What ever happened with Mike Ruppert?

[Must_B_Free]

Remember he predicted that Powell was about to resign? And I pointed out that he lost his credibility long ago with Mike Vreeland, and everyone jumped down my throat?

Did Powell resign or was Ruppert wrong, and people need to jump back put of my throat?

Or does Colon (sic.) still contain remains to be seen? :puke: i.e.

Is the jury still out, or did Ruppert blow it?

[are_we_united_yet]

1. No takers it seems.

[Must_B_Free]

2. odd,

a month ago it was posted 5 times a day, like some shocking revelation, and a ton of DUers bought it. Now not even so much as a blip.

you can always tell a crock of shit by the fact that he sells volumes of his turds on his homepage and noone else ever corroberates his allegations.

Mike Ruppert
Al Martin
Daniel Hopsicker
Alex Jones

[Beam Me Up]

3. Ok, I'll bite.

You may be absolutely right and Mike Ruppert and the rest of them may be hogwash. I don't know.

But I have to ask you, what do YOU think is going on? I mean, whether Ruppert and the rest of them have the picture exactly right or not, does it or does it now seem to you that there are powerful forces at work that do not get a lot of media attention -- although they are extremely news worthy.

I mean, for example, what do YOU make of someone like Sy Hersh speaking to the ACLU. Several DUers seem to believe that he is sitting on much more than he has revealed and that he is just waiting for the right time. Is this just wishful thinking -- or is it an honest attempt to read the "tea leaves" as it were of what little we DO know?

I use Ruppert and a couple others that you've mentioned as sources of information and perspective. That doesn't necessarily mean that I believe everything they say. But it does mean that I'm willing to entertain what they are saying and work to separate whatever wheat there is from the chaff.

You say Mike Ruppert wasn't right about Vreeland. I personally have no idea. Vreeland certainly was a contradictory character but when you look down the rabbit hole of information about him what I see is a lot of cognitive dissonance that, in a weird way, kind of makes sense. Vreeland said that he was unable to deliver a document that, in essence, directly connected Iraq to the events of 9/11. Ruppert speculated not that this documentation was accurate but, rather, that it was not. Now, I have no idea whether Vreeland had ANY documentation much less whether it was authentic or bogus. What I find fascinating is the whole story itself. Somewhat like the Nick Berg story, TOO MANY coincidences and strange twists and turns show up when you begin to examine it closely. It seems nothing is as it seems but it may be that this in itself is a kind of clue to something.

My signature used to read, "Whoever controls your perception of reality controls you." Your decisions, your choices, are based on what you believe to be accurate information -- a perception of what is actually real. Our perception of reality is a social construct -- an inner map that tells us what is what. But look what has happened. I don't know about you, but I KNOW that with very few exceptions I can not TRUST corporate media or most government officials to tell me what is actually going on. The media and government have lost all credibility.

So, where DO I find credible sources of information? Personally, I spend a lot of time reading right here on DU because here I get to watch people who know more than I do discuss and argue various perspectives and points. I've learned a lot.

Mike Ruppert has suggested that Bush will not be seeking reelection in 2004. This is a very balsy assertion -- one that I naturally find appealing. Of course it is completely obvious that Bush IS seeking reelection as of this moment and, apparently, has NO ITNENTION of withdrawing from the race.

Over the past month or so I've been trying a little experiment. To people I meet that I don't know but happen to be engaged in conversation with I'll say, "What would you say if I told you that George W. Bush will NOT be seeking reelection?" You should SEE the eyebrows go up! Not one person I've come across (except for one person who happens to be a Commnist) has said, "Oh, that wouldn't surprise me one bit."

So I've been saying, "Well, there is a rumor on the internet that he not only will not get elected, he won't even be runnig, and I'm telling you this because I know that in order for that to happen, something rather dramatic is going to have to occur between now and the election. I, personally, have no idea whether this is true or not, but I'm telling you so, if it does come to pass, you'll look back and remember where you heard it first. If nothing happens then we'll all know it is nothing but bull shit. This is one of those things that is unequivacable -- either it happens or it doesn't."

Edit: typos, spelling, syntax

[Must_B_Free]

4. I don't think Sy Hersh has a homepage selling his books

next to his unfounded allegations.

How many times do you have to smell shit before you can be sure to flush it?

And even a broken clock is right twice a day.

All of these guys follow the same pattern - self published, no corroberation, selling their revelatory books right next to their "hot breaking stories" and probably laughing all the way to the bank.

Same business model as in the UFO story world. These people know there is a market to exploit. It's just a way to make money.

[Beam Me Up]

5. I don't think he needs one to support himself

Edited to add:

Seems to me your attitude is unnecessarily harsh. People spend money on useless crap, including useless and completely "unreal" information 24/7 -- most of it right there on the TV.

At least these guys are entertain an alternative.

I also note you didn't answer any of my questions.

[gandalf]

6. You are not quite fair here

1) Self published. OK, what is missing is the kind of review process that takes place in a newspaper and that guarantees a certain quality standard.

But during a review process, not only the news that are "fit to print" are selected, but the news that would hurt business interests (after all, a newspaper sells its audience to its ad customers) or damage government relationships and contacts will be marked as "not fit to print".

Because many things Ruppert & Co publishes are detrimental to the business goals of newspapers and detrimental to career ambitions of journalists (its not good to publish conspiracy theories, even if they were true), they can only be self published.

2) No corroboration. I partially agree that often Ruppert has only weak proof for his ideas. But compare that to the support the NY Times had for Judy Miller's stories. Or to the proof for all the stories in "serious newspapers" that claim that Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi is behind all the attacks and beheadings. Proof? "Intelligence experts who remain anonymous..." OK, you call that corroboration???

3)"hot breaking stories". Certainly there are exaggerations. After all, they have to make a living.

Conclusion: Even though one should one believe everything Ruppert, Hopsicker etc. write, they provide a lot of interesting information you cannot read elsewhere.

On edit: If you don't believe it can hurt your career as a journalist if you touch Ruppert-like topics (but which merit an investigation, nevertheless), have a look at the book in my sig line. So, self published is not necessarily bad.

[Must_B_Free]

9. self published

as in "noone will touch this".

Here's another Eric Von Danken.

Your argument seems to amount to "I know it's not all true, but I believe it anyway"...

Perhaps the most compelling argument FOR them is the fact that CNNFOXMSNBCETAL lie as well. That's the grain of salt to take it with.

[gandalf]

10. No, my argument is "I believe nothing without good arguments", and

only because a source is not mainstream this does not necessarily mean it is bad.

And my impression is you use higher standards to judge Ruppert than you use for judging mainstream sources. I understand that your frame of reference for judging Ruppert are mainstream sources.

[LibertyorDeath]

8. Always liked your Sig

"Whoever controls your perception of reality controls you."


Crazy but that's how it goes the Media Sells it & we live the Roles.

[LibertyorDeath]

7. Between CNN & Ruppert

I'll take Ruppert

with a grain of salt

but Ill take him.

I have not jumped down anyones throat RE Ruppert

but every time I watch Mainstream News I get the overwhelming need to

Regurgitate :puke: :puke: :puke:

[Minstrel Boy]

11. if you think he lost credibility with Vreeland, you don't know

the Vreeland story.

My first trip to the 9/11 rabbit hole came when my oldest friend, Vreeland's attorney, shared Vreeland's story with me mid-September 2001.

Yeah, Vreeland lied about a lot. Kind of what you might expect from a spook. But my friend established his credentials by calling the Pentagon in open court (the prosecution claimed Vreeland must have "hacked" the Pentagon's computers from his prison cell), and was trying like hell to get US and Canadian authorities to heed Vreeland's warning in the months before 9/11, and witnessed the sealing of the "Let one happen, stop the rest" note in August.

Do you know Vreeland's claim that Canadian diplomat Marc Bastien was poisoned has been substantiated?

Have you read this Toronto Star article from December 5, 2003?

Post-9/11, this doesn't seem all that weird

...

He claimed that a Cuban immigrant named Nestor Fonseca, in jail in Toronto on drug charges, was plotting to kill Canadian and U.S. police officers.

He claimed that a Canadian Embassy worker in Moscow named Marc Bastien had not died from natural causes in 2000 as the government said but had been poisoned.

Vreeland's allegations against Fonseca were initially supported by Toronto police, who said they found a hit list in the Cuban's cell.

But by November, 2001, two months after the terror attacks on New York and Washington, everything changed.

Crown prosecutors dropped the attempted murder charges against Fonseca, saying they had been based on the testimony of an "unsavoury witness." Three months later, prosecutors dropped a bevy of other charges against Fonseca, including extortion, and instead extradited him to the U.S.

The apparent collapse of the Fonseca case also had the effect of destroying any credibility Vreeland may have had with regard to his more intriguing allegations about Sept. 11 and the death of Bastien, the Moscow embassy worker.

Until January, 2002. That's when Quebec coroner Line Duchesne concluded that Bastien, described as an information systems handler, had indeed been poisoned — probably by someone who slipped a concentrated anti-schizophrenic drug into his drink in a Moscow bar.

Vreeland's credibility suddenly shot up.

But eight months later, while out on bail awaiting an extradition hearing, he just disappeared.

At the time, Slansky told the court he had gone to Vreeland's apartment to pick him up but found it ransacked, with key evidence related to his client's 9/11 claims missing.

Did Vreeland skip town? Slansky argued no. He said he believed his client had been "killed, kidnapped or harmed" because he had evidence that the U.S. government knew ahead of time about the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.thestar.ca/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1070579408676%20%20&tacodalogin=no