icke83

Only in Japan? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/disability-32450071

I'm not sure if anyone might be able to assist but I was trying to find out where the Travelodge of ECW fame in Philadelphia is as I travel on a budget usually and thought it was be interesting, and convenient, to stay there when I'm at a show at the former ECW Arena in November but I couldn't find any Travelodge's near there online. Mr Lister thought it was this place http://www.ramada.co.uk/hotels/pennsylvania/philadelphia/ramada-hotel-philadelphia-city-center/hotel-overview which has since been refurbished/rebranded but Ramada said it never used to be a Travelodge. I know from shoot interviews that the Travelodge was/is circular and this guy also has the same hotel when referencing the ECW Travelodge http://iamthejer.tumblr.com/post/66684107619/the-travelodge-in-philadelphia-i-cannot-begin so it seems the Ramada person has it wrong but I just wondered if anyone else had any insight/clarity before I book?

Update - Ramada came back to me and said the following so it's definitely the place..

I apologize for any confusion there may be. It is possible this hotel was a Travelodge before Travelodge was a part of Wyndham Hotel Group, in which case we may not have those records. I agree it does look like the photo on the link you provided. Our records indicate it was a Days Inn prior to being a Ramada, but we don’t have information regarding what it was prior to that.

 

Not so much a conspiracy but more just how my mind works: when I saw that David Cameron said he doesn't have time to attempt to tackle/refute the allegations made about his past initiations involving pigs heads (and whatever else he got up to with his pals at the Bullingdon club) my immediate reaction is that he knows he wouldn't be able to disprove it in a court of law and so want's to limit the damage and not open up that can of worms. I find it hard to imagine he, or his staff, wouldn't pursue these allegations, if nothing else to send a message that they won't be tolerated, if he was able. And surely the guy who wrote the book wouldn't risk bankruptcy if No.10 did challenge it in court?

 

I just think there needs to be more critical thinking. Obviously there are nutcases who peddle ridiculous theories, just as there are comparable people who blindly follow the mainstream media's version of events, but tarring anyone who challenges the mainstream medias version of events, where there is documented proof that our governments don't always (if ever) have our best interests at heart (see also Aspartame approval http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm ) is counter productive.

Didn't mean that to sound like a rant, was just a general point

The guy who wrote it is a multi billionaire who owns the publisher who published the book. I don't think Cameron would be able to match his funding in a long drawn out court case so fear of bankruptcy is definitely not an issue

 

Fair enough. Regardless, still strange response to me given the accusation(s).

Also I recommend checking out www.noagendashow.com it's not a conspiracy show by any means but it seems the best place to put it. Give it a go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Agenda

Not so much a conspiracy but more just how my mind works: when I saw that David Cameron said he doesn't have time to attempt to tackle/refute the allegations made about his past initiations involving pigs heads (and whatever else he got up to with his pals at the Bullingdon club) my immediate reaction is that he knows he wouldn't be able to disprove it in a court of law and so want's to limit the damage and not open up that can of worms. I find it hard to imagine he, or his staff, wouldn't pursue these allegations, if nothing else to send a message that they won't be tolerated, if he was able. And surely the guy who wrote the book wouldn't risk bankruptcy if No.10 did challenge it in court?

I just think there needs to be more critical thinking. Obviously there are nutcases who peddle ridiculous theories, just as there are comparable people who blindly follow the mainstream media's version of events, but tarring anyone who challenges the mainstream medias version of events, where there is documented proof that our governments don't always (if ever) have our best interests at heart (see also Aspartame approval http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm ) is counter productive.

Didn't mean that to sound like a rant, was just a general point

Would be interesting to see what Snopes has to say about Operation Northwoods/Gulf of Tonkin or other false flags which are in the public record. I read the Operation Northwoods documentation was first released in 1997 and it's interesting that the documentation surrounding the suspicious death of Dr David Kelly is sealed for a number of years. It seems that documentation is sealed until the architects behind the event are dead and cannot be punished.

This is a good article by Thomas Sheridan which asserts that conspiracy theories exist because mainstream journalists neglect their duties of conducting proper investigations http://thomassheridanofficialblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/conspiracy-theory-exists-because.html

My understanding is that the rule of thumb in journalism is/was to find two sources before publishing a story. I find it very hard to believe that is how mainstream news outlets operate nowadays.

Northwoods does demonstrate an intention amongst high ranking US Government and Military officials to cause harm to the American public though. Which is why I don't understand why it is beyond some people to entertain the possibility that 9/11 was perpetrated by these same, or similar, offices within the same government a generation later.

 

Has there ever been a false flag that was actually proven to be such. And I mean openly and reliably by the public proven, not spenks on a forum or Youtube proven.

The Bay of Pigs invasion is a fairly well known one.

 

Germany made several attempts at false flag attacks to make the Polish look like they were a threat to justify them invading Poland in 1939.

 

Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin incident also.

What happened to the LA residency for Summerslam?

Does anyone else on here listen to InYourHead? http://www.inyourheadonline.com/

I'm watching a Japanese football match for the first time ever as I've stuck a couple of quid on one of the teams and I noticed straight away how rowdy the crowd is, constantly chanting/cheering/banging the drums like they do in South America etc. Is it just wrestling crowds in Japan that behave in their unique way and all other sports are more like in the West (as far as crowds go)?

Probably best in questions thread. Sorry..

Bittersweet I suppose.

Reminds me of those survival situations where someone is stuck on a raft in the middle of the ocean or whatever. It's just next level mental strength to perservere through that kinda thing when it all must seem so hopeless. I guess it helps when you have other avenues/options to pursue though like he has. Would be interesting to know if he did that kinda stuff as a hobby before the injury or if it was just the best of a bad situation..

I'd forgotten about some of the VHS tapes I used to get from GWI. I think they/he were based in Manchester? Global Wrestling something? Imports?  Think I'll give it a watch over the weekend as this was one that I played the most. Will be interesting to see if it is actually any good now or if I just liked it all those years ago because it was my first exposure to such craziness. Good ol Taka pops up again in the first match. 

Horace Hogan makes a brief appearance too..

I was just watching RVD's timeline where he mentions the Heatwave 98 match and I thought I'd see how Hayabusa was doing nowadays as I'd not looked him up for a while and he can walk now with a cane (and a bit of assistance from Taka Michinoku amongst others) which is pretty incredible.

Thanks for that, i'll have a punt

Hi, I just wondered if any one has any tips for where I can best stick a tenner this weekend on a sporting event (or a fiver on a couple of different ones)? Thanks, Arran

Hi, 

I'm a total novice at betting but signed up with Betfair yesterday as they had a promotion for new customers of a no-risk bet on Arsenal winning. Basically I now have 4 free bet tokens, 3 x £10 and 1 x £8 which 'can only be used on selections with odds of 1/5 (1.2) or greater.' Does anyone have any tips/thoughts on how I can use them over the next few days? It seems like I can only use one token per bet..

Thanks in advance.

 

 

 

 

Would you consider someone who uses flouride free toothpaste, not through any allergy or sensitivity but because of things they have read online on various sites, to be a tin foiler out of interest?

 

 

 

Not at all. I would want to check the evidence myself before jumping to that conclusion. However, insinuating that all dentists have impure intentions rings my alarm bells immediately.

 

Fair enough. I do believe it is more to do with indoctrination through how they are taught, but I still don't think that is any kind of justification when it is fairly common knowledge how toxic mercury is..

 

 

The fluoride thing always reminds me of those early Alex Shane articles in FSM where he'd talk about Nazi's putting fluoride in the water supplies and Triple H only climbing to the top of the ladder because of the logo on his trunks and its hidden subliminal messages.

 

I've yet to come across a seasoned conspiracy theorist who isn't a compete nut job. 

I guess my summary is that I just don't feel it is rational for people to constantly think the best of people in power and give them the benefit of the doubt when seemingly all the evidence is to the contorary. Day after day we see instances of abuses by politicians, from financial irregularites and conflicts of interest to links with places which have a history of child abuse allegations to the aforementioned psycopathic traits. And it's strange to me that a lot of people can't even entertain the fact that some of these things are possible.

 

 

Would you consider someone who uses flouride free toothpaste, not through any allergy or sensitivity but because of things they have read online on various sites, to be a tin foiler out of interest?

 

 

 

Not at all. I would want to check the evidence myself before jumping to that conclusion. However, insinuating that all dentists have impure intentions rings my alarm bells immediately.

 

Fair enough. I do believe it is more to do with indoctrination through how they are taught, but I still don't think that is any kind of justification when it is fairly common knowledge how toxic mercury is..

 

Do you guys (Chest and Coconut) wholly believe the official account of 9/11 (which by definition is a conspiracy theory as it has in no way been proven beyond reaonable doubt)?

 

Oh god. Please don't. Did Duane send you here?

 

Never heard of the man. Obviously mentioning 9/11 opens up a whole can of worms which can go back and forth for days/weeks and months which wasn;t the intention, nor something I would want to engage in as by now people believe what they believe. But I will never understand how people can think there is nothing fishy about paper passports which survive the inferno which brought down the twin towers (which is another thing entirely) and landed neatly on the pavement below.

Do you guys (Chest and Coconut) wholly believe the official account of 9/11 (which by definition is a conspiracy theory as it has in no way been proven beyond reaonable doubt) and also that there has never been a false flag?

 

 

I may be wrong.

 

Yeah, you are. Cognitive dissonance is the mechanism that gives us humans the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and is typically a trait of religious nuts and conspiracy theorists rather than sceptics, although we all use it to a certain extent.

 

I'm very intrigued by your arguments though. Essentially, they're arguments against believing conspiracy theories, which typically are supported by absolutely fuck all in the way of evidence, but somehow you're still coming down on the side of the tin-foilers. Very curious.

 

Would you consider someone who uses flouride free toothpaste, not through any allergy or sensitivity but because of things they have read online on various sites, to be a tin foiler out of interest?

If anything, that's just further proof that the people who compile such lists are fucking muppets.

Possibly.

At the end of the day you just have to try get information from as many sources as possible and then try make on objective opinion based on what you've seen and good ol fashioned gut instinct.

I think a significant part of people dissmissing everything as a crazy conspiracy theory is that many people just aren't able, or willing, to accep tthe fact their belief system may be compromised. I think it's called cognitive dissonance, a kind of psychological defense mechanism, but I may be wrong.

A lot of people rely on the mainstream media as their sole source of information, and I'm constantly amazed of the things which actually appears in the MSM which totally discredits it as a reliable source, yet people still use it. Recently in the paper there was a report critisising the BBC for a blatant lack of impartiality, I can't remember exactly which issue this report focused on, though anyone who has done any kind of independent research in to the Isreal/Palestine situation will know that they are definitely guilty of blatant bias in that instance. And it makes me wonder just what it would take for people to think hang on, maybe I should check this myself or at least cast a more critical eye over what they see/read in the news rather than taking it as gospel.

That's all this to me is about really, not taking any one person or sources word for it. I use flouride free toothpaste. I listened to what the dentist told me all those years (and this is someone who happily puts mercury in peoples mouth, which should be a bit of a warning sign that perhaps they don't have the purest of intentions (or that they are indoctrinated, which still is no excuse)) then a few years back I read some things which said it was bad for you. I decided that the perceived benefits don't justify the potential negative consequences and stopped using it.

To most people that would be strange. But to me it is is strange that most people thing it's strange, and this self-policing culture we seem to have created, where people are afriad to engage in honest and open dialogue for fear of ridicule, can surely only be a negative thing.

Of course there are some crazy theories, but not moreso than some of the stuff the MSM pumps out.

Yes yes.. I've read some of the "psycopaths in boardrooms" stuff as well and yes it extends to people in political power. I get the theory behind it, sure.

 

But what's your actual point in relation to that? I don't think you've made one that's why no one has commented on it.

Sorry, my point that I was alluding it to is that once people are more aware of what constitues a psychopath, or psychopathic traits, and the proliferation of such people in positions of power, then I think it adds a more plausable element to things which are all too easily dismissed as 'conspiracy theories'.

 

I wouldn't consider the "allowing it to happen" scenario as a false flag, as nobody was attacking their own forces/allies under the pretence of being the enemy.

 

 

Ye I agree, I always assumed the primary definition of a false flag was what you mentioned, but I usually see Pearl Harbour on lists of false flags so thought maybe the criteria was broader than what I understood it to be..