You're kidding, right?

A scopolamine patch is like little over a centimeter in diameter and is as thin as a piece of paper.

It would probably take several scopolamine patches to intoxicate someone. The patches take (12?) hours to actually kick in. Considering it's over the counter, a single patch probably does not make one susceptible to mind control. There are probably better drugs to incapacitate someone. Mr. Holmes would have an incredibly dry mouth, bad nausea and be acting a lot differently. If Holmes was on any drug during his trial, it would probably have been an anti-psychotic.

Why do you believe some documentary more than common sense? Why all of a sudden do people have such a focus on this one drug? People are so ignorant of pharmacology they think it's like magic.

People just dont understand drugs dude.

Here's the problem...what if your therapist has an agenda? His worked for the VA for 2 years and worked with the Campus harm reduction team. I agree that a person under the state of such a large dose of scopolamine would not be able to perform tasks as such, but definitely think it's possible his therapist was prescribing him the patch to use over time, and she was suggesting things to him over the coarse of treatment. Or maybe that's all disinformation to distract all of us.

You would also understand that no one is exactly the same. Some are more sensitive to drugs than others. You don't know as much about Scopolamine as you think.

Caution should be exercised in patients with a history of seizures or psychosis, since scopolamine can potentially aggravate both disorders.

Since drowsiness, disorientation, and confusion may occur with the use of scopolamine, patients should be warned of the possibility and cautioned against engaging in activities that require mental alertness, such as driving a motor vehicle or operating dangerous machinery.

The most serious of these that have been reported are: acute toxic psychosis, including confusion, agitation, rambling speech, hallucinations, paranoid behaviors, and delusions.

Transderm Scóp is contraindicated in persons who are hypersensitive to the drug scopolamine or to other belladonna alkaloids

The signs and symptoms of anticholinergic toxicity include: lethargy, somnolence, coma, confusion, agitation, hallucinations, convulsion, visual disturbance, dry flushed skin, dry mouth, decreased bowel sounds, urinary retention, tachycardia, hypertension, and supraventricular arrhythmias.

Symptoms such as dizziness, nausea, vomiting, and headache occur following abrupt discontinuation of antimuscarinics. Similar symptoms, including disturbances of equilibrium, have been reported in some patients following discontinuation of use of the Transderm Scóp system. These symptoms usually do not appear until 24 hours or more after the patch has been removed. Some symptoms may be related to adaptation from a motion environment to a motion-free environment.

symptoms of overdose/toxicity due to scopolamine should be carefully distinguished from the occasionally observed syndrome of withdrawal (see Drug Withdrawal/Post Removal Symptoms)... mental confusion and dizziness may be observed with both acute toxicity and withdrawal

Children are particularly susceptible to the side effects of belladonna alkaloids. Transderm Scóp should not be used in children because it is not known whether this system will release an amount of scopolamine that could produce serious adverse effects in children.

http://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?id=8678

Scopolamine isn't much different from any other strong deliriant - some of which I've done recreationally. Personally, I don't see it being much of a mind-control drug. I could see a person being more suggestible when on the drug, sure. But I highly doubt someone on the drug would have the ability to cognize complex tasks, or even to perform them physically, if he was on a dose high enough to make him so suggestible. And even if he did, he would be incredibly disoriented and incoherent while he did it.

[deleted]

Hypothetically, sure, works for me. I think scopolamine is fine for simple stupification type tasks, like getting some unwitting idiot to remain compliant at a crime scene. I could even conceivably see Holmes put in some private area, made to watch some re-enactment of a theater shooting, then set free, and being unsure whether he participated in the shooting or not, assuming all of this took place under the influence of some deliriant drug.

I definitely would never believe anyone on scopolamine could perform any complicated task at all, though, unless it was being performed strictly by muscle memory or adrenaline in a life-or-death type of situation perhaps.

Whoa, cool

[deleted]

Gee - I wonder why

Because it is nonsense.

Call me crazy but I know lots of people who's ears are slightly uneven, where one sticks out, or has a slightly different bend than the other. I'm not saying the guy isn't being drugged somehow, but, this theory I think is a bit far reaching at best.

Mine are hugely asymmetrical, I was one of those kids with the big ears (think alfalfa from little rascals), however as I got older one straightened more than the other. I took a webcam photo of myself, making sure to face straight ahead, and found my ears were worse than the picture in question, with one of my ears protruding double the distance from my head than the other. To this day I can keep a smoke beghind one ear, but it will fall instantly from the other. Maybe he was like me and had big (perpendicular) ears as a child.

[deleted]

Okay, a paper-thin circular patch the size of a dime won't make his ears pop out.

[deleted]

So, why don't we just cut out the long goodbyes, and you get right to the point of calling me a crackpot? That is what you're here to do, right?

You want some sauce to go with that chip on your shoulder?

[deleted]

I was merely pointing out that you seemed to be putting words in the posters mouth.

For someone who's had 20 years of being an 'internet service administrator', whatever that means, you still get wound up pretty quick.

[deleted]

For future reference: people who aren't getting trolled/wound up generally don't bother posting three paragraph replies and quibbling over semantics.

[deleted]

The appropriate response to anything posted in r/conspiracy, including your bizarre theory.

youre wrong so he's a shill?

[deleted]

please, enough with your ego dude. you apparently don't like being called out. he did look drugged, but definitely not off of scopolamine patches.

[deleted]

I work with scopolamine. try again. or better yet please don't. enough with this troll shit; and never called you a shill.

So, why don't we just cut out the long goodbyes, and you get right to the point of calling me a crackpot? That is what you're here to do, right?

When you're trying to make a person's ears being slightly uneven into "he's being drugged with chemical-patches behind his ear!" without any actual evidence, it doesn't matter why he's here: the conclusion is pretty much the same.

If you're in /r/conspiracy and posting a "I'm just curious" post, then yeah, you are making some kind of claim.

[deleted]

Is it possible the guy is an alien lizard who didn't zip up his human-costume right? You can't criticize my question, or give any reason why it wouldn't be true, because I'm only speculating. I have made no claims.

I'm only inquiring.

[deleted]

What foundation does your mockery have other than you liking to point, mock and laugh at people to make sure no one takes them seriously? What are you trying to hide/coverup?

:)

Yes, because me criticizing your line of reasoning must mean I'm trying to "hide" something. See, this here's exactly what's wrong with conspiracy communities. You have your "inquiry", and I agree, that's fine, but anything I say to the contrary is immediately met by you accusing me of a conspiracy! How is that logical? How is that reasonable?

1) the guy's ear sticks out in his booking photo (and others thereafter) unlike all other photos of him before, and...

The guy has pretty long hair. Maybe he just has a lock of hair stuck behind his ear? Maybe one photo isn't exactly at the same angle or perspective as the other? Maybe any number of things, all of which are many times more reasonable to assume than that he is being drugged.

2) there is such a thing as a scopolamine patch

Yes, there are also such things as lizards, aliens (probably...) and costumes. Therefor, it's perfectly reasonable to put those facts together and conclude that he might be a an alien lizard in a human-costume.

I mean, you're not honestly trying to ridicule me just because you don't believe what I'm saying, are you? Because that would be doing exactly what you just accused me of doing, and you wouldn't do that, would you?

scopolamine does have the effect which relates to his state of being at his arraignment (couldn't even speak his own name) and the stupefied look on his face.

He is a clearly disturbed person who has just spent days in jail for a pretty horrific crime. I would be much more worried if he appeared well-rested and clear-minded. As for the rest, is it more reasonable to assume someone dosed him with a drug you Googled off the internet, than that he simply got hold of ordinary narcotics while in jail that made him groggy and unfocused?

Again, far-fetched deliberate conspiracy? Or ordinary circumstances that are all perfectly easily explainable?

You can "speculate" and "inquire" about whatever you want, but it's utterly pointless until you get some facts to go on. Actual conspiracies aren't unearthed by people on the internet going "hey, that guy's hair went from light auburn in one photo, to slightly lighter auburn in another. He's clearly a body-double!" when the fact that different photos capture different lighting angles is much more realistic.

So, in short, my theory isn't actually any less credible than yours, and you don't get to tell me I'm wrong if I don't get to tell you the same thing.

SHHIIIILLLL

Yes, shouting misspelled words in all-caps is a great counter-argument.

Sorry it didn't really come across how I wanted, it was meant to be sarcasticly calling you a shill :p

Ah, my mistake then :)

Carry on!

[deleted]

We aren't all as stupid as you think we are. Do your best to try to tear me down.

This is who I know you are stupid: trying to make me prove to you that your "inquiry" is wrong, instead of showing why I should accept that it's right. "Theoretically possible" doesn't equal "true".

You won't be the first to fail.

But I'd wager that if you succeeded to prove your "speculation", that would be the first time.

[deleted]

snicker

A fair point, I misspelled. Good on you to catch that. But what does it mean!?

Zing! Ouch. But, no.. it wouldn't. Sorry, you failed again. ;)

So tell me. Give me the evidence. Show me the proof. Or are you trying to cover something up? Why are you so reluctant to stand up for what you believe? What are you hiding?

[deleted]

Again, you obviously have more to hide and cover up than I do, making your claims a lot more suspect than mine.

[deleted]

You're just trolling me

You question the assumptions, and you're not trolling. I question your assumptions, and I'm trolling?

My point, from the beginning and onwards, was calling you out on criticizing anyone else for questioning you, while pretending to be untouchable when questioning someone else. Why can you "speculate" on why your theory is right, but other people can't "speculate" on why it's wrong?

You're a hypocrite, that's all. I made a sarcastic example to help you understand it, but you clearly didn't. Instead, you started attacking me and my motives, and calling me names instead of defending your position. That's just plain pathetic.

Either accept that other people point out the flaws and holes in your "theory", or stop pretending you're not making any claims. If you're not making a claim, what is it you're defending against these people's criticism?

[deleted]

You haven't actually defended your post, or gave any coherent reasoning as to why a patch as thin as a piece of paper would cause his ear to stick out so noticeably, or why a super spy agency that has the ability to coordinate all the bad things in the world wouldn't have the god damn sense to put the thing under his clothing. All you've done is deflect criticism, not actually rise to it.

[deleted]

ContheorySpiracist: Speculates, gets offended when speculation is debated.

[deleted]

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a troll. By your own admission this thread started as speculation, so why are you so aggressive to everyone refuting your claims?

You started this topic because his ear was bent forward and you happened to be googling those patches. Your leaps of logic are weak. Now call me a shill like you do every time someone disagrees with you.

[deleted]

You are trying to defend your theory, an idea which started with pure speculation. "what if it was a scopolamine patch?"

That was what this topic is about, and you actually havnt proven or shown anything backing up your claims.

And openly mocking people, telling them to "go away" (at least twice), and calling people shills and trolls doesn't help you.

So say again how this is just an idea you don't believe, all the while writing a 500 word comment on your views of why a pharmacology student is not in a position to comment on this.

Oh yeah, "popular demand"? That made me laugh.

If you are going to call someone else out on spelling, you might want to master grammar yourself.

[deleted]

Do you believe that he had a patch behind it? If not, you are just wasting everyone's time on a technicality impossible to prove. If you do believe it, that makes it your personal theory. The amount of effort into your posts make me think that you do believe it.

The way that you've moved discussion away from your initial point about that patch also leads me to believe that you now think its bullshit. In which case I have to ask: why even start this topic? There are enough aurora threads around, and yours differed on a small (probably wrong) point. Maybe you are the shill!

I've got an idea - maybe he was being mind controlled by his neighbors dog. DON'T CRITICIZE IT THOUGH. You'd be a troll and I'd be mighty offended, and I mean it's just speculation. You're not allowed to criticize speculation, right? That's against some kind of rules. It would make me a lot happier if you just said "Oh wow that'a a great idea NI! You're so smart and clever!"

Seriously, if you want to throw an idea out there, but don't want it criticized, go talk to a goldfish, not the internet.

[deleted]

"I can make any point I want but I don't have to defend it"

Because idle speculation is easy, and thinking is hard, right?

[deleted]

Oh that's totally false, I can multi-task. I wasn't even really trolling you when we started out here, I just pointed out that your claim that you were defending your idea was false. Something which you now seem to have mostly admitted - you were never defending it, despite your claims to the otherwise.

I defended my position all through this. Specifically, I DO NOT HAVE TO INTERACT WITH EVERYONE WHO RESPONDS TO MY POST. (you ignorant fuck)

Can't even keep your story straight in a single thread. I smell someone fresh out of shill training.

[deleted]

Because no one could disagree with your wisdom without being a troll or idiot, right?

is this you accepting that what you have written is nonsense?

scopolamine patches are small and thin

You're fucked. What kind of argument is that?

I think that it is pretty clear that they had him drugged up at the court appearance or him mind has been totally fucked up by drugs he was taking before the incident.

I googled for his images and I didn't see any patches.

The closest evidence that I could get was this pic of him looking drugged.

Anyone looks drugged if you take their picture mid-blink :)

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3xzi6iMoa1qaf3ng.png

That person looks more sleepy than anything.

True, but you get my sentiment, yes?

Looking like that through out the trial?

That was just the arraignment trial no?

Is this case not sealed? Are reporters and News outlets allowed inside the courtroom?

should be held in contempt for disclosing grand jury material in violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e).

“[A]n attorney for the government ․ shall not disclose matters occurring before the grand jury, except as otherwise provided in these rules․”

Yes but he looked drugged during that time before they sealed it.

Yeah he did look like he was drugged/under the influence of mind altering substances.

Or he could have been coming to terms for the violent acts he committed. /s

Yup. Kid had his whole life ahead of him and in order. Then he somehow cracks like that all of a sudden? Fishy all around.

Yeeess, the chances of someone cracking are so much lower than some kind of politically motivated, government organised, false flag attack.

The only fishy thing here is how your mind perceives reality.

So, you deny the fact there were more than one shooter, even though there was eye witnesses and even an extra mask on the crime scene?

Some critical thinking is in order mate.

You're relying on individual eyewitness testimony, testimony known for it's incredible unreliability, and I need to do more critical thinking?

Also, this is the first I've heard about there being more than one gasmask, do you have any verification of that?

Here you go.

That article is a load of crazy speculation, the only links are to either: more of his articles, youtube videos, or blogs, there is absolutely no basis in reality.

So you ignore the eye witnesses and the extra gas mask on the scene?

Nice.

Go google "eyewitness testimony reliability" and you'll see why I rightly disregard testimony that has no corroborating evidence.

There was no mention in that article of evidence that there was a second gasmask.

The whole article was a collation of wild mass-guessing.

[citation is needed]

You have no idea how fucking hard I laugh every time I see someone in this subreddit post that. It honestly makes my day.

Here's an AMA about someone that was there that night.

What part of the concept "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" eludes you?

To clarify, I WAS NOT IN THEATER 9, I was in 8 but I talked to a lot fo people in 9 and overheard a lot of info.

The guy isn't even providing a first-hand account of what happened.

You seriously expect me to accept this some form of evidence?

What part of the concept "eyewitness testimony is unreliable" eludes you?

Why is it unreliable? According to whom?

The guy isn't even providing a first-hand account of what happened.

Why not? Wasn't he in the same movie theaters when it happened?

Why is it unreliable? According to whom?

Go here, learn.

Why not? Wasn't he in the same movie theaters when it happened?

It's not first-hand if you are repeating what someone else told you.

Go here, learn.

You want me to learn from "wikipedia" yet say how unreliable eye witness reports are. Double standards much?

It's not first-hand if you are repeating what someone else told you.

What's wrong with second hand experience?

You want me to learn from "wikipedia" yet say how unreliable eye witness reports are. Double standards much?

Nope. Seriously, the whole "Wikipedia is bad" argument is a non-starter. Go to the individual references if Wikipedia scares you.

What's wrong with second hand experience?

So it's one persons highly subjective version of another persons highly subjective experience of an event.

That seems reliable to you?

Seriously, the whole "Wikipedia is bad" argument is a non-starter.

You do realize anybody can edit these right? So why are you using 2nd hand experiences and yet making a big deal out of other 2nd hand experiences? Double standards.

So it's one persons highly subjective version of another persons highly subjective experience of an event.That seems reliable to you?

Isn't that how the whole world works though? We got our information from other people so I don't really see a problem with this. Why is it a problem for you?

We got our information from other people so I don't really see a problem with this.

Most people understand that there are degrees of reliability, Wikipedia ranking quite highly, crazy people spouting nonsense on personal blogs on the other hand, not so highly.

If you don't understand the difference between Wikipedia (layers of quality control with independent research etc.), and the site you linked me (literally some guys ramblings, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up), I don't think we can meaningfully converse.

Wikipedia ranking quite highly, crazy people spouting nonsense on personal blogs on the other hand, not so highly.

So, you don't think these "highly crazy people" can't make changes to wikipedia?

If you don't understand the difference between Wikipedia (layers of quality control with independent research etc.), and the site you linked me (literally some guys ramblings, with no evidence whatsoever to back it up), I don't think we can meaningfully converse.

Oh I understand the difference quite clearly. The question is do you know the difference between fact and fiction?

So, you don't think these "highly crazy people" can't make changes to wikipedia?

You don't think Wikipedia have extensive systems in place to deal with such people?

The question is do you know the difference between fact and fiction?

Better than you, apparently.

You don't think Wikipedia have extensive systems in place to deal with such people?

So what are these extensive systems in place since you seem so familiar with it?

Better than you, apparently.

lol no. I give people the benefit of the doubt while you just call everyone liars.

I give people the benefit of the doubt...

That pretty much sums up your problem, not enough scepticism.

That pretty much sums up your problem, not enough scepticism.

Says the guy who cites wikipedia all the time?

When there's multiple eye witnesses you can't just discount the possibility of there not being another shooter.

You don't appear to understand how to use scepticism.

Uh, I know how to use it but choose to use it when I have to.

Critical thinking is more up my alley and it's something you lack apparently.

You trust crazy people on the internet more than a well respected knowledge repository*, so you'll have to forgive me for not giving a whole lot of weight to your opinion of my critical thinking skills.

*which, incidentally, has been shown to be as reliable as encyclopedia britannica

So, they are crazy people because they saw more than one shooter?

Wat

"Claim to". There's no evidence of a second shooter, only rumour and speculation.

Coming from eye witnesses.

Which, as I've repeatedly pointed out, are notably unreliable.

Why?

In an attempt to avoid a circular conversation: Why not?

What makes you think it is reliable?

What do they have to gain by lying?

They aren't lying, they just aren't remembering correctly either.

I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.

they just aren't remembering correctly either.

According to whom?

Reality.

So, your subjective reality means there was only 1 shooter because the news anchor told you so?

I don't believe there was more than one shooter because there is no evidence beyond a couple of people's subjective experiences acquired under circumstances that are known to have a detrimental effect on recollection.

You believe there was more than one shooter because a) a couple of people say they remember multiple shooters, b) some people on the internet say so, and/or c) the mainstream media says there was only one?

So, you weren't there and take everything you see on the news as fact.

Do you enjoy putting words in my mouth?

All I said is that I haven't seen or heard of any reliable evidence that there was a second shooter, never mind some of the more esoteric claims.

So because you haven't heard anything from the mainstream media I guess it must be false?

I hope you realize these are the same people who supported the invasion of Iraq citing how dangerous they were with weapons of mass destruction.

So you don't understand how the burden of proof works then?

You do realise that the "mainstream media" isn't one homogeneous entitx, right? If you actually believe that statement of yours is accurate then your perception of reality and actuality are significantly divorced.

Eye witnesses can be used as proof so I fail to see why you're complaining about evidence here?

And we're back to the fact that eyewitnesses are terribly inaccurate.

In this instance there is only a small minority of eyewitnessess claiming to have seen a second shooter.

Taking into account the fact that this contradicts what the majority say, the fact that there is no other corroborating evidence, and the fact that the witnessess who do claim to have seen someone else apparently did so in circumstances shown by studies to have a corrosive effect on memory accuracy, why would those few witnessess constitute any kind of evidence?

Again, according to whom? Ive seen eye witnesses used before in investigations and sometimes they're useful to catch the crooks.

So, because some eyewitnessess were right, all eye witnessess are reliable? That's terrible logic and I'd hope you realise that.

Eye witness testimony is generally used in conjunction with other evidence, it would be a very poor prosecution that relied solely on eyewitness testimony.

I don't understand why you seem to struggle so much with this concept?

When did I say all eye witnesses are right?

I said if it's plausible then why not investigate it?

If the reports of a second shooter were accurate the police would be investigating.

Unless the police over there are corrupted?

And the likelihood of that, as well as the majority of witnessess being mistaken and the media conspiring too, seems more reasonable to you than some witnessess mis-remembering events?

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty if an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries"--

David Rockefeller in an address to a Trilateral Commission meeting in June of 1991

So, you still believe that the media isn't controlled by powerful people? If anyone dares to speak out then they pretty much lose their social status and can say good bye to their little job in the news.

If you truly believe that someone could cover up the truth on any large event that garners a modicum of public interest wouldn't that mean that anything you hear rumours and speculation about is, by default, not part of a conspiracy.

That means that you have to double check everything before you take it in. Which is why I'm trying to be skeptical here and listening to all the evidence first before making any calls instead of being intellectually lazy like someone here.

You believe there is a some kind of global media cartel, but you think you're being sceptical?

It seems to me that you really don't apply your scepticism evenly.

You believe there is a some kind of global media cartel,

Yes from 10 years of evidence I have seen read studied.

My question to you why do you deny the evidence like the quote I presented? Is your bubble really that think that you can't step out of your fantasy world?

One quote, devoid of context or any verification. That was supposed to convince me that there is some kind of conspiracy, and you still claim to practice scepticism?

One quote, devoid of context or any verification

Google motherfucker. It's a great tool to do research!

That was supposed to convince me that there is some kind of conspiracy,

No, that was meant to help you question more and make you ponder at this which seems to be working. :)

Oh, I did google it:

Disputed:

We are grateful to The Washington Post, The New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. … It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now much more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.

Purported remarks at a Bilderberg Group meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany in June 1991, The remarks are said to have been printed in several right-wing French publications shortly thereafter; as quoted in Programming, Pitfalls and Puppy-Dog Tales (1993) by Gyeorgos C. Hatonn, p. 65. Skepticism is in order for the accuracy or attribution of alleged remarks from these exclusive meetings, particularly those which could be manifestations of either satire, sarcasm — or outright fraudulance.

All context seems to indicate that this quote is either distorted or manufactured.

It's disputed because wikipedia told you? wat

Didn't see that coming (lie: check the hovertext of my link).

You don't see the incredible irony in believing some potentially falsified quote, but not trusting wikipedia?

You really, really aren't sceptical about the right things.

How is it falsified?

How do you know it's real? The man himself claims no recollection of the supposed utterance. The burden of proof resides with you, as you are claiming it to be real.

Also, if you were controlling the media, why would you let them spread a quote showing you control the media? Covering that up seems like a no-brainer.

The man himself claims no recollection of the supposed utterance.

He's faking it obviously.

why would you let them spread a quote showing you control the media?

You do realize that people get cocky sometimes and shit gets leaked out eventually.

That seems like a more reasonable explanation to you, compared to something simple like either misquoting or malicious slander?

Have you ever heard of lex parsimoniae?

That seems like a more reasonable explanation to you, compared to something simple like either misquoting or malicious slander?

Yes. You don't think there are times when humans make simple mistakes by getting full of themselves?

Have you ever heard of lex parsimoniae?

Yeah, why?

So, let me get this straight, this global media conspiracy is, at once: clever enough to fool the vast majority of the population for over 40 years, and at the same time, so inept it can't even stop it's own, self-authored confession from becoming common knowledge?

If you are familiar with the concept of lex parsimoniae, why do you believe your convoluted theory rather than the multitude of simpler, more logical explanations.

So, let me get this straight, this global media conspiracy is, at once: clever enough to fool the vast majority of the population for over 40 years

There's a difference between fooling and manipulating son.

If you are familiar with the concept of lex parsimoniae, why do you believe your convoluted theory rather than the multitude of simpler, more logical explanations.

So, what's your "logical" theory then?

Either way, manipulating or fooling, why didn't they cover up such a damaging leak?

Simplistic explanation: there is no global media conspiracy, and therefore, nothing to cover up.

why didn't they cover up such a damaging leak?

Do you think rich fucks like the rockefellers are going to care that they were quoted talking about a media being controlled? Of course not. Why? Because he's rich and he can do w/e he wants to get away with it. Simple as that.

Simplistic explanation

Stop sticking your head in the sand?

So, they are willing to spend untold amounts of time editing wikipedia to cover up after their conspiracy, but they're too lazy to stop the leak in the first place?

Do you not see how inconsistent that is?

Stop sticking your head in the clouds?

So, they are willing to spend untold amounts of time editing wikipedia to cover up after their conspiracy, but they're too lazy to stop the leak in the first place?

Where does it say that?

Do you not see how inconsistent that is?

What do you mean by that?

Stop sticking your head in the clouds?

Not possible unless you live on a cloud.

Where does it say that?

Where does it say what? I'm just trying to point out to you how incoherent your global media conspiracy is. All I'm doing is comparing things you've told me about this conspiracy.

Not possible unless you live on a cloud.

Sticking your head in sand isn't easy when there's no sand about either.

Where does it say what?

What you just said right now?

Sticking your head in sand isn't easy when there's no sand about either.

lol wat. Go into a desert and see for yourself. Maybe even a beach or two. ;)

What you just said right now?

In my comment? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Head, sand, beach, desert. Very clever, are we done with that now? Can we get back to you explaining the incredible inconsistencies that I have outlined in your global media conspiracy?

In my comment? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Read your comment a few times.

the incredible inconsistencies that I have outlined in your global media conspiracy?

How so?

Read your comment a few times.

Which comment? What exactly are you referring to?

How so?

This global cartel (or whatever) that controls the media is apparently so inept it can't stop or counter bits any leaked information about the conspiracy.

How does this make sense?

Which comment? What exactly are you referring to?

Read your comment again?

This global cartel (or whatever) that controls the media is apparently so inept it can't stop or counter bits any leaked information about the conspiracy.

Yes.

How does this make sense?

Human stupidity and pride = mistakes

Read your comment again?

Again, which comment?

Human stupidity and pride = mistakes

So, this conspiracy that's supposed to manipulate the news all the time is so utterly incompetent that they can't prevent or mitigate direct evidence of their manipulations, but they can easily bury the truth about a convoluted false flag attack?

This makes no sense. Seriously, stop and think for a second, if you controlled the media, it would be a trivial matter to discredit any claims evidence like the (still unsourced) quote.

Even if the conspiracy exists and makes mistakes, there would still be scant evidence as they would still have the power to immediately suppress/discredit anything that did come to light.

Your theory is logically flawed.

Again, which comment?

read up bro.

So, this conspiracy that's supposed to manipulate the news all the time

When did I say it was manipulated all the time? Read everything I just said again a few times to understand it.

Even if the conspiracy exists and makes mistakes, there would still be scant evidence

You mean evidence like that quote? ;)

Your theory is logically flawed.

No son, your theory is logically flawed. You live in a simple world where everything goes according to plan but I'm here to say that's not how it works around here.

When did I say it was manipulated all the time?

Regardless of the frequency of their alleged manipulations, my point still stands.

You mean evidence like that quote? ;)

A quote that you have no source for? Your standards of evidence are abysmal.

No son, your theory is logically flawed. You live in a simple world where everything goes according to plan but I'm here to say that's not how it works around here.

My logic isn't flawed, your perception of reality is:

You live in a world where bad things are the fault of shadowy cabals and rumour and heresy possess more evidentiary value then actual facts.

You criticise Wikipedia for being unreliable but are happy to accept an unsourced quote of dubious veracity as evidence of a conspiracy.

You think you have awoken to a secret the masses can't see and/or don't want to understand.

Have you even considered the possibility that the masses see exactly the same thing you do but draw different conclusions because there are better explanations than conspiracies?

my point still stands.

My point still stands as well.

A quote that you have no source for?

I gave you a source already?

My logic isn't flawed, your perception of reality is

Says the guy with his head in the sand. Please explain to me what reality means to you or what it is in scientific terminology?

You live in a world where bad things are the fault of shadowy cabals and rumour and heresy possess more evidentiary value then actual facts.

Where did I say that?

You think you have awoken to a secret the masses can't see and/or don't want to understand.

Where did I say that?

Have you even considered the possibility that the masses see exactly the same thing you do but draw different conclusions because there are better explanations than conspiracies?

Or you're just a nutter that sticks his head in the sand?

Wow. Dodging my argument, arguing semantics and ad hominem attacks.

You sure proved me wrong.

How am I dodging your argument?

Why would people who control the media let material challenging their control of the media go unanswered?

Your 'people make mistakes' response is hardly an answer. People do make mistakes, but if they do they generally try and correct them. Why wouldn't the people who control the media use their control to ameliorate any damage from a leak like your quote?

Why would people who control the media let material challenging their control of the media go unanswered?

When did this happen?

Why wouldn't the people who control the media use their control to ameliorate any damage from a leak like your quote?

That's something you should ponder more about.

You asked when you'd dodged answering me? Right then, in addition to every other time.

Do you avoid the question because you can't explain why that would happen?

Right then, in addition to every other time.

Citation?

Do you avoid the question because you can't explain why that would happen?

What do you mean?

I can only conclude that the reason you avoid answering my question is that you can't.

I can't what again?

Hmm, someone appears to find your deliberate obfuscation even more annoying than I do, judging by your sudden accumulation of downvotes.

That's probably robotevil.

He's an angry stalker of mine. :(

Still angry about making me a mod in /r/conspiratard and getting him kicked out.

The dosage line between really bad effects and useful effects is a bit ragged, But plants that produce scopolamine are well-known in South America, and there's no question the CIA has experience with it. It can be used for dosing someone to a robotic, zombie level acceptability for things.

Scopolamine is one of the first drugs the government started testing on civilians in the early stages of MKULTRA. Here's a page from a comic book about that exact thing (testing drugs - namely scopolamine among others) on soldiers.

That is in re: interrogation, not mind control.

They are not mutually exclusive. Most if not all of the drugs allegedly involved with mind control all originated with the government's search for the ultimate truth serum. Without those origins of alternative interrogation, there would be no mind control as it's known today.

Vice magazine did a documentary about scopolamine. I'm pretty hesitant to believe he's got scopolamine patches behind his ear but if you want more info about it this doc's pretty good

Vice did a great documentary on this one.

When VICE initially asked me to go down to Colombia to dig into this Scopolamine story, I was pretty excited. I had only a vague understanding of the drug, but the idea of a substance that renders a person incapable of exercising free-will seemed liked a recipe for hilarity and the YouTube hall of fame. I even spent a little time brainstorming the various ways I could transport some of it back to the states and had a pretty good list going of different ways to utilize it on my buddies. The original plan was for me to sample the drug myself to really get an idea of the effect it had on folks. . The producer and camera man had flew down to Bogota ahead of me to confirm some meetings and start laying down the groundwork. By the time I arrived a few days later, things had changed dramatically. Their first few days in the country had apparently been such a harrowing montage of freaked-out dealers and unimaginable horror stories about Scopolamine that we decided I was absolutely not going to be doing the drug. All elements of humor and novelty were rapidly stripped away during my first few days in town. After meeting only a couple people with firsthand experience, the story took a far darker turn than we ever could have imagined, and the Scopolamine pranks I had originally imagined pulling on my friends seemed beyond naive and absurd.

By the time we were wrapping things up and preparing to leave the country, I couldn’’t wait to get as far away from Colombia and that drug as possible. Apologies for a fleeting moment of sincerity, but looking back, I’m pretty proud of the work we did down there. This story, and the people who tell it, truly deserve to be heard. – VICE Correspondent Ryan Duffy

This is why prisoners at Guantanamo are administered scopolomine upon arrival.

Crazy? Probably.

Veeery interesting theory.

The behind the ear thing caught my attention because I've read about it before, especially what it relates to...

• http://www.truthistreason.net/em-field-placed-behind-right-ear-suspends-morality

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1262074/Scientists-discover-moral-compass-brain-controlled-magnets.html

• http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/007062.html

I'm still looking for the original published paper.

I can see your connection with Scopolamine and that region of the brain even though these studies reference an EM field, they're still looking to alter the moral/ethical processing part of your brain.

Yeeess, the chances of someone cracking are so much lower than some kind of politically motivated, government organised, false flag attack.

The only fishy thing here is how your mind perceives reality.

ContheorySpiracist: Speculates, gets offended when speculation is debated.

I've got an idea - maybe he was being mind controlled by his neighbors dog. DON'T CRITICIZE IT THOUGH. You'd be a troll and I'd be mighty offended, and I mean it's just speculation. You're not allowed to criticize speculation, right? That's against some kind of rules. It would make me a lot happier if you just said "Oh wow that'a a great idea NI! You're so smart and clever!"

Seriously, if you want to throw an idea out there, but don't want it criticized, go talk to a goldfish, not the internet.

They are not mutually exclusive. Most if not all of the drugs allegedly involved with mind control all originated with the government's search for the ultimate truth serum. Without those origins of alternative interrogation, there would be no mind control as it's known today.

That article is a load of crazy speculation, the only links are to either: more of his articles, youtube videos, or blogs, there is absolutely no basis in reality.

So, you don't think these "highly crazy people" can't make changes to wikipedia?

You don't think Wikipedia have extensive systems in place to deal with such people?

The question is do you know the difference between fact and fiction?

Better than you, apparently.

Reality.

So because you haven't heard anything from the mainstream media I guess it must be false?

I hope you realize these are the same people who supported the invasion of Iraq citing how dangerous they were with weapons of mass destruction.

Eye witnesses can be used as proof so I fail to see why you're complaining about evidence here?

You believe there is a some kind of global media cartel,

Yes from 10 years of evidence I have seen read studied.

My question to you why do you deny the evidence like the quote I presented? Is your bubble really that think that you can't step out of your fantasy world?

Wow. Dodging my argument, arguing semantics and ad hominem attacks.

You sure proved me wrong.