The gazillionith July Stundie Nom thread

Once again, they know there are top secret documents they can't see containing all the facts they would know but are prevented because it's secret and hidden but they know - damit! :mad:

paloalto said:
Why would the CIA get annoyed about this? Surely they should either publish an official account to put this to rest, or they should welcome the producers for showing a flaw in national security?

They did publish an official account, the CIA IG report, but this account has been kept super secret. Why keep this account secret if there is really nothing to hide, like allowing the al Qaeda terrorists to murder almost 3000 people in the US?

If there is really nothing to hide, then why not release this report to the American public so all can see what had taken place at the CIA prior to the attacks on 9/11?
I'm interested how it is you know there is a "super secret" classified report in the first place much less that it contains all the answers which you seek?:rolleyes:
 
A nice "Sovereign Citizen" one:


I for one, do know something about these things, and would not be willing to share what I know with everyone because not everyone "can handle the truth" lol. Seriously, most people would not be able to live responsibly and act appropriately with the information and I am not interested in seeing our society and global economy go through the upheaval that would follow if somethings became public knowlege


http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15306988&postcount=49
 
Probably doesn't stand much of a chance of winning, but...

ANTPogo rightfully points out that the Hawai'i state department of health has the final say on whether someone is actually born in their state...

The Hawaii State Department of Health disagrees.

I'm pretty sure their opinion outweighs yours. Especially because they're the ones who printed and issued it.

And in response, chuck4842 hauls out good ol' Shurrf Joe as his certified (read: looney tunes) evidence

A sheriff of the US agrees. I'm sure his opinion outweighs yours. Especially since his job is to enforce the law.

Yes, apparently a sheriff of a relatively small county with no legal authority outside of said county trumps the word of a state department tasked by law with certifying the births in their state and whom are backed up by the freakin' CONSTITUTION in saying that all states must treat the certified documents from one state as legal proof of residency and citizenship.

The ability of birthers to create cognitive dissonance is unmatched, except perhaps by Holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, or 9/11 truthers.
 
"I have watched several documentries on the moon hoax and they all seem to have missed one thing. There where no remote control cameras taken to the moon they where all hand held or placed on a tripod, so how would you explain that when leaving the moon the camera panned up to follow the LEM, now they either left a cameraman on the moon or they tied a piece of string to one of the landing vehicles legs. I would like to point out that tying string with thick gardening gloves on is difficult here on earth, so who did they leave,!"

That poster is obviously wrong; what a loon.

The string was pre-tied on Earth.
 
Once again they show their staggeringly comprehensive knowledge of the topic they address so often....





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Roving_Vehicle

Not to mention the landing legs stayed on the Moon. This had to be pointed out to Jack White when he started "researching" the photo record, btw.

The most absolute ignorant hoaxer claim I have seen said, "Look at the craft that landed on the Moon and look at the craft that returned to Earth. It wasn't even the same spacecraft! Of course it was hoaxed."
 
That said, let me clearly explain why the opinions and claims of people who argue in support of the official story, whom I like to call "myth huggers," and who try to shoot down (no pun intended), explain away or outright deny the many disturbing questions that remain about 9/11, can NOT be regarded as valid in any way, shape of form.

Source.

Yes, because for most people a 'pun' about hundreds of people being killed is so funny.

ETA: Maybe it's not so Stundie-worty. If that is the case, I'd like to nominate the whole article.
 
Last edited:
Yeah and the CM didn't bank to make course corrections either. Totally fake.
 
My eye doctor tricked me into wearing stronger and stronger glasses that destroyed my vision. BTW this proves that there is a massive conspiracy to make us sick for the purpose of making us pay doctors to fix us:
http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot...howComment=1343337521538#c8729945526428121380

Most of the people I know (mostly guys in their twenties) suffer from at least one kind of medical condition they probably wouldn’t have it if it weren’t for our glorious medical care (by this I don’t mean solely the US medical system, since I’m from Europe). Like you said, Keoni, they create patients so they can cure them, and make a profit in doing so, as well as keeping as much people as possible dependent to them.

Personally, I’ve always had serious vision problems. The doctors always told me that they were genetic and inherited, and that there was nothing I could do about it; however, if I wore the newest model of glasses the eye problems would go away. Being the good, obedient slave I was I took their “advice” wholeheartedly. Now, ten years later, I’m half-blind without my glasses thanks to constant increase in prescription my ophthalmologist forced upon me. My options? Continue to wear even stronger glasses or get an eye surgery. The industry profits with both options: either way I end up paying them money to “cure” a condition I wouldn’t have in the first place (at least not in that intensity) if it weren’t for them. Now consider how many people nowadays are prescribed glasses to “improve” their vision (where it’s proven that glasses actually hurt vision) and how much money they make on it; it’s staggering.

And the thing that annoys me the most is that when I tell people this stuff they shrug their shoulders and spit the usual “you should take the doctor’s advice” crap. Ah, conventional wisdom.

And like I said, this is only my thing: one medical condition among hundreds they make a nice profit of. I wowed to myself that if I ever regain my health, specifically my vision, that I’ll start some kind of a project to raise awareness about the various medical scams people are subjected to without them knowing.
 
Since the NIH gave James Holmes, the Batman movie shooter, a grant to study, this means that the government was behind the shooting:
http://vault-co.blogspot.com/2012/07/federal-funded-massacre-provides-needed.html

Holmes was shooting government-issue bullets and wearing government-issue body armor. The reason he had the money was the government gave it to him. Nobody is arguing this. The cat is out of the bag.

Bethesda Naval Hospital being the sinister nexus of MK-ULTRA brainwashing in conspiracy theory going back more than 70+ years, of course. A coincidence, to be sure. Oh and this guy was in some "special" neuroscience study program that had to do with conformance and behavioural modification. Seriously, people, what more do you need? Do you need them to make a full confession? "We staged a false flag and we're so sorry. We had good intentions, we were trying to help the UN enforce their new regime to disarm Americans that they declared two weeks prior in every international newspaper on the planet. So that makes it okay."
 
PRESS CONFERENCE
PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL
DALLAS, TEXAS
NOVEMBER 22, 1963
2:16 P.M. CST


DR. KEMP CLARK-
—to relieve any possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound.
A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue.



Another Pinocchio. Back of the head is where the large wound was. Dr.Kemp made no statement of inference of entry or exit.



It means he declined to make a conclusion or a judgment as to entry or exit. Obviously. But the wound as described speaks for itself. Hardly a wound of entrance.

Yes, the doctor who said that a missile either went in or out the wound didn't mean enter or exit... But he did mean exit.
 
My eye doctor tricked me into wearing stronger and stronger glasses that destroyed my vision. BTW this proves that there is a massive conspiracy to make us sick for the purpose of making us pay doctors to fix us:
http://hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot...howComment=1343337521538#c8729945526428121380

Unfortunately there is a teeny grain of truth in that run of paranoia.

While stationed in the High Arctic on a weather station, I broke one arm of my prescription glasses. Consequently (given that the nearest optometrist was 1500 miles away and I could not simply take a week off to travel there and back) I only wore them when outside so I could make out objects more than 20 feet away well, and while driving. I did not need them for reading in the first place.
When back south I visited my optometrist (odd that the poster was seeing an opthamologist for eye glasses isn't it?) and he told me that my eyes had gotten somewhat better. Of course they were far from 100% and I still needed glasses to see distances well. He told me that it is not uncommon when someone is forced to not wear glasses for the eyes to adjust somewhat.

Increasing prescription strength simply allows one to continue having perfect vision, if you are ok with the lack of clarity, and don't need to drive a vehicle, then many people could avoid glasses altogether. It would take away some enjoyment of life for no particular good reason. One might not be able to make out one's child learning to ride a bike, not be able to see the stage well when attending a concert, (on a more base level imagine not having good vision at the beach;)) and frustrate those around them by constantly having to ask "what's that sign say?"
 
Last edited:
Yes, the doctor who said that a missile either went in or out the wound didn't mean enter or exit... But he did mean exit.

I find it amazing that a doctor could make no defintive declaration of the wound being entry or exit but that the specialist known as Robert Prey found its appearance to be definitively that of an exit wound.

wadda guy!
 
I find it amazing that a doctor could make no defintive declaration of the wound being entry or exit but that the specialist known as Robert Prey found its appearance to be definitively that of an exit wound.

wadda guy!

From the same doctors description no less.

Clearly these hospitals were paying the wrong guy to treat gunshot wounds.
 
Old Testament vs New Testament rule and regulations.

AvalonXQ said:
How do we know which were abolished, which were fulfilled, and which are still active?

The whole thing was fulfilled and is no longer binding. It's not a pick-and-choose situation.
AvalonXQ said:
So the entire old testament is moot,
No. For further explanation, please read the rest of the thread.
 

Back
Top Bottom