vxbush 5/12/2020 5:44:22 AM

1

Morning, campers. Catching up from yesterday....

Doppel, you had said you didn't want reporters to report on Trump until they had a firm education in America and not just Hollywood and sports. OR asked: 

 Was it any one question in particular?

I would be curious as to your answer. I don't watch his briefings because his verbal tics drive me nuts, even though I know they aren't really a marker for intelligence but a reflection of where he grew up. 

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 6:38:05 AM

2

Find everyone involved in planning and executing this atrocity; and shoot them down like the rabid dogs that they are.

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 6:42:59 AM

3

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 6:45:27 AM

4

Reply to Occasional Reader in 3:

What did they say this time?

doppelganglander 5/12/2020 6:46:21 AM

5

Reply to Occasional Reader in 2:

"Gunmen." *spit*

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 6:48:17 AM

6

Meanwhile, I find the creeping increase of the "vaccines are evil/vaccines don't work/vaccines are all part of the Bill Gates depopulation agenda" line of comment on various sites to be somewhat disturbing.  

I'd regard it as a ray of hope that at least Bill Gates is not Jewish, so there's less of an antisemitic taint to this particular line of conspiracy-mongering, but of course the purveyors of this particular brand of paranoia also manage to work "globablist bankers" into the mix, and "globalist bankers" appears to be the new euphemism for "the evil Joooooz."

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 6:58:56 AM

7

In #4 buzzsawmonkey said: What did they say this time?

Interviewing someone (didn't catch her name) who was just snarling hatred for Trump under the guise of being a pandemic expert; gushing with praise of Fauci (and holding him up in contrast to Trump); cheerleading for the "lockdown forever!" camp; and holding Xi and Trump to blame, equally (except Trump being more equally to blame, of course) for the "mutual hatred" that is complicating what should be the we're-all-in-this-together international response to the pandemic.  As if, of course, there were no real ISSUES with what the PRC did here, nope, it's just Trump's ego and racism that's the problem.  Etc. 

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 6:59:52 AM

8

In #5 doppelganglander said: "Gunmen." *spit*

Yes, another outbreak of "gun violence".  Clearly, American gunmakers should be sued over this, that's the answer... 

doppelganglander 5/12/2020 7:01:16 AM

9

Reply to vxbush in 1:

In this case, it was a question about why Trump hadn't issued consistent, nationwide orders for reopening various parts of the economy. He had just described how some governors were more strict, some less so, and that while he doesn't always agree, it's their prerogative to set policy for their own states. I wish he were more articulate and could have schooled her on federalism, but his answer was more word salad.

You see these dumb statements over and over, and I think it reflects the Left's push over the last century to create policy at the federal level, mostly through the courts, and push it on the rest of the states whether they want it or not. Abortion is the best example - most people don't know it was legal in New York and a few other states until Roe v. Wade, and that's the state of affairs that would exist if SCOTUS overturned it. You may not be interested in the Gleichschaltung, but the Gleichschaltung is interested in you.

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 7:01:24 AM

10

In a similar vein, the anti-Fauci firestorm is becoming increasingly disturbing.  I can understand people saying that Fauci is being given too much free rein over "prescribing for the economy"; I can understand people disputing his positions.  But the increasing drumbeat of "Fauci the globalist, Fauci the vaccine advocate, Fauci as the lead in the new effort to take down Trump" seems more than tinged with hysteria.  

I can hardly claim to have been following the news avidly these last couple of weeks---I've been preoccupied with the time-sink that has been my Spring class in online mode---so I'd be grateful for some sensible discussion about these issues from the folks here.

vxbush 5/12/2020 7:08:12 AM

11

In #6 buzzsawmonkey said: I'd regard it as a ray of hope that at least Bill Gates is not Jewish, so there's less of an antisemitic taint to this particular line of conspiracy-mongering, but of course the purveyors of this particular brand of paranoia also manage to work "globablist bankers" into the mix, and "globalist bankers" appears to be the new euphemism for "the evil Joooooz."

I think you're seeing the fallout of the Q phenomenon. I've seen some really silly analysis lately of how medicine was corrupted by the Rothschilds. I don't doubt that serious money is made in pharmaceuticals, but a comparison of life expectancies before and after these medications were developed seems to demonstrate the stupidity of these lines of reasoning. 

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 7:15:01 AM

12

In #11 vxbush said: the Q phenomenon

What is that?

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 7:26:17 AM

13

In #12 buzzsawmonkey said: What is that?

I had no idea that the guy from ST:TNG was in any way involved in this... 

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 8:57:21 AM

14

Reply to Occasional Reader in 13:

Seriously---what is "the Q phenomenon?"

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 8:58:09 AM

15

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 14:

I have no idea.

vxbush 5/12/2020 9:00:50 AM

16

In #12 buzzsawmonkey said: What is that?

You don't know about Q, 8chan, etc? I've talked about it here. 

vxbush 5/12/2020 9:13:13 AM

17

Reply to vxbush in 16:

Starting in 2017, a person started posting on 8chan and seemed to be indicating that the Obama administration had spied on Trump. The postings were cryptic, involved a lot of abbreviations and code-type phrasing that made it difficult to understand what was being said. 

As the posts grew, there was a desire for the poster to be clearly identified; given how everyone is anonymous on 4chan/8chan, there was a need to make sure no one was imitating or emulating this person. Said person started signing off as Q and used a hashtag to confirm his identity. Over the next three years, Q has posted thousands of posts first to 8chan and then its successor, 8kun, and seemingly has proven that he is part of the Trump administration, is part of the military or has military training, and has made careful "drops" of information implicating Comey, Strok, Page, etc. as part of the special FBI/DOJ group trying to get rid of Trump. There are several web pages that have pulled all those posts together; one such place is qmap.pub. 

I learned about this last year, before the media started putting out media hit pieces against Q. My impression is that this person really is part of the Trump administration and has been trying to get knowledge out about the coup against the president and help people to find the answers while he was waiting for the slow gears of government to grind. In addition, he is trying to demonstrate the tendrils between governments and the growth of the one-world government movement. However, Q has also posted some other odd things involving the Rothschild, Soros, and others that could either be a way of providing himself plausible deniability if he is tracked down, or he is really a nutcase who just happens to also have the right details when it comes to the attempt to remove Trump. Right now, I haven't made up my mind on that aspect yet, but so far everything he has released related to the actions to get rid of Trump have been spot on. The spying on Flynn, the work between Strok and Page, all if it was released by Q first and has been proven accurate.

At this point, a lot of Trump supporters are very close followers of Q and you will see signs supporting Q and "Q+" (a nickname for Trump) at campaign events. This is not limited to the US; there are people throughout the world who are supporting Trump and supporting Q. One of the catchphrases you will see in Q posts is WWG1,WWA--Where We Go One, We Go All. 

There are a lot of aspect of the Q phenomenon. I've only shared a tiny bit of it. I find it interesting to see the media going crazy with media articles on Q that are doing everything possible to dismiss him as a whack job. Given how corrupt the MSM is, that is noteworthy.

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 9:34:53 AM

18

Reply to vxbush in 17:

Thanks.  It is, of course, possible that who- or whatever Q is, "he" could be both a member of the Trump administration with inside knowledge as represented, and a raving conspiracy-minded nutjob on the whole "Rothschild, Soros, globalism" topic.  They're in no way necessarily mutually exclusive.

I've heard of 4chan and 8chan.  I assume they're websites of some sort, but have never "explored" anything about them beyond that.

I've only recently become aware of this David Icke person, who is apparently very popular among the "anti-globalist" types, is a raving Jew-hater, and has a "thing" about the Rothschilds and who-knows-what-else.  It seems he has little problem flourishing on the "social media" which are so avid to shut down or block more mainstream conservative views---whether because the controllers of such media don't care, actually support him, or whether they figure that allowing free rein to such rot will operate to discredit more rational conservative expressions, or a combination of those things, who knows?

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 9:51:36 AM

19

In #18 buzzsawmonkey said: I've only recently become aware of this David Icke person

What?!! Why, it was one of the ravings of this very man that was the source of the “lizardoid” nickname/meme at a certain other website; which was introduced by yours truly.

vxbush 5/12/2020 10:06:41 AM

20

We've shared here our concerns that SARS-COV-2 was accidentally released from the Wuhan virology lab. Time to look at another opinion, this one by a virologist who wrote a very long FAQ about it. 

Reading it now. 

vxbush 5/12/2020 10:12:55 AM

21

In #18 buzzsawmonkey said: Thanks.  It is, of course, possible that who- or whatever Q is, "he" could be both a member of the Trump administration with inside knowledge as represented, and a raving conspiracy-minded nutjob on the whole "Rothschild, Soros, globalism" topic.  They're in no way necessarily mutually exclusive.

I tried to admit the same in my paragraph above, but perhaps did not express that well enough. I agree with you. 

One thing that Q has said repeatedly is that you cannot simply share this information with people because they are automatically wired to disbelieve that such a conspiracy is possible. Instead, you have to give them breadcrumbs that they can follow themselves and discover, for themselves, the evidence trail and learn on their own what happened. Big paradigm changes cannot be pushed down from above. They bubble up from below. 

doppelganglander 5/12/2020 10:16:49 AM

22

In #17 vxbush said: WWG1,WWA--Where We Go One, We Go All.

Thanks for clarifying that - I see it in a lot of Twitter bios and had no idea what it meant. Most of the people using it seem to be low IQ folks who rave in all caps and can't express themselves without a string of emojis, so I disregard them. I get the impression they also believe in Pizzagate and don't believe man landed on the moon.

That's not to say, as buzz points out, that some of the things Q posts aren't true. The latest revelations confirm everything I suspected. I also believe everything was done with Obama's tacit, if not explicit, approval. I'm just innately suspicious of an anonymous person or group playing spy and using unverifiable "code" to gain credibility among the credulous.

doppelganglander 5/12/2020 10:22:19 AM

23

Reply to Occasional Reader in 19:

That was you? There's a well-known weekly pub quiz in Santa Monica at a place called O'Brien's - it's very popular with Jeopardy people and I've played there myself. They tweet a few of their questions each week, and last week the question required you to name the airport where legend has it the lizard people have their underground lair. Did you come up with that part too, or is that independent of Swamp lore? I thought it might come from the TV show V, but if it's original to the Swamp, that's even better.

vxbush 5/12/2020 10:27:01 AM

24

In #22 doppelganglander said: That's not to say, as buzz points out, that some of the things Q posts aren't true. The latest revelations confirm everything I suspected. I also believe everything was done with Obama's tacit, if not explicit, approval. I'm just innately suspicious of an anonymous person or group playing spy and using unverifiable "code" to gain credibility among the credulous.

Yes, I can appreciate that viewpoint, and used to have that viewpoint. Until we started watching the MSM lie to the American public, starting in 2004 with the Texas National Guard memos. And the staged photos during the Palestinian attacks and the restrained Israeli response. We've watched the media repeatedly skew, tilt, distort, and outright lie about the news. They always want to put a spin on it that supports leftist institutions and beliefs and belittle conservative, traditional positions. 

So I have absolutely no doubt that if the administration had left it to the MSM to get this story out, it never would have seen the light of day. Period. We still see that the media refuses to cover the story, especially as it relates to the transcripts released last Friday related to Schiff's secret investigations with all these people and Russiagate. Heck, NBC distorted Barr's interview about the DOJ dropping the prosecution of Flynn and making it look like he was simply releasing Flynn because "the victors get to write the history books," and not based on the evidence. So I can understand, from an historical aspect, that trying to do this using press releases and talking to the press wasn't going to work. They had to do something different. Hence why Trump tweets so much and, possibly, why Q was created. 

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 10:32:13 AM

25

Reply to vxbush in 21:

You have to be patient with me; Candide-like innocent that I am, I'm only recently getting aware of this stuff.

The "you can't share this in full with people" is a particularly pernicious thing, I think; it lets the full-blown loonies hide their lunacy while feeling virtuous about doing so (and avoiding any direct confrontation with someone who could blow their worldview out of the water, so that they can preserve their lunacy),  while they feed people a Hansel-and-Gretel breadcrumb trail to lead the unsuspecting in the direction they want people to go.

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 10:37:48 AM

26

Reply to doppelganglander in 23:

Back around 2000, I was planning on visiting a friend of mine who lives in Boulder, Colorado. In preparation for my visit, he was looking up information on parking at Denver international airport, and came upon this crazy piece by the aforementioned David Ickes. The piece claimed both that the weird mural art on the first level of the airport, which *is* truly weird by the way, was part of some new world order conspiracy; and that, yes, reptilian aliens had a lair deep under the airport, and the US government was secretly at war with them.  He sent me the article for my amusement. I later referenced it at the Swamp, I can’t remember exactly why, and the rest is history.

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 10:38:01 AM

27

In #19 Occasional Reader said: What?!! Why, it was one of the ravings of this very man that was the source of the “lizardoid” nickname/meme at a certain other website; which was introduced by yours truly.

I had no idea where the "lizard" thing came from; I always assumed it was a spinoff of the "Green" in SOB's site name.  I also didn't realize that Icke was the source of this "lizard people" thing---it seems like a combination of the paranoia of the classic "They Live" intermixed with an earlier cheap horror film of which I only have seen the trailer, "The Alligator People."  I thought it was basically a joke.  It is only recently that I've begun to realize that the people who make allusions to "lizard people" are, on some level, serious.

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 10:48:36 AM

28

doppelganglander 5/12/2020 10:54:39 AM

29

Reply to Occasional Reader in 26:

Interesting. Considering how many people participated in the Swamp during its heyday, I wonder if more people know the story from there than from Ickes' ravings.

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 10:59:31 AM

30

In #27 buzzsawmonkey said: the people who make allusions to "lizard people" are, on some level, serious.

Now, let’s be honest, would you be *entirely* surprised if you witnessed Nancy Pelosi swallowing a live mouse?

/naptime

doppelganglander 5/12/2020 11:11:29 AM

31

Reply to vxbush in 24:

The media has been lying to the public at least since the Wilson administration, when people were kept in the dark about the extent of Wilson's disability following his stroke and his wife's control of presidential affairs. Walter Duranty and others lied about conditions in the Soviet Union and the Holodomor. I could go on. But the point is, what are the odds Trump or anyone in his administration would choose some anonymous person to leak information to a bunch of conspiracy theorists on a disreputable website? There's nothing that's come out that you or I or any number of other people hadn't figured out already. It was just a question of releasing the declassified documents that proved it. So while what Q posted may be accurate, I don't believe in the Q persona.

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 11:30:50 AM

32

Reply to doppelganglander in 31:

Do you recall some blogger who went by the name of "Ulsterman?"  I think he had his own site. He was not-infrequently cited/linked to back at SOB, and was always writing "inside information" stuff which mostly seemed at least plausible, was sometimes even (at least partly) verifiably accurate, and which often danced coyly around the edges of a conspiratorial worldview.  He affected a "concealed for various security reasons" persona.

Haven't heard of him for some years now, but looking back, he sounds like a "proto-Q."

@PBJ3 5/12/2020 11:40:55 AM

33

Reply to Occasional Reader in 26: I also think the "lair" was underneath the Denver airport and it was discussed at the swamp.  I don't recall any details though.

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 12:08:24 PM

34

In #33 @PBJ3 said: I also think the "lair" was underneath the Denver airport and it was discussed at the swamp.  I don't recall any details though.

I think ''discussed" is too profound a word... it was just a running joke that grew some legs, based on my initial post; again, I don't recall the context for that initial post, but it was, I'm sure, also a joke.

@PBJ3 5/12/2020 12:52:58 PM

35

Reply to Occasional Reader in 34: You are correct.

vxbush 5/12/2020 12:54:31 PM

36

In #25 buzzsawmonkey said: You have to be patient with me; Candide-like innocent that I am, I'm only recently getting aware of this stuff. The "you can't share this in full with people" is a particularly pernicious thing, I think; it lets the full-blown loonies hide their lunacy while feeling virtuous about doing so (and avoiding any direct confrontation with someone who could blow their worldview out of the water, so that they can preserve their lunacy),  while they feed people a Hansel-and-Gretel breadcrumb trail to lead the unsuspecting in the direction they want people to go.

Well, consider it from the oft-repeated story about people from another time coming to our era and thinking that everything we interact with is simply magic. It is, from their viewpoint, because they don't have the underlying background to understand how these things work. In order to understand the truth, you have to have a framework of knowledge to support it.

Another example: How many times have I written about my utter confusion about why some people think the way they do? I simply don't have a particular kind of framework of "knowledge" in my mind, so the idea that folks would hold certain beliefs seems completely insane to me. That Bush caused 9/11. That the moon landings were faked. That Trump is Hitler. 

Now, flip this on its head, if you will. Go back to 2016 before the election. If I told you then that a string of people inside the DOJ/FBI were trying to oust Trump, people would say you were a conspiracy theorist. And absent any proof, you would be. Why on earth would you believe that Obama was funneling guns into Mexico for the drug cartels to use? That's just insane--without evidence. 

But--and here's the key thing--you have to have evidence. Confirmed, solid evidence. And in order to get evidence, you have to have people who are willing to go digging.  It doesn't always mean you need to know science, or be aware of history; sometimes you need a different kind of framework, like understanding politics, or understanding how governments function, or political parties. You need to know who the players are, and their backgrounds.

How can you get people to move from a position that they believe they hold with good, solid reasons to investigate something that, on the face of it, seems preposterous and beyond plausible? How can you get people to move out of that "comfort zone"? How can you get people to even think about investigating something when the evidence for it is only known by a very small number of people? 

For some people, you have to drip these details out. If you give them everything at once, they immediately reject it. This seems to be Q's modus operandi. You drop just enough hints to points people in a certain direction, and (because most people love being on the inside) you suggest you gain special knowledge by following the breadcrumbs dropped off. 

Yes, this is very dangerously close to conspiracy theory methodologies. It can be used for good or for evil. The difference, I hope, is that solid foundation of evidence exists and can be found. What Q has done is not just to create a conspiracy theory; what he has done is drop crumbs to get people investigating and get them thinking about things. He wanted folks to investigate. That investigation includes the process of cross-checking, and discussions between peoples who hold different viewpoints, to get at the truth. 

(This might also be classified as shifting the paradigm, although it really is a psyops-type of program. There's a body of research about how, especially within the scientific community, you get people to think differently about an area of research. They become so engrained in a mode of thinking, they can't jump the bounds to discover new areas of valuable research.)

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 12:55:29 PM

37

Reply to @PBJ3 in 35:

Good.  Now, I would advise you not to ask any further questions about us reptilian aliens.  We don't like hearing questions.  

vxbush 5/12/2020 12:57:54 PM

38

Reply to vxbush in 36:

This is one of the reasons I am so vehemently against the position that has gained traction on the left with "only approved sources of news are acceptable." "Only approved researchers can talk about COVID." "Only experts can provide information about topic X." It stifles discussion and can cause logical fallacies as a result. 

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 1:21:09 PM

39

Reply to vxbush in 36:

From the "they all laughed when I sat down at the piano keyboard" department:  You may recall that, back on C2, I propounded the theory that Benghazi was originally planned as a staged kidnapping for the purpose of providing the pretext for a "hostage swap" that would give Obama grounds for releasing the Blind Sheik in exchange for recovering the Ambassador, but that the set piece went bad because the SEALs, who were not in on it, fought back.

Most, if not all, and sundry dismissed this as overly-farfetched fantasizing, even though I offered some elements of evidence which seemed to support that possibility---in part, on the grounds that such an elaborate political hoax could not possibly have been concocted and kept secret.

I wonder whether, in light of the burgeoning revelations of political hoax and perfidy by the prior administration, my then-suggestions now seem more plausible.

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 1:22:55 PM

40

In #38 vxbush said: the position that has gained traction on the left with "only approved sources of news are acceptable." "Only approved researchers can talk about COVID." "Only experts can provide information about topic X." It stifles discussion and can cause logical fallacies as a result. 

Same position has taken hold on the right, too; look at the number of comments which presume that Fauci cannot be trusted on any score, not because of this or that particular policy or utterance, but because he allegedly backed Hillary Clinton in 2016.

vxbush 5/12/2020 1:25:12 PM

41

In #40 buzzsawmonkey said: Same position has taken hold on the right, too; look at the number of comments which presume that Fauci cannot be trusted on any score, not because of this or that particular policy or utterance, but because he allegedly backed Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Right. This mindset has become pernicious in our day. What complicates it is the (seemingly) simplistic reasoning going on about saving lives over the economy, without being honest about how a strong economy affects lives. 

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 1:28:26 PM

42

In #39 buzzsawmonkey said: my then-suggestions now seem more plausible.

Well, can't say I'm with you on that one, even now.

vxbush 5/12/2020 1:33:01 PM

43

In #39 buzzsawmonkey said: You may recall that, back on C2, I propounded the theory that Benghazi was originally planned as a staged kidnapping for the purpose of providing the pretext for a "hostage swap" that would give Obama grounds for releasing the Blind Sheik in exchange for recovering the Ambassador, but that the set piece went bad because the SEALs, who were not in on it, fought back.

Well, sundance has a different take on it. 

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 1:34:49 PM

44

In #39 buzzsawmonkey said: he set piece went bad because the SEALs, who were not in on it, fought back

So, among other problems with your theory; the military contractors (former SEALs, among others) stationed at the CIA Annex fought back, yes, but only after the diplomatic compound had already been overrun and Ambassador Stevens killed.   Had this been a "set piece" to kidnap him, as you suggest, the attackers would have had time to do so.  

buzzsawmonkey 5/12/2020 1:54:19 PM

45

Reply to Occasional Reader in 44:

I don't recall that being mentioned way back when; I'd been under the impression that Stevens had been killed during the fighting that intensified during the counterattack.  If what you say is in fact the case, that certainly pokes a hole in my theory, but I'd have to devote more time to studying the timeline than I'm really prepared to right now.

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 2:09:27 PM

46

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 45:

If you haven't seen 13 Hours yet, I'd recommend it.  It's well-made, and faithful to the actual events.  

I still keep the Epix network in my cable package mostly because they had the balls to air it during Election Night 2016. 

But anyway, yes, when the CIA Annex security team arrived at the diplomatic compound, the fighting there was over, the place had been overrun and the main building was on fire; and they were unable to locate Stevens (who IIRC was almost certainly already dead). They then took the survivors (and Sean Smith's body) back to the CIA Annex; and that's where the heavy fighting subsequently took place.  

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 2:16:01 PM

47

In #46 Occasional Reader said: (who IIRC was almost certainly already dead).

And no, apparently I'm wrong about that, he was found that night in the diplomatic compound by locals, either dead or near death from smoke inhalation; and was taken to a hospital, where he was pronounced dead.  But they attackers had basically lit the place on fire and left; they made no evident attempt to kidnap him. 

vxbush 5/12/2020 2:25:19 PM

48

doppelganglander 5/12/2020 2:52:59 PM

49

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 32:

The handle sounds familiar but I don't remember anything about him.

doppelganglander 5/12/2020 2:55:37 PM

50

Reply to @PBJ3 in 33:

Denver International Airport was the correct answer to the trivia question, yes. At the time, it had recently undergone a huge expansion but nothing worked, including the entire baggage handling apparatus. IIRC, the joke was that the failure was the work of the lizard people.

doppelganglander 5/12/2020 3:01:35 PM

51

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 39:

Benghazi happened in 2012, and we had all left by 2009. I do remember you proposing that theory at the time. I disagreed with you then and now. It seems to me the most plausible explanation is simple incompetence and complete disregard for American lives, followed by an attempt to conceal their failure.

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 3:13:34 PM

52

In #51 doppelganglander said: Benghazi happened in 2012, and we had all left by 2009

He was referring to correspondence committee, not the swamp.

but anyway, I agree this is not a plausible theory. In September 2012 Obama would have known that he had reelection as an odds-on favorite, but not quite guaranteed. He would’ve had everything to lose and nothing to gain by putting together a plot, involving lots of moving parts and plenty of people who could spill the beans, that would involve kidnapping an American ambassador, not to mention slaughtering other US diplomatic personnel.

lucius septimius 5/12/2020 3:13:50 PM

53

Reply to doppelganglander in 50:

I remember the famous rant-post in which Cheetos laid out the whole conspiracy.  There were also a few rather humorous cartoons about it.

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 4:04:57 PM

54

Reply to lucius septimius in 53:

Huh?  Again, this was never a “conspiracy theory“ that was actually being entertained at the swamp; it was very much a joke.

doppelganglander 5/12/2020 4:07:15 PM

55

In #52 Occasional Reader said: He was referring to correspondence committee, not the swamp.

My apologies, I misread his post.

lucius septimius 5/12/2020 4:25:39 PM

56

In #54 Occasional Reader said:

I know it was a joke -- I'm referring to a post where Cheetoes said "ok, you caught me" and then detailed being a lizardoid alien and living under the Denver airport and described their plans for a 100% Nitrogen atmosphere and various other things.

Occasional Reader 5/12/2020 4:40:33 PM

57

Reply to lucius septimius in 56:

ah