Free Conspiracy

Of course not, the Crab people run everything.

(Of course they do, I'm just pretending they don't so they don't get suspicious of me - they're scanning the internet)

[citation needed]

Except per your link below, these theories don't mesh. The basal ganglia used solely, would be without calculation, or very little of it. The "thinking" parts of the brain "go dark", so we've got a bit of cognitive dissonance here, both literally and figuratively. :)

Sample size, BRAH

Right. There is a chasm of difference between news companies "blowing up" stories to be bigger than they are, or speculating to gain/keep listeners/viewers and fabricating entire scenes with actors/actresses.

Reality TV and news are not the same thing, unless things have changes epicly since I left the business. Real news people don't stage scenes (although they do stage and edit face-to-face pre-records - but not with actors/actresses).

Now, there are certainly stations that carry both real news and talking head/pundit/reality TV. Pretty much all of the cable news networks do this. And scrutiny is definitely in order to separate one from another.

But the news station I listen to here has Fox News as their news feed. That's real news, regardless of the parent company. There may be editorial decisions made that are different than another network, but the trained professionals reporting the news are just that. Professionals. They are not without fault, but they do their best within the context of their work environment.

Sean Hannity, or Keith Olbermann, or whatever talking head hack you want to name. That's not news. That's infotainment.

Anyway...yes, scrutiny is your friend. And your Bush example is sound. Newspeople don't always do their jobs with enough force. But remember, the news didn't stage Bush's evidence farce, the Bush administration did. The news stations just bought in long enough for them to get what they wanted.

Again, there's quite a distinction to be made there.

+1

That one made me smile. :)

Go to the parents of the murdered children and tell them in front of their faces that they are fake.
Go to a Jewish survivor and tell them the men responsible for millions of deaths are actors and it was all a "movie".
If you are not trolling I have bad news for you. You should see a therapist. A sane mind shouldn't be able to think like that. Use some f$cking basic logic, go outside and face reality.

[citation needed]

And no, before you bomb with wall-to-wall videos, I mean concise citation that takes less than hours to sift through. Emperical proof is great too.

Do not mistake scrutiny, skepticism and critical reasoning for mere mindless opposition. Those three are the most vital assets in revealing truth. Do not forget that willing confirmation bias and false revelation presented as absolute truth is as good as as a minor conspiracy in itself. Spreading misinformation is a counterforce to truth, and if you do not properly check your facts before you spread them, it becomes a disease to minds weak enough to accept them without full scrutiny. Listen to the things you are saying : "there has never been a school shooting".

You have a hypothesis, but the findings are FAR from conslusive. You should stop presenting them as such.

Also, the capslock spam is obnoxious. If you really want to highlight your replies as the OP. A single, brief title line in that format would suffice in drawing attention.

Then why on earth isn't this all over the news instead of steamgifts?

Okay. I'll bite.

How is it that the mysterious folks in the sky that hire these supposed actors keep them from talking about their work?

What about the myriad number of staff, directors, directors of photography, producers, grips, gaffers, APs, PAs, writers, craft services, etc., etc.?

These kind of productions would take hundreds, if not thousands, of corroborating human parts to work.

Can you explain how you hire someone to serve food on set that isn't going to say a peep about this?

Remember I worked in this business for years. I will be VERY hard to convince.

So 2 couples who look similar can't have children that look similar? Also, most of the 'proof' they're providing is based off looks changing or 'camera angles'. It sounds like they're trying to make up facts that aren't really there. I have a logical math midterm tomorrow, so I'm going to write some statements to help me, you and anyone else who reads this understand.
x = "News broadcasts have actor look-a-likes." (True)
y = "Actor look-a-likes are the actors themselves." (False - There exists look-a-likes that aren't the actors.)
Conclusion: "If a news broadcast has an actor look-a-like, then the look-a-like isn't the actor." (x -> ~y)
True implies false means the implication is false and we therefore conclude that your and the claimer's statements are also false. Even math disproves it so sorry, I can't believe this in any way.

dalek replacements that dont know theyre dalek puppets till activated is my fear, the original cyernetic horror accept no substitutes :)

"It just isn't in human nature to stay quiet for that long"
Unless there is a personal risk of sorts for exposing it, or more profit in staying quiet. Look at the 'killer bee' of social engineering for reference : Scientology.

Though I agree with the notion that -someone- would have let slip at some point, given these wouldn't be small enough operations to maintain complete secrecy, and morals and values vary greatly between individuals.