily enter into a threat-driven obedience pact or to plan World Domination. I do see good reason why a person in a position of responsibility would want the opportunity to have open, unfettered, off-the-record discussion with others facing similar issues. Any leader should consider his or herself lucky to have access to such a resource.

The Bilderberg Group tells us who they are, when and where they meet, what their purpose is, and in broad strokes what they discuss. Referring to it as some sort of secret society strains credibility. Their stated purpose obviously makes very good sense for people in their position. Which is more likely: They are what they say they are and what we'd expect them to be, or everything we see about them is an illusion and they're actually running our lives and planning our destruction? Beware any conspiracy theory that claims to predict future events. Not one has ever been right.

​

Content from external source

​

 

[cosmic]

Skeptoid debunks what Alex Jones calls the "Oh so evil Bilderberg group".

I don't think Brian Dunning appreciates his articles being copied and pasted in full. (See: Copyright info)

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

So, to be clear: a gathering of all the top movers and shakers in the world have been getting together every year for almost 60 years with the aim of forming a New World Order, a single-government planet. 60 feckin' years. They're obviously, utterly inept. If people are genuinely worried about the Bilderberg Group they should sit back and reflect on that, 60 years and no progress towards the end goal.

People surely have better things to worry about. I know I have. For example, I seem to be developing a bit of a pot-belly. I could do without the expense of having to buy new trousers.

 

[Clock]

I don't think Brian Dunning appreciates his articles being copied and pasted in full. (See: Copyright info)

Ok, you're right, but I can still link this: http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/5/e/2/5e2...81066971&hwt=5179244e523436765c152e10692af1e4

 

[thedude953]

guys alex jones is nothing more than an entertainer....do they get some news out there, sure your an idiot if you don't think that, but so does fox/cnn/abc any of the others that are all owned by the same 4 or five big corps. you have to get your information and entertainment from somewhere and if nothing else the guy is entertaining. same with howard stern and that guy has no talent/journalism of any kind its all the same. but when the people who are really doing the investigating and actually giving us decent information agree with him on certain points its clear that some of his points are correct. james Corbett/abby martin/jesse ventura/sean and oliver stone/even joe rogan sides with him sometimes. I get it the guy is a fruitcake but common take what you like and get rid of the bs I don't understand the need to debunk this kind of stuff when the important issues are being ignored and we are worried about alex jones and tower 7 and shit.

 

[JeffreyNotGeoffrey]

The guy needs debunking BECAUSE people do agree with him, and more than on the "stopped clock moment" stuff. Enough people DO believe him about the rapacity of the UN and the looming threat of a non binding resolution for global growth, aka Agenda 21. Fuck, Glenn Beck wrote a full book playing with the idea that the UN is coming to destroy all the world. Alex Jones stirs people up and not in a good way. More like a pogrom style. The fact is enough people don't realize two things 1) that Alex Jones is an entertainer, NOT a journalist. 2) He's a either crazy or a liar.
I'll put it this way. If you trust this man who said the Boston Marathon Bombings were a false flag, the Moore, OK tornado was a government weather weapon unleashed to promote carbon taxes, and that the US military is following him, then you need to take a moment to look at you worldview. The fact he believes one of these or all of them poisons the well of his information. The fact that often he is not even wrong or wronger than wrong, says he should not be trusted for ANY information.

 

[Oxymoron]

The guy needs debunking BECAUSE people do agree with him, and more than on the "stopped clock moment" stuff. Enough people DO believe him about the rapacity of the UN and the looming threat of a non binding resolution for global growth, aka Agenda 21. Fuck, Glenn Beck wrote a full book playing with the idea that the UN is coming to destroy all the world. Alex Jones stirs people up and not in a good way. More like a pogrom style. The fact is enough people don't realize two things 1) that Alex Jones is an entertainer, NOT a journalist. 2) He's a either crazy or a liar.
I'll put it this way. If you trust this man who said the Boston Marathon Bombings were a false flag, the Moore, OK tornado was a government weather weapon unleashed to promote carbon taxes, and that the US military is following him, then you need to take a moment to look at you worldview. The fact he believes one of these or all of them poisons the well of his information. The fact that often he is not even wrong or wronger than wrong, says he should not be trusted for ANY information.

So do you apply that rationale to the bunk put out by 'official sources' like WMD's in Iraq, "We had nothing to do with funding Pol Pot and the killing of Cambodians", "We don't spy on all your emails and phone calls", "We do not kidnap and torture people to death", "We had no idea there was a plan to fly planes into NYC and Washington", "The Iran coup of 1953 was a popular uprising", "We are not arming, training and sending Al Nusra to fight a proxy war in Syria" etc etc etc...

That seems a bit more of a trustworthy source to you does it? Happy days.

 

[Pete Tar]

Does any of that make Alex Jones, the person under discussion, more believable?

 

[Mick West]

This thread is about Alex Jones, off-topic and impolite posts have been removed. Parties have been warned.

 

[Jazzy]

I particularly detest the sound of his voice. You can remove that if you like.

 

[BombDr]

I particularly detest the sound of his voice. You can remove that if you like.

It is a bit of a sonic weapon...

 

[Mick West]

Effective though. When I was on the Joe Rogan podcast he did a superb Alex Jones impression, and the verbal beating of a loud and aggressive volley of claims totally threw me off for a while.