Cartoon Network Showing illuminati Messages?

originally posted by: mahatche
The existence of this thread is the reason why they did it. They know it will make the Illuminati crowd talk. It's tongue in cheek marketing. Mr Pickles is a satanic dog, they lead in with a joke about satanic indoctrination.

wait, i take back what I just said. After seeing the word Illuminati i now have a subtle urge to kill hookers! noooooooooooooooooo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Sorry I don't buy disinformation and that website peddles it wholesale. It makes conclusions then presents evidence to support it. That is the opposite way to go about doing things and is called a confirmation bias with the whole pleiades thing. In any case, it's not like I've never been to that site. I have.

Also, if I cannot trust one piece of information from the site, it lays doubts on the rest of it. So I don't need to review the whole site to decide that it is fake. I just have to determine that one article from it that they are presenting as true is fake. Once that is done, its credibility is shook and from there it is easy to dismantle the whole site since all its claims are built off of the information it presents.

If you want to believe it, that is on you. I guess your standards for evidence are a lot more lax than for me. I don't accept predetermined conclusions and evidence designed to fit the conclusion, or just straight up assumptions with no evidence at all presented as fact. But calling my mind closed is laughable.

You are obviously ignorant of the site despite your claims to have been there. Let's take a look at exactly what you're "debunking". First here's what the site basically is:

This site wants to emulate a Virtual Library, including information found on the Internet in connection with reports, news, treatises, studies, theories and findings made possible by a multitude of people and personalities (professors, teachers, scientists, researchers, experts in religion, politicians, philosophers, members of intelligence, etc.), who have been devoted for decades to informing the general public (most recently through the Internet) of "new information" and a new way of seeing and interpreting History, Sciences, Sociopolitics, Myths and Legends, Archeology, Astronomy, etc.

THE SITE YOU THOUGHT YOU KNEW

Ok so basically since you came across one invalid article you're now debunking every single document, all testimony, all whistleblowers,...virtually every informative (no matter how speculative) piece of information from a myriad of sources past and present. You spoke as if this was the site's own original content but it's not. They make that clear here:

Nothing herein has been produced by us. Our role is one as simple archivists.
We do not promote neither any "line" in particular, nor any movement, doctrine, education or political thought. We are like all of you, Truth Seekers... Nothing more, nothing less.

The information is to be assimilated with discernment in order to separate the wheat from the chaff all while applying critical thinking under the realization that everything in this world is not always what it seemed. You however are entitled to stick with your skeptic beliefs and you can continue to shun the abundance of info contained within. The purpose of the site is to educate and inform. Don't miss out.

a reply to: AnonymousWitness

that is truly disturbing

If you thought that was bad, what about this blatant admission?

a reply to: Bedlam
So the Simpsons mocked the Freemasons and that is proof of anything?

originally posted by: KSigMason

So the Simpsons Adult Swim mocked the Freemasons Illuminati and that is proof of anything?

a reply to: Bedlam
Exactly. Just because symbols or references are used doesn't mean its the group itself. I find the Stonecutters song funny, but I have a sense of humor and I don't try to connect dots that are not there.

originally posted by: KSigMason
a reply to: Bedlam
Exactly. Just because symbols or references are used doesn't mean its the group itself. I find the Stonecutters song funny, but I have a sense of humor and I don't try to connect dots that are not there.

Ah. Sorry. I was making an amusing parallel between the two that seemed to me to be obvious in nature, but on the net it's often hard to tell.

a reply to: Bedlam

Do not mind Ksig, he just needs a drink.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Bedlam

Do not mind Ksig, he just needs a drink.

No huhu. We're all brothers here. Or so I take it from names and past posts. Even though I suppose I'm not in good standing now, it's hard to do when you're always TDY'd. Although that's an excuse.

a reply to: Bedlam

Easy enough to rectify. BTW, watch out for Augustus. He hates to drink alone, so he always tries to con others into slipping into his den of inequity. Lush.

a reply to: 2Chainz

If kids are watching Adult Swim, it's a parenting problem. Don't want your kids exposed, don't let'em watch.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

You should have continued that quote for the remainder:

These explorations bring more light to mystical and "religious" information than we have received through a dogmatic system of education, often unclear, distorted and manipulated.

Here, we have the opportunity to report on new chapters beyond current knowledge, such as Exopolitics, Neo-Archeology, Parascience, "Alternative" Medicine, Life in Our Universe and much more...

In other words its all bunk: channeled crap, speculation, and various flimsy sources. It doesn't work through empirical evidence and allows all sorts of pseudo-scientific evidence gathering means. It's NOT a trustworthy site and only caters to people who already believe that stuff (confirmation bias).

I only care about peer reviewed studies for my evidence, which don't appear on that site.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TrueMessiah

You should have continued that quote for the remainder:

These explorations bring more light to mystical and "religious" information THAN we have received through a dogmatic system of education, often unclear, distorted and manipulated.

Here, we have the opportunity to report on new chapters beyond current knowledge, such as Exopolitics, Neo-Archeology, Parascience, "Alternative" Medicine, Life in Our Universe and much more...

In other words its all bunk: channeled crap, speculation, and various flimsy sources. It doesn't work through empirical evidence and allows all sorts of pseudo-scientific evidence gathering means. It's NOT a trustworthy site and only caters to people who already believe that stuff (confirmation bias).

I only care about peer reviewed studies for my evidence, which don't appear on that site.

If there was ever a blueprint for limiting the pursuit of knowledge this is it. Go ahead and stick to what has been traditionally spoonfed to you by your "peer reviewed studies" (which by the way can also be manipulated and distorted to suite various agendas).

Oh and just to be clear, you misinterpreted that quote.

These explorations bring more light to mystical and "religious" information THAN we have received through a dogmatic system of education, often unclear, distorted and manipulated.

What this is saying is that the site sheds more light on various topics, OPPOSED to what has been previously taught and studied, which is actually what the quote denounces.

originally posted by: TrueMessiah
If there was ever a blueprint for limiting the pursuit of knowledge this is it. Go ahead and stick to what has been traditionally spoonfed to you by your "peer reviewed studies" (which by the way can also be manipulated and distorted to suite various agendas).

You are right, peer reviewed sources CAN be distorted and wrong, but that is what the peer review process is for. Once they are exposed as fraudulent or flawed, they are tossed out and are no longer part of the scientific knowledge base. At least they attempt to explain things by observing an event in a controlled situation then trying to make a conclusion based on that evidence. YOUR sources start with the conclusion and manufacture evidence to suit it.

Oh and just to be clear, you misinterpreted that quote.

These explorations bring more light to mystical and "religious" information THAN we have received through a dogmatic system of education, often unclear, distorted and manipulated.

What this is saying is that the site sheds more light on various topics, OPPOSED to what has been previously taught and studied, which is actually what the quote denounces.

Who cares? It's still a confirmation bias. Where are the testable and repeatable experiments that prove that this stuff is real? These are all just hypotheses that the site is trying to push as fact without any empirical evidence to back it up. Oh I'm sure there is plenty of anecdotal evidence as well as people "theorizing" about things. But that means squat when it comes to science.

If you TRULY want to have an open mind, that doesn't mean you embrace every single fringe idea that comes your way. You start off by denying everything then have the evidence presented to you and form conclusions based off of that (the scientific method). Any other form of evidence gathering is a waste of time. And that's not to say that these things don't exist, just that there is no valid scientific conclusion about any of it, so any answer other than "I don't know" is dishonest (and closed minded).

All religions, ghosts, aliens, channeling, esp, bigfoot, and any other thing that conspiracy theorists talk about is all unproven and it ALL starts with a confirmation bias (that these things exist). So you close your mind to outside possibilities when you make the decision to decide that they are real without the required evidence to substantiate that claim. THAT is how you are closed minded. Not because I dismiss a website that tosses out all the same useless information that runs everyone in circles about these pseudo-sciences.

This is why people like you disrespect the peer review process, because it doesn't agree with you, but I'm sure that if a paper were to be published tomorrow that proved that channeling aliens from another star system is not only possible but can be reproduced in a lab setting, you'd be singing its praises from the rooftops. Of course if such a study were to be published, I'd be pretty excited about it too (it's not like I'm not open to the idea of these things being real, I just don't have enough evidence to say that they are right now).

Agnosticism and skepticism is the way to go to have an open mind, all other beliefs close your mind in some way.

a reply to: Bedlam

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

You are right, peer reviewed sources CAN be distorted and wrong, but that is what the peer review process is for. Once they are exposed as fraudulent or flawed, they are tossed out and are no longer part of the scientific knowledge base. At least they attempt to explain things by observing an event in a controlled situation then trying to make a conclusion based on that evidence. YOUR sources start with the conclusion and manufacture evidence to suit it.

Who cares? It's still a confirmation bias. Where are the testable and repeatable experiments that prove that this stuff is real? These are all just hypotheses that the site is trying to push as fact without any empirical evidence to back it up. Oh I'm sure there is plenty of anecdotal evidence as well as people "theorizing" about things. But that means squat when it comes to science.

If you TRULY want to have an open mind, that doesn't mean you embrace every single fringe idea that comes your way. You start off by denying everything then have the evidence presented to you and form conclusions based off of that (the scientific method). Any other form of evidence gathering is a waste of time. And that's not to say that these things don't exist, just that there is no valid scientific conclusion about any of it, so any answer other than "I don't know" is dishonest (and closed minded).

All religions, ghosts, aliens, channeling, esp, bigfoot, and any other thing that conspiracy theorists talk about is all unproven and it ALL starts with a confirmation bias (that these things exist). So you close your mind to outside possibilities when you make the decision to decide that they are real without the required evidence to substantiate that claim. THAT is how you are closed minded. Not because I dismiss a website that tosses out all the same useless information that runs everyone in circles about these pseudo-sciences.

This is why people like you disrespect the peer review process, because it doesn't agree with you, but I'm sure that if a paper were to be published tomorrow that proved that channeling aliens from another star system is not only possible but can be reproduced in a lab setting, you'd be singing its praises from the rooftops. Of course if such a study were to be published, I'd be pretty excited about it too (it's not like I'm not open to the idea of these things being real, I just don't have enough evidence to say that they are right now).

Agnosticism and skepticism is the way to go to have an open mind, all other beliefs close your mind in some way.

That site is not just to promote the theory of obscure topics such as alien existence, the paranormal, etc. There are also studies reported with scientific data included, which is the type of evidence you support. I'll give you an example:

Evidence of The CDC Manipulating Data From Autistic Research

By dismissing that site and excepting everything at face value (yes even that which has been "allegedly" reviewed) you tune your mind out to the treachery unknowingly being imposed. The link is complete with sources and studies at the bottom of the page to back this up. And guess who we have to owe this to.....that's right, the site you love to hate. So no, it's not all about theorizing and hypothesis'. In fact, to go along with those obscure topics, there are areas dedicated to archaeology, health, humanity's history, parascience, consciousness, sociopolotics, ancient civilizations, geo engineering, quantum science, meta physics....I could go on. Monsanto even has it's own independent section. You may even find evidence to support the stances you take here at ATS on certain topics.

Now of course everything is to be taken with a grain of salt and all info must analyzed and digested but to totally close yourself off to a site like this and limit your realm of understanding to only scientific, statistical, experimental data is completely asinine. The insight provided on ALL topics could prove useful in the event of the more obscure topics possibly coming to pass so the least that can be done is to soak up ALL information (no matter how unsupported or unsubstantiated) for possible preparational purposes.

Some people drink from the fountain of knowledge, others just gargle.

- Robert Anthony

In this case that fountain would be Biblioteca Pleyades. Time for you to start gulping.

a reply to: TrueMessiah

Your proof for this website's credibility is the newest chapter in the vaccines cause autism faux conspiracy started and pushed by Jenny McCarthy (an actress)? Wow... It's not like I can't find this snopes article or anything:
Bad Medicine

Claim: The CDC has intentionally suppressed proof of vaccine-related cases of autism in African-American boys from reaching the public.

FALSE

Even the sources at the bottom of the page are questionable. The first one is a right wing conspiracy website, the second one is a vaccine/autism conspiracy website, the third one is a self-referencing link back to bibliotecapleyades, and the last two are some real news sites. Though the stories from the news sites that are linked are only loosely related to this issue; one is for rising autism rates and the other is trying to produce a link to vaccine defenders and corporate interests. Also at the top of the page is another source from NaturalNews of all places (what a bastion of truth that place is...).

All you did with your link there is further prove to me that bibliotecapleyades shouldn't be trusted as a legitimate source (as well as further prove your confirmation biases). You know, just because a website sources its claims, doesn't mean they are true. If you want to figure out the veracity of a website's claim, you need to click through all the links as well as do google searches for the opposite claim to see what the people who don't believe it are saying.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TrueMessiah

Your proof for this website's credibility is the newest chapter in the vaccines cause autism faux conspiracy started and pushed by Jenny McCarthy (an actress)? Wow... It's not like I can't find this snopes article or anything:
Bad Medicine

Claim: The CDC has intentionally suppressed proof of vaccine-related cases of autism in African-American boys from reaching the public.

FALSE

Even the sources at the bottom of the page are questionable. The first one is a right wing conspiracy website, the second one is a vaccine/autism conspiracy website, the third one is a self-referencing link back to bibliotecapleyades, and the last two are some real news sites. Though the stories from the news sites that are linked are only loosely related to this issue; one is for rising autism rates and the other is trying to produce a link to vaccine defenders and corporate interests. Also at the top of the page is another source from NaturalNews of all places (what a bastion of truth that place is...).

All you did with your link there is further prove to me that bibliotecapleyades shouldn't be trusted as a legitimate source (as well as further prove your confirmation biases). You know, just because a website sources its claims, doesn't mean they are true. If you want to figure out the veracity of a website's claim, you need to click through all the links as well as do google searches for the opposite claim to see what the people who don't believe it are saying.

Don't want to commit thread drift by hijacking the OP's topic so this will be my last post concerning this issue.

You want to talk about credibility?
Your link is snopes.com. A forum style site strongly supported by the likes of Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC...the heads of the propaganda/disinformation engine. To go along with that, the site also says:

Many of the texts we discuss contain a mixture of truth, falsity, and exaggeration which cannot be accurately described by a single "True" or "False" rating.

www.snopes.com...

So much for that "false" quote you previously posted.
Here's something else noteworthy, the third source link from the original link I posted is actually a PDF file from Hooker Translational Neurodegeneration which confirmed the findings of the study. Days after the 2004 study was recently presented, all media outlets, especially CNN, erased and censored the findings. To top it off, one of the lead scientists, Dr. William Thompson, retracted his statements and findings days later as well, citing "improper protocol". After the data was "reconfigured" by the CDC, this allowed Dr. Coleen Boyle to testify before congress stating there was no apparent link between the vaccine in question and autism. If you can't smell something fishy going on here then you may need a new nose. I must say, these corporate media mouguls sure do have a very effective way of sweeping things like this under the rug before the crap hits the fan.

I like that comment you posted in your last reply:

If you want to figure out the veracity of a website's claim, you need to click through all the links as well as do google searches for the opposite claim to see what the people who don't believe it are saying.

I took that advice and looks like it paid off.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Okay, I've had my scotch...now I'm back.