Reliable Sources

I was at the local Barnes & Noble after work (I know it is hard for you troofers to understand, but this is not my job) and came across Jim Marr's new book, The Rise of the Fourth Reich: The Secret Societies That Threaten to Take Over America, ostensibly a serious look at the evil secret underworld of America.

Now I have no intention of buying this book of course, but I flipped through it for a couple of minutes. I find that the best way to evaluate a book quickly is to look at the footnotes, and see who the author sources. Much to my shock, albeit amusement, I found an entire paragraph devoted to the revelations of none other than Lauro Chavez there on page 358.

Well at least he did his research.

Deja Vu All Over Again

I was watching the video of the recent Arizona conference. It is full of rather interesting moments, including our very own Pat, but I found this part especially amusing (mostly because it proved me right once again). Jim Marrs from 26:35 in:

I interviewed Sergeant Lauro Chavez who was with US Central Command, he said that on the morning of 9/11 they were in the middle of wargame exercises. One of the exercises involved hijacker airplanes being flown into the World Trade Center. When it happened, they were flabbergasted, they turned on CNN, they were watching the same scenes we all saw, they said how can it be that what we were here wargaming has now happened in real life. And I am sure that most of those people are still in the military, most of them are still quiet. They are not sinister conspirators, but they all participated in what happened on 9/11. And that's why we haven't heard anything out of it. As long as the official position is that it was Osama bin Laden and his 19 hijackers, these people will continue to be quiet.

Uhh Jim, those people did not participate in 9/11, in fact the man you interviewed did not participate in 9/11! As I mentioned 6 months ago, even though Lauro Chavez was proven to be a total fake, that will not stop conspiracy theorists from citing him as a source. This would make no less than 3 members of the "Scholars" who have cited him as a witness AFTER it already came out that he was a complete fake. Do these people have any standards whatsoever for evidence? That is an honest question, I would really like to know. Is there anything at all they will not cite as evidence if it supports their viewpoint?