forum Politics and Society ›› On the "Someone Would Have Talked" Argument ›› new reply Post Reply

9/11 = Inside Job
5,974 Posts

offline   (1)
April 17 2012 10:39 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy
By Russ Baker on Apr 10, 2012

Would covert operatives whose work involves subverting democratic governments abroad—including violent coups such as the one that brought down Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973—hesitate when ordered to participate in comparable activities at home?

We’re constantly told that no such thing could happen in the good ole USA (certainly not in the deaths of JFK, RFK, MLK, for example), if for no other reason than that it is impossible to keep such plots secret.

Or, in the common parlance: “Someone would have talked.”

The logic goes: since no one has come forward to describe their role in such plots, therefore no plot has existed.

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Read the rest of the article HERE:
click here for link

Now, what I really wanted to discuss: There was a truly EXCELLENT comment by "Capt. America" in the above link, which I will re-post in its entirety with my comments in italics:

"Someone would have talked": On Believers and Questioners

by "Capt. America"

Person #1: [States a plausible theory concerning how the government may have conducted a nefarious operation and then lied to the public about it.]
Person #2: "That's impossible. There would have to have been so many people involved. Someone would have talked."

Who is right: Person #1 or Person #2?

No matter how much research Person #1 does, he can never attain absolute certainty about his theory. Absolute certainty about empirical matters is impossible. See Rene Descartes, Meditations I. However, the difference between Person #1 and Person #2 is not in the truth-value of their respective beliefs, but rather their orientation towards truth itself.

(Hear, hear! That is absolutely right! Do a search on "Apophatic Learning." That is key. Look up what Jiddhu Krishnamurti said about that. He said, "Until the false is seen as the false, truth is not." Look up what Arthur Conan Doyle said. "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, MUST be the truth.")

Person #2 is a Believer whereas Person #1 is a Questioner. Most Questioners used to be Believers; it is rare to find a Believer who used to be a Questioner.

(Well, of course, unless that person decided to start taking SSRI drugs somewhere along the way...)

Questioners are a tortured lot. On one hand, they are constantly attempting to save Believers from their certainty in the "consensus opinion." On the other hand, Questioners are constantly attempting to test those few beliefs that they have attained, which they acknowledge to have been imperfectly established. This is a never-ending task and the Questioners are never satisfied.

Believers, by contrast, spend most of their time in blissful ignorance.

They see the world as "given" and spend their time worrying about things like sports, interpersonal relationships or career advancement.

(I would add, "mornings, and recent purchases")

While some Believers get their worldview from watching or reading the News...

(Or mainstream science magazines and college textbooks...)

...most get it by osmosis, by referring to what "most people think" as a guide.

Believers and Questioners are fundamentally at odds. Questioners either view Believers as simpletons or (as stated above) as naive souls to be saved.

(Note: I have given up on trying to "save" anyone, a long time ago. That is a lost cause. I just put interesting information out there occasionally and hope that at least a few of you will read it and give it some thought.

While many Questioners find Believers boring or pathetic, Questioners do not usually hate Believers. However, Believers invariably detest Questioners. See Plato, The Trial of Socrates.

(That has CERTAINLY been my experience during my many years of posting at this website.)

The reason for Believer's hate of the Questioner is based on the fact that the Questioner, simply by posing the question, succeeds in momentarily jolting the Believer out of his blissful ignorance. This momentary jolt is painful, of course, which causes the Believer to recoil at whatever idea the Questioner had momentarily created in his mind. The Believer's salve is to reject that idea outright as preposterous. He will rely on any handy method to do so.

("Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Blarga blarga hurf durf." "Jewz did 9-11")

The "someone would have talked" argument is a handy method that Believers use to get rid of an uncomfortable idea. If the "someone would have talked" phenomenon is as true as the law of gravity, then why, the Questioner asks, does the government go to the pains of conducting background checks? Why did no one talk about Operation Northwoods before it became declassified? Why does barely anyone talk about it now?

(That document, by the way, is HERE: click here for link)

The Questioner is relentless. If he goes to too far, though, the Believer is going to have to rely on other means to get back to the blissful state to which he has become attached. When he fails to refute the Questioner on his own, he will resort to others. He will turn to other Believers and say "Look at this guy! How crazy is he!?" The other Believers will be quick to rally around the irked Believer-cum-leader. Before you know it, the Questioner has become an outcast. Or worse. When the Believers are done with him, the Questioner will eventually become "no one."

This is the reason why the "someone would have talked" argument fails: because whoever talks is no longer someone worth being listened to, at least as far as the Believer is concerned.

But I wouldn't try to explain this to a Believer, if I were you.

do svidaniya
6,566 Posts

offline     (6)
April 17 2012 11:15 PM   QuickQuote Quote  
Fuck Nazis.
24,526 Posts

offline   (9)
April 18 2012 11:46 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Meanwhile, conspirators leave numerous tiny little clues often hidden in names or terminology or pictures that completely reveal their nefarious scheme just so some people will find them... because that makes perfect fucking sense... as long as you believe the conspirators are as much a group of cranks, nutjobs, and loons as those so convinced of their existence.
9/11 = Inside Job
5,974 Posts

offline   (1)
April 26 2012 1:43 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
I have been considering posting the following link here on PAHC for over a year now and I kept hesitating, because I kept thinking that none of you would be open-minded enough to read something like this, but, fuck it. This is something you all need to read for yourselves, but when you read it, you must read it with an open mind. Now's the time; I'm not waiting a moment longer:

This self-proclaimed illuminati Insider appeared on the "Above Top Secret" forum in October 2008, giving away information about the Illuminati Agenda and their goals.

The reason for this, he says, is because time is right for us to know some of what is going on behind the scenes. And when he explains WHY he needs to reveal it now, it's very convincing. In this article I will post the dialogue between the "Above Top Secret Forum" members and "Hidden Hand" in its entirety.

Please take time to read through this whole dialogue (yes, I know it's long, but I think we all can benefit from it, even if you end up not believing what is said). When you read it, you need to have an open mind; you can't be stuck in dogma or think you "have it all figured out" already, because then it doesn't matter what he says, you won't believe it.

Here are some points which makes him very believable; one being that the forum members he is communicating with make up pages after pages of random questions (as you can see in this article) and he answers them intelligently and precisely without the delay it would take for a person presenting a hoax to come up with them.

This is also what the forum members notice.

And he is consistent! Many of the questions are very good, deep, to the point and philosophical, and this guy (or woman, we don't know - this being claims not to be from this Earth), manages to reply on a very deep level, and his answers don't contradict each other. In an advanced and intelligent dialogue like this, it's very unlikely anyone would be able to do that without giving himself away at some point.

You will most certainly notice he/she is sincere.

Ever wondered who is "on top of the Pyramid?" He gives us a clue. The bloodline he represents is well above the Rothschild's in power and in the hierarchy and is extra-terrestrial in origin.

The 13 bloodlines we have been talking about thus far on this website and others, with the Rothschild's in a top position together with the Merovingian Nobility, are quite low rank in the Big Pyramid Structure, and are the ones playing a power game here on Earth, only aware of parts of the Big Game (a need to know basis). The bloodline "Hidden Hand" is supposedly belonging to is way more advanced and higher rank.

I really think this being believes in what he is saying, and whether he is deceived himself to some degree or not, this is most probably what is driving the Illuminati. These are their goals! It leaves you with a pretty strange feeling after have read it all, but deep inside it rings true.

His answers may need to be read more than once to understand the different layers of what he is telling us. Afterwards, when you start connecting the dots you notice that a lot of pieces in the big puzzle that previously were missing and left unanswered, suddenly fit.

If you are visiting the Illuminati News website for the first time, already have a fair concept of what the Illuminati and the New World Order is about, and you only intend to read ONE article from my huge database, I would say this one would be the one to read! [You certainly don't want to lose this page and then need to go through data recovery on your internet browser hoping you didn't lose it so you can come back to it later!]

It's been hard to perceive what ULTIMATELY drives the Illuminati.


Greed? Yes

Power? Of course

Control? Sure

But you always have this feeling that there is a deeper mystery behind their "Great Work of the Ages". This may very well be the answer!

When you are done reading this article and feel inspired, please go to the Law of One, and start absorbing the information presented there. It is a huge database on the same subject, but extensively expanded. Both these article, may if we read them with understanding plus an open mind and an open heart, show us the real so(u)lution to the New World Order problem.

Here is the dialogue between the Above Top Secret members [ATS] and "Hidden Hand" [HH], the self-proclaimed Illuminati Insider:

Easy-to-read condensed version:
click here for link

Original Above Top Secret forum page ("Window Of Opportunity, page 1") where the actual discussion occurred:
click here for link
master quoter
30,897 Posts

offline  mobile reply   (2)
April 26 2012 1:45 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Brett Weir
im gay
45,270 Posts

offline  mobile reply   (8)
April 26 2012 4:56 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Originally posted by: TOOTHPAC SHAKUR


9/11 = Inside Job
5,974 Posts

offline   (1)
April 30 2012 12:15 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
"The Secret Meeting That Changed Rap Music And Destroyed A Generation"
click here for link

(Anonymous music industry insider reveals the secret link between the entertainment industry and the private prison industrial complex, and the reason why gangster rap was deliberately promoted, after 20 years of silence.)
Baby Cole
43,570 Posts

offline   (13)
April 30 2012 12:16 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Shut the fuck up Dwarn.
Ron Shark
Time Husk
27,235 Posts

offline     (5)
April 30 2012 11:40 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
do svidaniya
6,566 Posts

offline     (6)
April 30 2012 11:50 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
you had me until "Illuminati"

shit, that's being generous, you had me until "Dwarn"
9/11 = Inside Job
5,974 Posts

offline   (1)
May 2 2012 4:12 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
How do you explain these images being depicted on trading cards for a game called "Illuminati: New World Order," by Steve Jackson (SJ Games) from back in 1995?

Bloodlines of the Illuminati
click here for link
Time Husk
1 Posts

March 22 2018 5:08 AM   QuickQuote Quote  
Thanks for the chance to read this useful information. I hope that you would like to know some insightful l information about bettering your writing skills as well. I advise to look at the best resume writing services in NYC and choose the quality writer.
click here for link
forum Politics and Society ›› On the "Someone Would Have Talked" Argument ›› new reply Post Reply

Quick Reply - RE: On the "Someone Would Have Talked" Argument

Connect with Facebook to comment: Login w/FB

or Sign up free! - or login:


wrap selection with italics
wrap selection with bold
insert less than symbol
insert greater than symbol

google image Insert Google Images
Share a Band

Your ad here?