Ruppert is wrong again - Matt is right

[KenJe...@aol.com]

Matt wrote:

The insistence on recognizing only the information which he believes will stand up in court and thusly ignores that information perhaps not oriented for court proceedings but nonetheless has an important place in the public debate.

Ken:
Exactly.  We are not in a court of law, we are in the court of public opinion.  The criteria for success is very different in this court.  Ruppert seems to see the world only as he used to - as a cop.  Unfortunately such myopia is a form of blindness.

Matt continued:

Also Rup claims he considers 9/11 a dead issue, but then claims he is enthusiastic to talk to reporters about Crossing The Rubicon. So he does not care about general info on 9/11 getting out, but when it is his version he is enthusiastic.

Ken:
Such is the hypocrisy of the inflated ego of self-importance.

I will always be grateful to Mike for helping found our movement, but he does us all a major disservice by his self-serving dismissal of anything not his.  When he left the 9/11 truth movement in 2004 (due to his PERSONAL window of opportunity closing), our movement  was barely on the public radar.  Within two years, we were on the cover of TIME magazine.  We have only grown since.  Ruppert was wrong in 2004, he is far more wrong now.

Ken

[WIlliam_Rodriguez]

Ken, I agree.

When Ruppert left to Venezuela in self exile, I called the contacts
there in the top levels of Government to see how could they help him,
I also called his people in USA to let them know what I was doing and
they were very enthusiastic. Damn was I wrong! I for sure will send
this to those same people there in case he wants to "return".
William Rodriguez

[Dana Carson]

I'd just like to say that I really value Mr. Ruppert's contributions to this movement, and I agree with him largely about what would and wouldn't make into a court of law. But as has been pointed out, our mission is much larger than that. Much of our best evidence is easily employed in persuading the public that they've been lied to about 9/11. And that includes information that has in many cases been rejected by the movement. Of course I'm referring to the Pentagon, about which I'm still agnostic.

But in any case, the scientific (as opposed to the jurisprudence) threshold can often be met when the evidence would be rejected in a court (or challenged by defense attourneys). I would still suggest the following basic operating procedure: Know as much as you possibly can, even about the most minute details, names, places, timelines etc. But when talking to average people, stick to simple talking points. You'll find that your great knowledge about details will come to your assistance best when used only as necessary. Since you don't know what angle someone will take when challenging you, knowing only the talking points won't be enough. But it's nearly always enough when backed up with detailed knowledge.

Happy Truthing.

Dana Carson

Founder and only member of;

Poorly Adjusted, Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists for Nine-Eleven Truth

papcot.net



































--- On Wed, 11/4/09, KenJe...@aol.com <KenJe...@aol.com> wrote: