As early as 1913, Woodrow Wilson warned of the shadow government that was behind the 9/11 tragedy

Marc Powell

Active Member
Conspiracy theorists believe that there is an invisible government run by shadowy figures that secretly controls United States foreign policy and that such a shadow government orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. At the 1:10:21 mark in the David Hooper film, The Anatomy of a Great Deception (viewable in its entirety at youtube.com/watch?v=l0Q5eZhCPuc ), Hooper mentions all the improbable circumstances, coordination and cover-ups required to accomplish the destruction seen in New York City on 9/11/2001 and to make it look as if it was the work of terrorists. His conclusion was that mysterious “powerful elements” of the US Government must have been at play behind the scenes. As evidence that such elements are real and have been at work for decades, Hooper provides a 1913 quote from President Woodrow Wilson. Below is the quote and what Hooper had to say about it:

I didn't think this was something done by terrorists anymore, nor did I think this was done by any one man, even if a president. How does he get nanothermite. How does he get NORAD, the FAA and their air defenses to look the other way, or get access to the interior of all three towers, or get 19 guys to kill themselves, or get NIST and the 9/11 Commission to taint their investigations, or keep the media quiet, or keep arrival of the new administration from exposing it? No, this seemed much bigger than even a president, and impossible for a man on the run. If someone like me with no budget or staff can find something clearly wrong with Building 7's collapse, how could an entire government commission fail to mention it in their report? Something big and strange was coming into view, supremely coordinated and almost invisible, like a thousand more puzzle pieces dumped out before me. I couldn't see the bigger picture yet, but I knew there was one and it involved powerful elements of our world. This reminded me of a quote that struck me in Woodrow Wilson's book The New Freedom. He writes, "Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." I wondered if we were talking about the same thing. So I continued my research. I didn't even need to remind myself I was falling down the rabbit hole anymore. I was now fully expecting to see the unexpected.

If David Hooper had continued reading Wilson’s book, in the next paragraph he would have found that he and Wilson were definitely not “talking about the same thing.” That fact should have slowed or maybe even stopped Hooper's descent into that rabbit hole. Below is the next paragraph from Woodrow Wilson’s, The New Freedom:

They know that America is not a place of which it can be said, as it used to be, that a man may choose his own calling and pursue it just as far as his abilities enable him to pursue it; because today, if he enters certain fields, there are organizations which will use means against him that will prevent his building up a business which they do not want to have built up; organizations that will see to it that the ground is cut from under him and the markets shut against him. For if he begins to sell to certain retail dealers, to any retail dealers, the monopoly will refuse to sell to those dealers, and those dealers, afraid, will not buy the new man's wares.

So then, Woodrow Wilson was talking about monopolies that were, in his day, preventing small businessmen from achieving success in their chosen field. Of course, David Hooper expects his audience to imagine that Wilson was talking about an invisible shadow government that pulls the strings of world politics that one dare not challenge or even speak of. One has to wonder how this miscue was not picked up by Richard Gage or the other diligent fact checkers on Hooper’s team.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Something's off here.

First, this isn't some live interview; this is pre-written text read off a script. These words have been chosen and edited.

Second, you make the point that if Hooper read the book, he should've noticed the context.

But maybe he didn't. Maybe it's just a quote he found on the Internet. But then the narrative is off. I would believe either of these:

a) "I thought the government was behind 9/11, and started looking for people and quotes that agreed with this notion, and found this Woodrow Wilson quote".

b) "I had been browsing conspiracy theory content before I got into 9/11, and found this Woodrow Wilson quote particularly convincing."

But Hooper's narrative that his suspicions of government originate from his engagement with 9/11, and then he is "reminded" of a quote from a book he hasn't read, feels implausible to me. It looks like it was solely written for effect; it's propaganda.
 

Marc Powell

Active Member
Something's off here.

First, this isn't some live interview; this is pre-written text read off a script. These words have been chosen and edited.

Second, you make the point that if Hooper read the book, he should've noticed the context.

But maybe he didn't. Maybe it's just a quote he found on the Internet. But then the narrative is off. I would believe either of these:

a) "I thought the government was behind 9/11, and started looking for people and quotes that agreed with this notion, and found this Woodrow Wilson quote".

b) "I had been browsing conspiracy theory content before I got into 9/11, and found this Woodrow Wilson quote particularly convincing."

But Hooper's narrative that his suspicions of government originate from his engagement with 9/11, and then he is "reminded" of a quote from a book he hasn't read, feels implausible to me. It looks like it was solely written for effect; it's propaganda.
I tend to think Hooper would fall under a subset of option (a). "I know the Government was not behind 9/11 but I started looking for people and quotes that agreed with the notion that the Government was behind it, and found this Woodrow Wilson quote from which I selected only the part that seemed suspicious."
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
and found this Woodrow Wilson quote from which I selected only the part that seemed suspicious.
If you find this quote on the Internet (and not in the book itself), it's likely in its truncated form already, no further "selection" necessary. That was already done by someone else.

In many of your other posts, we know Hooper and his team had access to the original sources of certain video clips: if I was producing a video, I'd get as close to the source as possible, both to get the best quality, and to see if I needed a clearance to use the footage for a commercial project.
And we know Gage read the NIST report, and discussed it with architects and engineers.

Doing misleading selections from that sort of material feels different than copying a misleading quote from some website. But still, that website was probably a "deep state" conspiracy theory website in the first place, and they weren't honest about that. (And not skeptic at all.)
 

FatPhil

Active Member
Hadn't Wilson already had a couple of minor strokes by that time, and had been showing signs of depression and anxiety? Perhaps him being undermined at Princeton several times because of outside influences fed paranoid musings? If so, views on matters conspiratorial could be taken with a pinch of salt.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
This is not a debunk. This is your opinion of your interpretation of someone else's opinion.

My opinion: It is the same thing Woodrow was talking about. Woodrow used the word "monopoly" because he was talking about business*, but if you were talking about politics, the word would switch to something like "deep state" or "Illuminati". But the analogy works fine for me.

(although Woodrow's wording is poor. It sounds like he is talking about the Mob. or even Unions. not about Monopolies.)




*and Woodrow is not talking about
preventing small businessmen from achieving success in their chosen field.
because Wilson (the quote should be in bold btw) said:
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture,...."

small business men are not the "biggest men in the United States".




This sounds like a case of "Me thinks thou protests too much". are all your supposed "debunks" of this movie, this poor in quality?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Hadn't Wilson already had a couple of minor strokes by that time, and had been showing signs of depression and anxiety? Perhaps him being undermined at Princeton several times because of outside influences fed paranoid musings? If so, views on matters conspiratorial could be taken with a pinch of salt.

no, business monopolies were a problem in America
Article:
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890[1] (26 Stat. 209, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1–7) is a United States antitrust law which prescribes the rule of free competition among those engaged in commerce. It was passed by Congress and is named for Senator John Sherman, its principal author.

The Sherman Act broadly prohibits 1) anticompetitive agreements and 2) unilateral conduct that monopolizes or attempts to monopolize the relevant market. The Act authorizes the Department of Justice to bring suits to enjoin (i.e. prohibit) conduct violating the Act, and additionally authorizes private parties injured by conduct violating the Act to bring suits for treble damages (i.e. three times as much money in damages as the violation cost them). Over time, the federal courts have developed a body of law under the Sherman Act making certain types of anticompetitive conduct per se illegal, and subjecting other types of conduct to case-by-case analysis regarding whether the conduct unreasonably restrains trade.

The law attempts to prevent the artificial raising of prices by restriction of trade or supply.[2]
 

FatPhil

Active Member
The existence of a law does not prove the clarity of thought of a later politician, one who was well known for mental health problems.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
The next two paragraphs make even clearer what Wilson is talking about: That, by the 1910s, the USA is no longer the place where every private, upstart entrepreneur can make it if he just works hard and with ability, since every field of industry and commerce is already occupied by capitalist companies too large to prevail against.
And this is the country which has lifted to the admiration of the world its ideals of absolutely free opportunity, where no man is supposed to be under any limitation except the limitations of his character and of his mind; where there is supposed to be no distinction of class, no distinction of blood, no distinction of social status, but where men win or lose on their merits.

I lay it very close to my own conscience as a public man whether we can any longer stand at our doors and welcome all newcomers upon those terms. American industry is not free, as once it was free; American enterprise is not free; the man with only a little capital is finding it harder to get into the field, more and more impossible to compete with the big fellow. Why? Because the laws of this country do not prevent the strong from crushing the weak. That is the reason, and because the strong have crushed the weak the strong dominate the industry and the economic life of this country. No man can deny that the lines of endeavor have more and more narrowed and stiffened; no man who knows anything about the development of industry in this country can have failed to observe that the larger kinds of credit are more and more difficult to obtain, unless you obtain them upon the terms of uniting your efforts with those who already control the industries of the country; and nobody can fail to observe that any man who tries to set himself up in competition with any process of manufacture which has been taken under the control of large combinations of capital will presently find himself either squeezed out or obliged to sell and allow himself to be absorbed.
(Quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Business/Selected_quote/47)

It's necessary to be aware that "The New Freedom" is not a monograph authored, organized, structured by Woodrow Wilson. It is a collection of things he said in campaign speeches - edited by someone else. So it is possible that adjacent paragraphs weren't spoken literally and in that order; it's possible that some text was left out. It's possible that the content of several similar speeches were condensed into one composite record.

This quote, and its context, have already been discussed here on Metabunk some years ago:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/woodrow-wilson-they-know-that-there-is-a-power-somewhere.4878/

Apparently, the entire book, its copyright expired, is available here (and the quote is from Chapter 1 apparently - page 8, or 9, or 13?):
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14811
Alas, it is blocked here in Germany, where Project Gutenberg seems to be uncertain of its copyright status.
 

Marc Powell

Active Member
This is not a debunk. This is your opinion of your interpretation of someone else's opinion.

My opinion: It is the same thing Woodrow was talking about. Woodrow used the word "monopoly" because he was talking about business*, but if you were talking about politics, the word would switch to something like "deep state" or "Illuminati". But the analogy works fine for me.

(although Woodrow's wording is poor. It sounds like he is talking about the Mob. or even Unions. not about Monopolies.)




*and Woodrow is not talking about

because Wilson (the quote should be in bold btw) said:
"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture,...."

small business men are not the "biggest men in the United States".




This sounds like a case of "Me thinks thou protests too much". are all your supposed "debunks" of this movie, this poor in quality?
Me thinks I protest too little. You can't seriously be saying you think that Hooper's reference to the cherry-picked Woodrow Wilson quote was appropriate. Regardless of whether it was intended as an analogy, it was presented to support his dubious claim that an invisible shadow government exists and that it was behind the 9/11 attacks. My previous revelations about deceptions in the David Hooper/Richard Gage film stand on their own merits. Please read and comment on them if you think that I am mischaracterizing the film and unjustly smearing its makers.

BTW, thanks for the tip about using bold for a quote within a quote. I will use that in the future.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
BTW, thanks for the tip about using bold for a quote within a quote. I will use that in the future.
Your quoting style seems fine to me.

I have never seen bold used to indicate quotes, and wonder for which type of text this would be acceptable style. Bold typically indicates emphasis.

The grammar guides all say to employ alternating double and single quotation marks for nested quotes, and that's what you did, given that there's forum formatting indicating the outermost quote.

I sometimes use italics for quotes such as these, especially when it's a "quotation" type of quote, such as lyrics or an excerpt from some other writing, but most people seem to advise against it.
 

Marc Powell

Active Member
Your quoting style seems fine to me.

I have never seen bold used to indicate quotes, and wonder for which type of text this would be acceptable style. Bold typically indicates emphasis.

The grammar guides all say to employ alternating double and single quotation marks for nested quotes, and that's what you did, given that there's forum formatting indicating the outermost quote.

I sometimes use italics for quotes such as these, especially when it's a "quotation" type of quote, such as lyrics or an excerpt from some other writing, but most people seem to advise against it.
I have only been posting threads to this forum and responding to comments for about a month. I am still learning how to use the tools in the ribbon bar and how to follow established Metabunk protocols. Thanks for your encouragement and advice.
 
Last edited:

deirdre

Senior Member.
Your quoting style seems fine to me.

I have never seen bold used to indicate quotes, and wonder for which type of text this would be acceptable style. Bold typically indicates emphasis.

The grammar guides all say to employ alternating double and single quotation marks for nested quotes, and that's what you did, given that there's forum formatting indicating the outermost quote.

I sometimes use italics for quotes such as these, especially when it's a "quotation" type of quote, such as lyrics or an excerpt from some other writing, but most people seem to advise against it.

the reason to bold the woodrow wilson quote, in this case, is so we can find it easier in that wall of text. since the quote is the topic of the thread and readers will want to figure out the context.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Regardless of whether it was intended as an analogy, it was presented to support his dubious claim that an invisible shadow government exists and that it was behind the 9/11 attacks.

eh. sort of. but i think it's a pretty minor thing to focus on, conspiracy theorists say "people engage in conspiracies all the time", " the government has lied in the past" etc etc. It's just part of the schtick.

plus woodrow wilson was almost 100 years prior to 9/11. so what if American groups were up to sneaky things back then.. of course they were. hence the laws passed to combat such things.

I dont mind you explaining the woodrow wilson quote, but you had labeled it debunked as if there was something to debunk. And i dont feel there is. Just my opinion.
 

Marc Powell

Active Member
eh. sort of. but i think it's a pretty minor thing to focus on, conspiracy theorists say "people engage in conspiracies all the time", " the government has lied in the past" etc etc. It's just part of the schtick.

plus woodrow wilson was almost 100 years prior to 9/11. so what if American groups were up to sneaky things back then.. of course they were. hence the laws passed to combat such things.

I dont mind you explaining the woodrow wilson quote, but you had labeled it debunked as if there was something to debunk. And i dont feel there is. Just my opinion.
Okay, so the Woodrow Wilson quote is not “bunk” in the sense that it is untrue. However, it is taken out of context and intended by Hooper to cajole the audience into believing his premise, which is untrue. Why else would Hooper even mention it and claim that his findings brought it to mind? So, I think it is fair game to point it out… just my opinion.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Hooper provides a 1913 quote from President Woodrow Wilson. Below is the quote and what Hooper had to say about it...Wilson was talking about monopolies that were, in his day, preventing small businessmen from achieving success...
Yes, WW spent years railing against the American Dream being killed by trusts/monopolies that squashed new ideas & small wanna-be entrepreneurs
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Okay, so the Woodrow Wilson quote is not “bunk” in the sense that it is untrue. However, it is taken out of context and intended by Hooper to cajole the audience into believing his premise, which is untrue. Why else would Hooper even mention it and claim that his findings brought it to mind? So, I think it is fair game to point it out… just my opinion.

i'm sorry i'm not explaining how i see the Hooper full quote better. Hooper said "I wondered if we were talking about the same thing".


To me, personally, it is same enough. the same concept of secret powerful groups.
Like technically a tiger is not the same thing as a lion. I get that. But they both stalk you, they both eat you, they both go-for-the-throat. TO me i'm comfortable saying "they are the same thing", vs say how a snake or a wild boar kills you.

Maybe Hooper is meaning it the way you are interpreting it, but it seems a bit too ambiguous ... to call Hoopers use of the WW quote debunked. You don't have to agree obviously, just sharing my own viewpoint.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Why would a goverment commission suppressing the truth remind Hooper of Woodrow Wilson fighting against business monopolies? The 9/11 commission is not a business.

The fact is that this Woodrow Wilson quote appears predominantly on "deep state" conspiracy websites, and that is why Hooper is "reminded" of it. If you learn of this quote in the movie, in that context, and then wonder if a US president has really provided proof that the government suppresses the truth, and then google that quote, it leads you right down that rabbit hole. That's why it's there, it's a hook in the imaginary reality game the CTists are playing. (see https://www.metabunk.org/threads/a-game-designer’s-analysis-of-qanon.11509/ )

This quote stands for the deep state conspiracy, and Hooper clearly uses it as such; but this misrepresents the original context of the quote, and is therefore misleading. The sentence leading up to it is worded in such a way to give the impression that Hooper has read this book ("struck me in Woodrow Wilson's book") while leaving open the interpretation that he's just intending to reference the quote's source. It would be honest to frame this quote as either (1) "I read this in a chapter on big business monopolistic strategies" or (2) "I found this quote on a deep state conspiracy theory website", but he's deliberately mixing the authority of the first frame with the context of the second frame. That's bunk.

Much of debunking is done by simply providing the proper context: "I saw a mysterious light in the sky, I believe that was a UFO" is debunked by providing the context that flight 401 from Denver was passing overhead at the time.

Hooper employs the Woodrow Wilson quote in a misleading context; and when Marc puts it in the correct context, he's debunking the movie.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
No. WW is our only PhD president, and he was at he top of his game in 1912 & 1913. The Nobel Prize came in 1919...it wasn't until near the end of 1919 that he had his first stroke.

The spells of temporary blindness and palsies that he suffered for decades prior to that imply some kind of neurological issue which aren't incompatible with minor strokes. The medical record does appear ambiguous about exactly what he suffered from, so perhaps they weren't mini strokes, they were something else. But that would be irrelevant, my argument still stands about possible neurological damage, whether they were strokes or not is neither here nor there. And combine that with him repeatedly not getting his way against the Dean at Princeton - because his better ideas were effectively outbid - and you can see that perhaps he might be biased on this issue. I'm not saying he didn't have book smarts, I'm saying he was far from disinterested.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Why would a goverment commission suppressing the truth remind Hooper of Woodrow Wilson fighting against business monopolies?
because not everyone on the commission would be part of the alleged "group" with the desire to suppress the truth. but the others are afraid to speak of it.

WW:

Hooper includes in the quote " in the field of commerce and manufacture," to give context to WW quote.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Hooper includes in the quote " in the field of commerce and manufacture," to give context to WW quote.
In the quote, "commerce and manufacture" indicates those who are afraid and not those who conspire. By Hooper's 9/11 context (and darn near every site that cites the incomplete quote), the conspirators are presumed to be the shadow government cabal.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
In the quote, "commerce and manufacture" indicates those who are afraid and not those who conspire. By Hooper's 9/11 context (and darn near every site that cites the incomplete quote), the conspirators are presumed to be the shadow government cabal.

oh. well on an upnote, newbies to 9/11 conspiracies who dont know what you are telling me, will hopefully hear it the same way i do. as an analogy of "groups of people have done sneaky power grabs in the [long long ago] past".
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
The spells of temporary blindness and palsies that he suffered for decades prior to that imply some kind of neurological issue which aren't incompatible with minor strokes. The medical record does appear ambiguous about exactly what he suffered from, so perhaps they weren't mini strokes, they were something else. But that would be irrelevant, my argument still stands about possible neurological damage, whether they were strokes or not is neither here nor there. And combine that with him repeatedly not getting his way against the Dean at Princeton - because his better ideas were effectively outbid - and you can see that perhaps he might be biased on this issue. I'm not saying he didn't have book smarts, I'm saying he was far from disinterested.
Hmmm...do you have a quality link that would establish that WW had some
significant cognitive impairment in 1912/1913? I'm not aware of one.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
Hmmm...do you have a quality link that would establish that WW had some
significant cognitive impairment in 1912/1913? I'm not aware of one.

Why have you changed my "neurological issue" into "significant cognitive impairment"?

Anyway, here's two sides of the discussion in one reference:
-- https://daily.jstor.org/woodrow-wilson-mental-health-and-the-white-house/

There is also plenty of references to various issues that smack of neurological problems (e.g. "Then he awoke one morning in May 1906 to discover that he was blind in his left eye and that, for the third time, his right arm felt weak.") in this fairly lengthy essay: http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/hidden-agony-woodrow-wilson (I recommend the PDF linked-to therefrom, the HTML's been mangled in places.)
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Why have you changed my "neurological issue" into "significant cognitive impairment"?

Anyway, here's two sides of the discussion in one reference:
-- https://daily.jstor.org/woodrow-wilson-mental-health-and-the-white-house/

There is also plenty of references to various issues that smack of neurological problems (e.g. "Then he awoke one morning in May 1906 to discover that he was blind in his left eye and that, for the third time, his right arm felt weak.") in this fairly lengthy essay: http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/hidden-agony-woodrow-wilson (I recommend the PDF linked-to therefrom, the HTML's been mangled in places.)
You wrote: "Hadn't Wilson already had a couple of minor strokes by that time, and had been showing signs of depression and anxiety?"

In the context of the discussion, I sincerely interpreted that as you suggesting that there was a record of some diminished mental capacity.
If that wasn't what you were implying, than why are you
introducing it?
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Active Member
You wrote: "Hadn't Wilson already had a couple of minor strokes by that time, and had been showing signs of depression and anxiety?"

In the context of the discussion, I sincerely interpreted that as you suggesting that there was a record of some diminished mental capacity.
If that wasn't what you were implying, than why are you
introducing it?

Did you read all of the Hidden Agony?
Do you think people with depression and anxiety issues have dimished mental capacity?
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Did you read all of the Hidden Agony?
Do you think people with depression and anxiety issues have dimished mental capacity?
I'm not sure why you're (evidently) stalling on just telling me what is behind
your position. Can you simply point to one of WW's many biographers,
and share where they assert that he had diminished mental capacity in 1912/1913.

(I'm sure you already know that Lynn's expertise is not with WW...)
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
This comes close to settling the issue: if you had plausible evidence that Wilson was paranoid when he wrote that quote (1913, or whenever he said that in the speech that this taken from), you'd be discrediting the idea that the quote is evidence for an actual conspiracy; because paranoid people are liable to imagine conspiracies where there are none, this could simply be such an imagined conspiracy.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
I'm not sure why you're (evidently) stalling on just telling me what is behind
your position. Can you simply point to one of WW's many biographers,
and share where they assert that he had diminished mental capacity in 1912/1913.

(I'm sure you already know that Lynn's expertise is not with WW...)

You're not answering my questions with *way* more vigour than I'm not answering yours, so I think you need to address the mote in your own eye before accusing me of stalling. For example, when you asked for citations, I supplied multiple. If you think they're wrong, debunk them.

From what you've said, I *still* can't be sure you've even read them. And verifying that was one of the questions you've already failed to answer once.

My stance I believe has already been made very clear - in long hand:
1) I'm questioning how much weight the quote can be given, not asserting it has no weight (look at all the questions in the post, that should be a clue that I'm questioning rather than asserting), in particular given:
2) He is very much *not* disinterested in the effects of such influence, being a victim of it several times in different contexts;
3) He appears to have had a long history of neurological issues which may have affected the rationality of his view.

You seem to have interpreted that as me saying little more than "Wilson was a retard, hurr durr", which I consider somewhat a mischaracterisation.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
2) He is very much *not* disinterested in the effects of such influence, being a victim of it several times in different contexts;
3) He appears to have had a long history of neurological issues which may have affected the rationality of his view.
2) seems to propose that someone who has experienced an influence is unfit to write about it? this feels like a fallacy

3) is speculation. To me, your evidence cited so far is insufficient to support the claim that it was likely to actually make this quote irrational. You need to connect the issues that Wilson is documented to have had to the claim that he was acting irrationally in general, or specifically with respect to the issue of business monopolies.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
This comes close to settling the issue: if you had plausible evidence that Wilson was paranoid when he wrote that quote (1913, or whenever he said that in the speech that this taken from), you'd be discrediting the idea that the quote is evidence for an actual conspiracy; because paranoid people are liable to imagine conspiracies where there are none, this could simply be such an imagined conspiracy.

The thing is that there was *some* plutocratic conspiracy, his Princeton years told him that. His ability to evaluate the magnitude of it is where it all becomes less clearly defined shades of grey. Of course, you have to remember that this was his campaign platform - he may have overstated things in order to stir up more interest in the enfranchised public.
 

FatPhil

Active Member
2) seems to propose that someone who has experienced an influence is unfit to write about it? this feels like a fallacy

3) is speculation. To me, your evidence cited so far is insufficient to support the claim that it was likely to actually make this quote irrational. You need to connect the issues that Wilson is documented to have had to the claim that he was acting irrationally in general, or specifically with respect to the issue of business monopolies.

On (2): What's the null hypothesis? Are victims expected to be rational about the thing they're the victim of?
On (3): It was worded *quite clearly* as speculation, as it was when I first raised it as something that might be interesting to factor into the discussion.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Hadn't Wilson already had a couple of minor strokes by that time, and had been showing signs of depression and anxiety?
You asked this, and I responded: "No. WW is our only PhD president, and he was at he top of his game in 1912 & 1913. The Nobel Prize came in 1919...it wasn't until near the end of 1919 that he had his first stroke."
Which I figured to be the end of it. To my surprise, you responded with repeated
posts implying something that you don't seem to want to try to substantiate.

You're not answering my questions with *way* more vigour than I'm not answering yours, so I think you need to address the mote in your own eye before accusing me of stalling.
Yes, I've made every effort to resist being distracted by red herrings,
and going down various rabbit holes, and have tried to stay focused
on the topic. I get that you keep implying diminished mental capacity.
I can also presume why you never offer a legit source for that idea.

You seem to have interpreted that as me saying little more than "Wilson was a retard, hurr durr", which I consider somewhat a mischaracterisation.
That makes it an awesome thing, then, that I said nothing of the kind, right? :)

3) is speculation. To me, your evidence cited so far is insufficient to support the claim that it was likely to actually make this quote irrational. You need to connect the issues that Wilson is documented to have had to the claim that he was acting irrationally in general, or specifically with respect to the issue of business monopolies.
Pretty much, yeah. :p I'm not looking for a fight, Phil. You implied something
that was not in line with the history as I know it. Multiple posts later, it remains
speculation. You're entirely within your rights to do so...I just wondered if you
knew something I didn't.

p.s. I may've been a bit cut-and-dried in my initial response...I realize that
there is conjecture about possible WW mini-strokes, much earlier...but
it's all pretty sketchy...that's why I focused on the 1919 stroke that everyone

agrees on.
 
Last edited:

FatPhil

Active Member
You asked this, and I responded: "No. WW is our only PhD president, and he was at he top of his game in 1912 & 1913. The Nobel Prize came in 1919...it wasn't until near the end of 1919 that he had his first stroke."
Which I figured to be the end of it. To my surprise, you responded with repeated
posts implying something that you don't seem to want to try to substantiate.

That goes beyond disingenuous - what do you think the citations in #24 are?
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
That goes beyond disingenuous - what do you think the citations in #24 are?
I already rejected Lynn and the other does nothing to make your case.

I get it: You have no real evidence of significant diminished capacity in
1912/1913. Had you just admitted that at the outset, you would've saved
both of us some time...
 

WhistlingWinds

New Member
All conspiracies start or incorporate a kernel of truth. Using things like Wilson's quote allows information laundering to be done internal to the narrative. The narrative is padded around it and rests around everyone here doing what we're doing; filling plot holes with our own opinions and our own interpretations of events.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
All conspiracies start or incorporate a kernel of truth. Using things like Wilson's quote allows information laundering to be done internal to the narrative. The narrative is padded around it and rests around everyone here doing what we're doing; filling plot holes with our own opinions and our own interpretations of events.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about conspiracy theories?

And if so, I guess I'm not aware of the "kernel of truth" in wild claims
about lizard people or wholly unsubstantiated allegations of stolen elections.
Can you clarify?
 

WhistlingWinds

New Member
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about conspiracy theories?

And if so, I guess I'm not aware of the "kernel of truth" in wild claims
about lizard people or wholly unsubstantiated allegations of stolen elections.
Can you clarify?
Yes, conspiracy theories and conspiratorial narratives. I'll break down both of those separately.

With Lizard People, if we try to hammer it down to specific originating 'sourcing' (can be hard with conspiracy theory narratives) or what the claims are based around as identifiable sources, it generally tends to be about someone's personal appearance.

I'll actually use an example right from here; https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-obamas-reptilian-secret-service-spotted-at-aipac.1323/

The truth here being, the person simply looks as the conspiratorial narratives claim. That does not make them true.
Specific claims:

"Even though at first sight he looks just like the average Secret Service spook" - Laying the ground for assumptive reasoning. What does "the average secret service spook" look like? Is it their clothing? Or their body? They wear similar clothing, BUT, the entire claim rests upon his physical appearance, not his clothing.

"a series of odd features on his head, face, and lots of very strange behavior and creepy movements" - What are "odd features?" Well, the "odd features" are pointed out in very specific timeframes, when the shots are taken from angles which alter appearance (among other factors). As Mick laid out in his debunk of the video "The apparent distortion is just because it's dark, low resolution, on a black background and he's out of focus." (this can be true for all the portions re physical appearance). The "strange behavior and creepy movements" is again, assumptive reasoning, it's said when the guy is looking around a lot and swaying back and forth. Rather than recognizing this could just be normal body language, mixed with actively participating on a protection detail, it piggy backs off the assumptive reasoning and leads into the below

"But due the low lighting and half the ampitheater, he would pass unnoticed or unguarded as a normal human being by the crowd. And everybody who watched this video, if it was not by the camera of the Jewish news one, which caught him from another angle apparently shape shifting into some reptilian non-human form" Here, the ground work for the actual conspiratorial narrative is laid out. This, mixed with the above, are all vocally presented at times when the camera is in angles in which the factors in which Mick laid out exist.

The root of this all being, to someone who hasn't seen someone with facial and bone structures as the guy above, with similar facial features, and similar body language? Watching the video, and listening to the other person lay it out, without actually exercising critical thinking; is going to lead, in a lot of cases, to your brain unconsciously filling in plot holes with what it hears.

This is where things get deeper, and the "rabbit hole" can start. Some people, will just take away what they heard the first time and run with it, that's usually the case with younger audiences or audiences that don't exercise as much err, I don't know a nice way to say it so I'll just say audiences that are easier to influence (as an example, someone who already believes in lots of conspiratorial narratives about the government, might be a bit more likely to believe similar narratives just because they exist and it already confirms their beliefs). Others will take it and go deeper into it.
Some of those will exercise critical thinking, and try to seek out legitimate sources, or alternatively, have the ability to try and actually solicit legitimate sources.
Some of those others may fall down the rabbit hole for varying reasons. Maybe it's because it's just another narrative that confirms their beliefs, so they end up weighing it more against the evidence. Maybe the way they use search terms brings up biased results, that, confirm their opinion, or alternatively, brings up more conspiracy theories (for example; if you look up "sandy hook", you'll get everything, but if you look up "sandy hook truth", first up to bat will be a bunch of conspiratorial narratives. a lot of people trying to find the "truth" might throw "truth" into their and sour their results, but not realize this). Maybe they ardently believe that most sources and the government just lie to bullshit the public, and it feeds into helping confirm their opinions that the government is hiding something. A lot of it loops back into self-confirmation, but in this example, we can see *all* the physical features they point out *do exist*. They just add a causation to the existence- that false causation being that they're a "shapeshifter" rather than them just being a human, and like any other human, having unique physical features or body movements.


With the election example, it's much simpler and I can save a lot of writing space. Election fraud AND accidents *do* happen, just the conspiracies, which we can also see from the framework above, branch outside of that truth (election fraud simply exists), and begin to add causation, further happenings, and reasoning. "election fraud" turns into "election fraud / by Biden and the democrats in conjunction with (insert random foreign countries that make no sense anyways) / to steal the election and push Trump / republicans out".
We can see with this example, the conspiratorial narratives tend to stray towards specific types of political or ideological beliefs. It just so happens that the disconnect in this example, internal to the narrative, is directed *towards* perceived adversarial ideological beliefs and political actors, *because* of believed intent. This example also has a dual side to it (narrative split), where the other narrative pulls off incidences of accidental errors, and ascribed intent and causation to the result, without any actual data or information of any sort to back it up, but rather personal opinion.
 

NoParty

Senior Member.
Yes, conspiracy theories and conspiratorial narratives. I'll break down both of those separately.

With Lizard People, if we try to hammer it down to specific originating 'sourcing' (can be hard with conspiracy theory narratives) or what the claims are based around as identifiable sources, it generally tends to be about someone's personal appearance.

I'll actually use an example right from here; https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-obamas-reptilian-secret-service-spotted-at-aipac.1323/

The truth here being, the person simply looks as the conspiratorial narratives claim. That does not make them true.
Specific claims:

"Even though at first sight he looks just like the average Secret Service spook" - Laying the ground for assumptive reasoning. What does "the average secret service spook" look like? Is it their clothing? Or their body? They wear similar clothing, BUT, the entire claim rests upon his physical appearance, not his clothing.

"a series of odd features on his head, face, and lots of very strange behavior and creepy movements" - What are "odd features?" Well, the "odd features" are pointed out in very specific timeframes, when the shots are taken from angles which alter appearance (among other factors). As Mick laid out in his debunk of the video "The apparent distortion is just because it's dark, low resolution, on a black background and he's out of focus." (this can be true for all the portions re physical appearance). The "strange behavior and creepy movements" is again, assumptive reasoning, it's said when the guy is looking around a lot and swaying back and forth. Rather than recognizing this could just be normal body language, mixed with actively participating on a protection detail, it piggy backs off the assumptive reasoning and leads into the below

"But due the low lighting and half the ampitheater, he would pass unnoticed or unguarded as a normal human being by the crowd. And everybody who watched this video, if it was not by the camera of the Jewish news one, which caught him from another angle apparently shape shifting into some reptilian non-human form" Here, the ground work for the actual conspiratorial narrative is laid out. This, mixed with the above, are all vocally presented at times when the camera is in angles in which the factors in which Mick laid out exist.

The root of this all being, to someone who hasn't seen someone with facial and bone structures as the guy above, with similar facial features, and similar body language? Watching the video, and listening to the other person lay it out, without actually exercising critical thinking; is going to lead, in a lot of cases, to your brain unconsciously filling in plot holes with what it hears.

This is where things get deeper, and the "rabbit hole" can start. Some people, will just take away what they heard the first time and run with it, that's usually the case with younger audiences or audiences that don't exercise as much err, I don't know a nice way to say it so I'll just say audiences that are easier to influence (as an example, someone who already believes in lots of conspiratorial narratives about the government, might be a bit more likely to believe similar narratives just because they exist and it already confirms their beliefs). Others will take it and go deeper into it.
Some of those will exercise critical thinking, and try to seek out legitimate sources, or alternatively, have the ability to try and actually solicit legitimate sources.
Some of those others may fall down the rabbit hole for varying reasons. Maybe it's because it's just another narrative that confirms their beliefs, so they end up weighing it more against the evidence. Maybe the way they use search terms brings up biased results, that, confirm their opinion, or alternatively, brings up more conspiracy theories (for example; if you look up "sandy hook", you'll get everything, but if you look up "sandy hook truth", first up to bat will be a bunch of conspiratorial narratives. a lot of people trying to find the "truth" might throw "truth" into their and sour their results, but not realize this). Maybe they ardently believe that most sources and the government just lie to bullshit the public, and it feeds into helping confirm their opinions that the government is hiding something. A lot of it loops back into self-confirmation, but in this example, we can see *all* the physical features they point out *do exist*. They just add a causation to the existence- that false causation being that they're a "shapeshifter" rather than them just being a human, and like any other human, having unique physical features or body movements.


With the election example, it's much simpler and I can save a lot of writing space. Election fraud AND accidents *do* happen, just the conspiracies, which we can also see from the framework above, branch outside of that truth (election fraud simply exists), and begin to add causation, further happenings, and reasoning. "election fraud" turns into "election fraud / by Biden and the democrats in conjunction with (insert random foreign countries that make no sense anyways) / to steal the election and push Trump / republicans out".
We can see with this example, the conspiratorial narratives tend to stray towards specific types of political or ideological beliefs. It just so happens that the disconnect in this example, internal to the narrative, is directed *towards* perceived adversarial ideological beliefs and political actors, *because* of believed intent. This example also has a dual side to it (narrative split), where the other narrative pulls off incidences of accidental errors, and ascribed intent and causation to the result, without any actual data or information of any sort to back it up, but rather personal opinion.
That's a lot of words!

But I still don't see the "kernels of truth" you're asserting.

Study after study clearly establishes that there is almost no voter fraud.
The few times that someone accidentally voted twice (mostly confused,
older white males, incidentally)
are infinitesimal compared to the number
of votes cast. There's literally zero evidence of a concerted, large scale
conspiracy (never mind successful!) that could misrepresent hundeds
(never mind thousands or millions!) of votes. I just don't see a
"kernel of truth" here.

As to the lizard people, out of all the words you used,
which part are you actually claiming is a "kernel of truth" ?
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
about lizard people or wholly unsubstantiated allegations of stolen elections.

didnt we evolve from frogs? or something lizardly like that. although, not sure frogs are related to lizards. they're green.

i'm sure elections have been stolen somewhere on earth in the past, like didnt we contest some foreign election like just a few years ago?

chemtrails seeded by government sneaky experiments in the past and spraying for west nile etc.
Flat Earth from bible literalists (even though the bible doesnt say that) or from back in history when some people thought the earth was flat.

etc.

edit add: conspiracy theorists arent actually imaginative enough to come up with their own stuff, if they were they'd be better at spinning the tale.
 
Top