Objective Take on Jeff Rense Website: What Do You Think?

[derekmohammed]

I have been going to the Jeff rense Website for a couple years and it is sometimes Very difficult to believe what the authors are publishing on the website www.rense.com, I find a lot of the articles to be biased to one direction or another...

What do you guys think; from an objective view point?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Disclaimer - The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest our endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein. Journalism is the profession of gathering multiple facts, perspectives, viewpoints, opinions, analyses, and information about the events of our times and presenting them to readers for their own consideration. We believe in the intelligence, judgment and wisdom of our readers to discern for themselves among the data which appears on this site that which is valid and worthy...or otherwise.

How's that?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

IMHO, you have to watch places like Rense and CoasttoCoast very closely. Not everything they report is bogus but a lot of it is; or at least it is seriously hyped. I certainly check in with these sites from time to time, and I check the CtoC news links daily, but never to be trusted without a good primary or seconday source. For example, if you see a link to a Nature article, as does happen, the source is clearly reliable. If the link is Pravda, which often happens, forget about it. If the source is some general AP release, do your homework and find a better source, if you really want to know. As with all news and claims, you need to check the source.

 

[juju]

Hi,

I have only been to the site a few times, but it appeared to me that there was more than just a hint of fascism and naziism in some of the posts.

juju

 

[derekmohammed]

Hi juju,

I was just wondering how did you get that impression? I found that they were constantly warning us of a fascist dictaorship, rather then promoting it?

 

[juju]

Hi, Derek,

It was just the impression I got from a couple of the posts. I am not saying the entire site is of that nature, but you wonder when they include such posts. Like I slaid, I have only been to the site a few times, so maybe this was an anomaly.

juju

 

[Esperanto]

i just checked out rense.com and it does seem to deluge you with information. i guess it's fun if you've got a few hours for navigating it, lol. a website with an interface less daunting could be www.davidicke.com , supposedly the most often visited conspiracy theorists website today ;p. You might want to start at Welcome Visitor at the upper left or look at the library sections with their many articles. Do whatever you fancy, read or don't read just don't give me a headache by trying to insult me or talk vague and think it matters. please.

Isn't the above paragraph just so useful?

If you think Rense is filled with biased articles, please objectively show me where there exists an error in one article of theirs.

My objective point of view: Some people explore and learn and have evidence before making conclusions. Some people watch three sentences on a Coca-Cola commercial and think that is all they need to decide if Coke is good or if Coke is bad. Menace and presumption is not the answer.

Wee!

Happy new year

 

[Ivan Seeking]

iIf you think Rense is filled with biased articles, please objectively show me where there exists an error in one article of theirs.

You have got to be kidding!

 

[loseyourname]

If you think Rense is filled with biased articles, please objectively show me where there exists an error in one article of theirs.

• By now many Americans realize that 911 was an "inside job" to steal the trillions of dollars of OIL in the Caspian Sea near Afghanistan and the OIL in Iraq, and make billions of dollars for the war industrial complex.
• There will unfortunately possibly be another "major mass casualty producing event" in America brought to you by the same gang of thieves and killers who brought you 911>>>the Illuminati aided by the "BUSH GANG". This will be blamed for the collapse of the US and world economies. Someone that is made up to "look like" Ossama bin Laden has already stated on video tape that he will "bankrupt America".

That sounds pretty inaccurate. The "Illuminati" are responsible for 9/11, perpetrating it so that they can plunder oil supplies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and making up some fictional person they've named Osama bin Laden to take the fall? And of course, after plundering all of the oil, they will purposely collapse the world economy, which would of course include all of the companies that would then own the oil they worked so hard to finagle away from its rightful owners. Does that even make sense? Does it even make a difference to these people if they make sense or not?

 

[Esperanto]

You have to understand the role of banks first. They create money out of nothing, charge interest, and call in tangible money. When someone works for a ben franklin that suddenly becomes worth a george washington, it is because they have been earning illusory money and now they suicide while people with the real value goods become richer and richer. I don't think I need to explain how tax is killing the U.S. And the end result: 2 bucks for a gallon of oil becomes 200 bucks per.

I think they make perfect sense. Want to marry me?

 

[Chronos]

You have got to be kidding!

Hmm, sounds like homework to me.

 

[Esperanto]

It's not meaningless like busywork homework. Or you mean something else? hehe i saw a poll for something homework.

Come on, imagine the joy you'll find when you prove me wrong and my reality comes crashing down. I won't be a derelict! Tell me some insults, and I'll take to heart what you have got to say. I'll even go searching for disparities in what's in david icke's site!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Hey Esperanto, sorry but your comment really surprised me.

Okay, let's take a look at this popular claim found on the Rense web site.

The US Air Force has the capability of manipulating climate either for testing purposes or for outright military-intelligence use. These capabilities extend to the triggering of floods, hurricanes, droughts and earthquakes. In recent years, large amounts of money have been allocated by the US Department of Defense to further developing and perfecting these capabilities

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO409F.html

Okay Esperanto, since it's not possible to prove a negative, your challenge is to find proof of this claim. Of course you won't, which leaves us at the crossroads that makes these sites untrustworthy. By claiming conspiracies one can claim nearly anything with the same paradox as the result. Granted, weather control will likely come one day but this is taken far beyond reason. By orders of magnitude, there is not enough power in the HAARP system to do what this claims; not even close.

 

[Esperanto]

From http://www.emagazine.com/view/?8

On a smaller scale, the Wisconsin and Michigan-based PAVE PAWS, the largest over-the-horizon radars in the U.S., use one million watts of power, which has been known to disable TVs, radios and satellite communications over a 250-mile range. PAVE PAWS radiation can also "disrupt cardiac pacemakers seven miles away and cause the inadvertent detonation of electrically-triggered flares and bombs in passing aircraft," says Gar Smith. By stage three, HAARP will be 1,700 times more powerful than initial testing, and it would halt all types of communication nearby, including cellular phones, radar and radio frequencies, TVs and satellites. Some researchers believe HAARP's transmissions can also interfere with human brain activity.

Also

Dr. Nick Begich, author of Angels Don't Play This HAARP, warns that the consequences of the military's experiment are more serious than mere tampering with the ionosphere. "Energy in certain frequencies when reaching the outermost portions of the ionosphere can be amplified up to 1,000 times by natural processes. A serious environmental disaster-such as geoelectric storms, hurricanes or floods--may well be the result," Begich cautions.

Yes, big numbers! Tickles you pink, doesn't it?

Like that dialogue from Team America

Kim Jung Ill: It will be 9/11 times 2,356.
Christ: My god, that's... I don't even know what that is!.

The topic of HAARP is important to many people because it is connected to something that really ticks us off. And the idea of manipulating the weather for sociopathic purposes has been around at least since early 20th Century. What do you think can happen in a hundred years? I think that's sufficient time for interesting things beyond what we think are rational, like tech breakthroughs, eh? Meteorologists are bewildered by what's going on with the weather. Look at the sky sometime, and look through old pictures before 1998. One thing you should look for is a real cloud. They hardly exist as they did a decade ago.

So instead, you get these!

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesA/plane2.jpg

http://www.samliquidation.com/CHEMTRAIL-BEST.jpg

Hurray! Anyway, I agree that Everything can be right, you just have to look at things the wrong way. We can accuse each other of being lazy and stupid, but the only thing that matters is that our governments are run by sociopaths.

This is pretty much why the people running those websites painstakingly collect evidence and present them to you

http://www.muchosucko.com/viewlink5967.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

All highly speculative, unreliable, and no good science to be found. Find me a real source like the journals Nature, Science, or even an article in Scientific American that supports any of these claims. And I don't mean proof that some RADAR uses one million watts, I mean that this has some effect on the weather, or whatever nonsense they are claiming here.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that I'm not completely trashing these sites. I think they provide useful and unusual information. What I am saying is that you need other credible sources before you accept anything found in the fringe. There is a difference between the credible fringe, and nonsense that charlatans pedal to the naive or uniformed. To be fair though, it's not always easy to tell the difference. One can't be an expert at everything, or even many things. If you're not an expert, it becomes difficult to tell who is. Heck, look at the Art Bell show, on Coast to Coast AM; the guest could be Sylvia Brown or Michio Kaku!

 

[Esperanto]

from http://educate-yourself.org/ct/ctpeanutbutterbariumsandwiches17apr02.shtml

And if you took your Pocket Fisherman to Florida Bay last month, you would have probably caught some of those "gelatinous blobs floating in it and spider-weblike filaments." In January, fishermen in the Bay of Mexico began to report on a zone of lifeless water, about the size of Lake Athabasca, they dubbed "black water". By early April, divers off Key West found dead and dying sponges, a trail of devastation and no answers. Clearly, none of the baffled marine biologists read Woman's World magazine: an article in the March 19 edition proudly announced that a Florida research firm had discovered "a powder that will give you perfect weather every day,"
and that in a top-secret test, this weather wonder drug was scattered over a storm by military planes. The company spokesman: Peter Cordani. The product: DYN-O-Gel. The Spin: it will "protect the lives of millions, but it'll protect your leisure time, too."

Please read this entire article, too. Honestly, I don't see why you aren't bringing up the links to the two pictures I put in my last post. And what Begich says, just because it has not been expounded beyond a few sentences, does NOT necessarily mean it is total bs. I think it deserves further inquiry by us.

There is a remarkable difference between charlatans and people who are sincerely pedalling information to benefit others. Charlatans want to control you. Major news channels want to contorl you. Bush wants you ta think war equals peace.

Read this on haarp weather modification never-ending speculation: http://educate-yourself.org/cn/aug14blackoutandhaarp06sep03.shtml

Thanks! Let's pat each other on the backs. And good night.

 

[username]

Hi juju,

I was just wondering how did you get that impression? I found that they were constantly warning us of a fascist dictaorship, rather then promoting it?

Sorry to butt in but I have been listening to jeff rense for ages and have come to the conclusion the guy is a bit of a fascist. But that is not what the show is about. Hardly ever visit the website though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Esperanto, you asked for a review of a story from Rense and I gave one to consider; HAARP. You are now jumping all over the board with every conspiracy theory going. There may be some truth in some stories, but certainly not everything you read on the net. Your sources are terrible.

Try something like this instead.
http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/

 

[Esperanto]

I think I was still talking about climate modification.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Esperanto, a lot fo the sort of material you are siting can be very interesting to read. I generally listen to "Coast to Coast" and read this sort of thing because I find it entertaining, and it seems that Ivan finds it entertaining too. I have found though that if you want good reliable info they aren't the best sources. Sometimes they have good tid bits but you still need to double check them with other sources. I've gotten to the point where I will check up on articles in the regular media just to be sure I am getting good info.
Personally I wouldn't trust much of what I hear from some one who tells me that lizard-men from the hollow Earth have taken the places of several prominent politicians(i.e. David Icke).
If something strikes your interest then you should research it and look for credible sources on the subject. Good guidelines by which to decide if the source is credible would be;
-Someone who sites specific information, especially if they provide the source for that information, rather than relying mainly on their own opinion or conjecture is generally a good source.
-If someone quotes anonymous sources they are likely bunk. The anonymous source may be lying or misinformed or completely nonexistent and you have no way of knowing. Most good reporters and the like aren't likely to use anonymous sources. Similarly if someone who is quoted is say someone that used to work for a particular lab or company but does not any longer they may very well be lying or misinformed and only saying what they are for spite or to grab some of the spot light.
-If you can read other work by the author and see if they have theories or notions that you find hard to believe or lack credibility that will help you determine if you can trust them. When you hear Richard C. Hoagland talk about the face on Mars it may not see so far fetched at first but if you read elsewhere that he has supposedly created a free energy device and he believes that aliens on planet X are redirecting comets towards Earth then you may be less inclined to believe what he says on other matters.
That's all I can get out at the moment, my mind is a bit hazy right now.

 

[Kakarot]

http://www.rense.com/general30/mager.htm

anyone seen this article before? kind of scary and interesting, although it seems a bit hyped

 

[Chronos]

http://www.rense.com/general30/mager.htm

anyone seen this article before? kind of scary and interesting, although it seems a bit hyped

'Scientist Tom Bearden...' ?? That is hiliarious. Has he been taking night classes at Pheonix University? Last I heard he was a retired colonel. Bearden makes Setterfield look sane.

 

[Esperanto]

Just because someone talks about what you consider possible and then talks about something you don't consider plausible doesn't mean you should throw his work out the window. Christopher Columbus knew the world was round but thought he went to India. I stole that from The Gods of Eden, by William Bramley a great introduction with evidence ;p even though the Church already knew the Earth was round by then, but er that's beside the point.

There are many things that give the things conspiracy theorists say credibility that are largely ignored by some people. I don't like major news channels because they like to conceal things. People protested against Vietnam War and it was shown on t.v. People protested against the Iraq War and there was a lockdown in our t.v. media. Can you see the draft coming? Must the show go on? I am tired of people saying "I think that's right" or "I think that's wrong" as if the more nonexistent their evidence backing them up the better their opinion or, more often than not, insults. Not thinking about anyone in particular here, btw ;p.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Just because someone talks about what you consider possible and then talks about something you don't consider plausible doesn't mean you should throw his work out the window.

I never said that it ought to be thrown out the window just looked at more closely. Buckminster Fuller had good ideas yet believed that he was contacted by an extraterrestrial intelligence. The proof in his ideas that gained credibility though outweighed his quirkiness. Most examples you could find won't follow that though.

 

[Esperanto]

The purpose of what I said is that certain things, like contact by extraterrestrials, are not hard to believe for some people. Quirky here, quirky there, whatever you say ;p.

 

[loseyourname]

I think they make perfect sense. Want to marry me?

Do you also think it's plausible that Osama bin Laden is a fictional construct of the "Illuminati" who covertly plot to control the world economy? I've read Gods of Eden and, if you believe everything in that book, you're insane.

And there's no way I'd marry someone from Anaheim.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And there's no way I'd marry someone from Anaheim.

How about Huntington Beach? ;-p

 

[Esperanto]

Bummer, I gave that book to a girl to scare her. There are many threads to follow to see the ones who run the show either don't know what the hell they are doing or are deliberately trying to kill us. That book is the best ! There is a terrible tendency for people here to be hypocrites.

I am pretty sure I have responded to questions put before me and I keep getting bashed, words put in my mouth, and accused of many things backed by much less thought or evidence than the ideas I've posted. Oh, and then not even given a chance to respond. as if you were actually listening to what I said.

Why shouldn't I believe our leaders are messed up in their heads? I see people bashing Bush for his fool's war all the time but they are too wussy to do anything about it. Then they vote for Bush saying, That Kerry would be a worse leader. Or would you like me to reciprocate your jibe at me about not marrying me because I live in Anaheim?Sometimes I wonder if you are all just braindead nits.

Why don't you just close this thread like the 9/11 one. But before I go

"people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both" - Ben Franklin!

Oink oink (that's Newspeak for tata).

 

[russ_watters]

I am pretty sure I have responded to questions put before me and I keep getting bashed, words put in my mouth, and accused of many things backed by much less thought or evidence than the ideas I've posted. Oh, and then not even given a chance to respond. as if you were actually listening to what I said...

Why don't you just close this thread like the 9/11 one.

It is precisely because you jump around a lot, don't respond to arguments, and don't present arguments of your own that you are "getting bashed" and that 9/11 thread got closed. Everyone sees this and if you seriously don't realize you are doing it and aren't doing it on purpose, consider this us trying to help you: its something you really need to work on with your communications skills. Here is what just happened (and, maybe I can bring this back on point):

-You asked for a specific example of an untruth found on Rense.
-Ivan gave a specific example: HAARP
-You responded with a link that made no mention of HAARP whatsoever.
-Your defense of this is was "I think I was still talking about climate modification."

Can you not see how this fails to address the specific example of HAARP? There are many legitimate experiments out there on climate/weather modification (ie, cloud seeding). These have nothing whatsoever to do with HAARP.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"It is precisely because you jump around a lot, don't respond to arguments, and don't present arguments of your own that you are "getting bashed" and that 9/11 thread got closed."

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'd have to agree with Russ and Ivan. I'm sorry that you feel the way you do about this but really I haven't seen much where we have not paid attention to what you were saying. Perhaps you were given a little jab by loseyourname but you should maybe expect that when people are having a serious discussion they may respond to you making jokes in a way that you won't like.
Maybe you'd like this place better...
http://forums.sykospark.net/
They aren't so serious but they'll be much more mean than most of the people here I assure you.