Is the Mass Media Aligned with Truth?

[Channing]

Is the Mass Media Aligned with Truth?

I would say often they are not, at least not in important issues.

What do you think?

It used to bother me a lot, so I became quite a "crusader" for truth, especially on such issues as 9/11 and the NWO.

Lately I've come to the conclusion, that people have the right to their world-view. So if they *want* to believe the lies of the mass media, then have the right to. The only problem I have now it is hard for me to have discussions with such people on current world affairs. Either I stay out of the discussion or I start telling them my world view, which often means that this cuts the discussion short.

Is it important to convey one's version of the truth to other people on "world affairs"?

[Andrew Brunelle]

The mass media is aligned with its owners agendas. Most of what they report on is extremely biased to whoever is pulling the strings. It's very negative and very fear-mongering. Sure, the world is going downhill, but focusing on it 95% of the time isn't really news, it's learned hopelessness and propaganda to make the population feel fearful and hopeless.

If you turn on a channel like Fox News, you'll get something like this, "War, disease, famine, AIDS, death, homeless, recession, depression." Then you look out your window and hear crickets.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Channing

It used to bother me a lot, so I became quite a "crusader" for truth, especially on such issues as 9/11 and the NWO.

Lately I've come to the conclusion, that people have the right to their world-view. So if they *want* to believe the lies of the mass media, then have the right to. The only problem I have now it is hard for me to have discussions with such people on current world affairs. Either I stay out of the discussion or I start telling them my world view, which often means that this cuts the discussion short.

Is it important to convey one's version of the truth to other people on "world affairs"?

I used to be a kind of "crusader," too (mainly with health topics), but now I mostly keep my views to myself. Unless someone asks me point blank, "What do you think about such-and-such?" I don't say anything.

It seems like people just want a sympathetic ear—they don't want to change their point of view about subjects like 9/11. That's why I love forums like this one, because you can say anything and find like-minded people.

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

The mass media is aligned with its owners agendas. Most of what they report on is extremely biased to whoever is pulling the strings. It's very negative and very fear-mongering. Sure, the world is going downhill, but focusing on it 95% of the time isn't really news, it's learned hopelessness and propaganda to make the population feel fearful and hopeless.

I agree, and that's one of the reasons why I never watch t.v.

If you turn on a channel like Fox News, you'll get something like this, "War, disease, famine, AIDS, death, homeless, recession, depression." Then you look out your window and hear crickets.

Ha! That's so true.

[David Cain]

Is the Mass Media Aligned with Truth?

Of course not. Mass Media is a collective term for thousands of businesses, all of whom are in it as a business. They sell what sells, not what informs.

I would be wary of forming an idea of the world as a whole from what you learn through media channels. First-hand observation is reliable, everything else is dubious at best.

Is it important to convey one's version of the truth to other people on "world affairs"?

I say no. If you are not receptive to their view, they will not be receptive to yours. Everyone wants everyone else to agree with them, because of the ego high it produces. It's a good rule of thumb to make a point of understanding the other person before you try to get them to understand you. If you can do that, friends will pile up like cordwood.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by liamona

I used to be a kind of "crusader," too (mainly with health topics), but now I mostly keep my views to myself. Unless someone asks me point blank, "What do you think about such-and-such?" I don't say anything.

It seems like people just want a sympathetic ear—they don't want to change their point of view about subjects like 9/11. That's why I love forums like this one, because you can say anything and find like-minded people.

I am very much of the same mind, liamona.

I don't watch TV ever, either. Plenty of better places to go for news... And I'd rather create a life from the images in my own mind than what's channeled through that box.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

And I'd rather create a life from the images in my own mind than what's channeled through that box.

No kidding! I'm trying to do that, too. I just wish my mind's screen was as sharp as an HDTV's.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Channing

Is the Mass Media Aligned with Truth?

That almost sounds like a rhetorical question. No, it's a bit hard to argue that most mass media is aligned with truth. That's not to say that everything that comes out of the mass media is a lie. Most of the content is factual. It's just that the facts are removed from their context (a little differently depending on which media outlet you're talking about). You can tell as much about the media by finding out what it doesn't report, as by what it does report.

[Brutha]

Just because the mass media isn't 100% true doesn't mean that the 9/11 conspiracy theories are all true.
Most people in that category are ready to believe every claim that is in line with the assumption the Al Queada wasn't responsible for 9/11 without doing real fact checking.

If the claim that Al Queada wasn't true than the people who would wanted to cover it up would produce a lot of false theory about how the mossad (and the CIA and the Vatican) did it to distract conspiracy theorists.
As conspiracy theorists generally don't do much fact checking the noise produced by who ever wanted to cover up would lead to most of the facts being believed by conspiracy theorists being wrong.

If you think that Al Queada did commit 9/11 those theory are completely wrong as well.

As a result being truth based and believing in the popular conspiracy theories about 9/11 isn't possible.

[Eric Roosevelt]

The magazine Popular Mechanics has already published several articles (and a book) disproving the most popular 9/11 conspiracy theories (conspiracies based on the claim that the U.S. government planned and assisted the terrorists). This can be a good place to start.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

Apart from using science to disprove these theories - for example the theory that there were controlled explosions inside the WTC towers - we can also use common sense. It's extremely unlikely that the U.S. government would have taken the risk of planning the attacks, given how many conspirators would have to be trusted to keep the secret. Members of Al Qaeda have also explicitly stated that they were responsible for the attacks, and explained how they did it.

As Brutha said, we can probably dismiss the idea that people who believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories are aligned with truth. However, I think there should have been more of a discussion about whether the U.S. government could have done more to predict the attacks, given the information they had access to. The WTC had already been attacked once, and they were receiving explicit threats from the same group who carried out this first attack.

As for the mass media, they could have done a better job of explaining how U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia and its support for Israel were related to the 9/11 attacks. If they were interested in giving a full explanation, they probably would have put more emphasis on this.

[liamona]

This thread sure is timely—did anyone else see the articles about how tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials like nano-thermite? Steven Jones and some other professors published a paper on it in the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

The magazine Popular Mechanics has already published several articles (and a book) disproving the most popular 9/11 conspiracy theories (conspiracies based on the claim that the U.S. government planned and assisted the terrorists). This can be a good place to start.

Is it really? I'm not completely convinced. They lay out the arguments in a pretty format, but I have trouble with the fact that "Popular Mechanics" is a Hearst publication.

It's extremely unlikely that the U.S. government would have taken the risk of planning the attacks, given how many conspirators would have to be trusted to keep the secret.

Yes, it's extremely unlikely that the whole government was part of the attack, but is it totally unbelievable that some knowledgeable rotten apples in it helped this nefarious act along? Especially when a group like the "Project for the New American Century" thought nothing less than a 'new Pearl Harbor' would enable rapid military and defense policy transformations to take place?

I'm still skeptical that the biggest military with the biggest budget was foiled by a bunch of terrorists with box cutters. If it's true, shoot, what a waste of money!

By the way, wasn't it interesting that Donald Rumsfeld confessed on September 10th, 2001 that $2.3 Trillion was "missing" from the defense budget?

"Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten." What a coinky-dink!

Members of Al Qaeda have also explicitly stated that they were responsible for the attacks, and explained how they did it.

Since the U.S. government originally helped fund and support bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan's war against the Soviet Union, I have trouble believing that they make any actions or statements without the knowledge of certain government factions.

It also appears that organizations which somehow acquire Al Qaeda videos, like IntelCenter and SITE Intelligence Group, are probably Pentagon front groups.

I think there should have been more of a discussion about whether the U.S. government could have done more to predict the attacks, given the information they had access to. The WTC had already been attacked once, and they were receiving explicit threats from the same group who carried out this first attack.

Yep, and it's really too bad that the government has been using it as a way to whip up fear ever since it happened.

As for the mass media, they could have done a better job of explaining how U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabia and its support for Israel were related to the 9/11 attacks. If they were interested in giving a full explanation, they probably would have put more emphasis on this.

That's expecting a lot out of the mainstream media!

[Brutha]

By the way, wasn't it interesting that Donald Rumsfeld confessed on September 10th, 2001 that $2.3 Trillion was "missing" from the defense budget?

Something like 9/11 certainly isn't someting that you can plan in a single day.

I'm still skeptical that the biggest military with the biggest budget was foiled by a bunch of terrorists with box cutters. If it's true, shoot, what a waste of money!

The question is what Military spending is all about
Pentagon Under Robert Gates - Analysis of Gates New Defense Budget - Esquire

Since the U.S. government originally helped fund and support bin Laden and his followers in Afghanistan's war against the Soviet Union, I have trouble believing that they make any actions or statements without the knowledge of certain government factions.

Just because you give someone money doesn't mean that he does what you want.
By the same reasoning the US government would only do what the taxpayers want.
Getting someones loyalty is pretty hard.

It also appears that organizations which somehow acquire Al Qaeda videos, like IntelCenter and SITE Intelligence Group, are probably Pentagon front groups.

In that case groups like the Taliban should have an interest to declare that those videos are fake.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Something like 9/11 certainly isn't someting that you can plan in a single day.

No, and that is why I brought up PNAC and the possible nefarious elements in the government. They may have been waiting for just such an opportunity as 9/11.

Also, weren't there various FBI sources reporting that something like this was in the works, but the information didn't get to the right places in time because of egos and bureaucratic red tape?

The question is what Military spending is all about
Pentagon Under Robert Gates - Analysis of Gates New Defense Budget - Esquire

That looks like a great article, from the skimming I just did.

Just because you give someone money doesn't mean that he does what you want.

Of course not—but if "they" were able to get in contact with him before that war, what keeps "them" from being able to contact him now? (although there's a good chance that he's dead).

Especially with all the expensive high-tech gadgetry they have at their disposal. Some unusually tall thin guy who needs dialysis is able to elude the best and brightest of the military? GREAT.

By the same reasoning the US government would only do what the taxpayers want.

Well, they certainly should, shouldn't they?

Getting someones loyalty is pretty hard.

Someone, as in the case of these blackguards, would probably not have loyalty very high on their list of good qualities, wouldn't you think? Which is why it's probably not a good idea to give them money in the first place.

In that case groups like the Taliban should have an interest to declare that those videos are fake.

They're probably too busy rolling on the floor laughing their asses off like anyone else who's seen them.

This reminds me of when the UK's Daily Mail and Telegraph ran the article about SITE Intelligence Group's claim, "Al-Qaeda's Terrifying Vision of a Devastated America in the Wake of a Nuclear Attack," and the picture SITE produced was from the computer game Fallout 3. Oops!

[Brutha]

Also, weren't there various FBI sources reporting that something like this was in the works, but the information didn't get to the right places in time because of egos and bureaucratic red tape?

What surprise that a government agency has a lot of bureaucratic red tape.

Well, they certainly should, shouldn't they?

a) No, they should represent every citizen equally regardless of whether the person has a job and therefore is able to pay taxes. Especially the amount of taxes payed shouldn't have an influence.
b) There's a difference between should and do.

Of course not—but if "they" were able to get in contact with him before that war, what keeps "them" from being able to contact him now? (although there's a good chance that he's dead).

He probably doesn't want to be reached by them.
Additionally you shouldn't forget that the US mainly supported the Taliban against the soviets and Osama Bin Laden was just another person who also supported the Taliban.

Osama Bin Laden's family is influential in Saudi Arabia.
Beforehand Bin Laden had good relationships with his family and it was probably easy to reach him through calling one of his brothers.

This reminds me of when the UK's Daily Mail and Telegraph ran the article about SITE Intelligence Group's claim, "Al-Qaeda's Terrifying Vision of a Devastated America in the Wake of a Nuclear Attack," and the picture SITE produced was from the computer game Fallout 3. Oops!

The assumption that there should be a real picture when somebody has a vision is pretty strange.

Someone, as in the case of these blackguards, would probably not have loyalty very high on their list of good qualities, wouldn't you think? Which is why it's probably not a good idea to give them money in the first place.

They didn't give them money with the main intention to get loyalty but to make life harder for the Soviets. But it was still not the brightest idea.
But what do you expect from the CIA? Bright ideas?

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by Channing

Is the Mass Media Aligned with Truth?

I would say often they are not, at least not in important issues.

What do you think?

The media are prostitutes. For people whose profession is supposed to be informing people... they really have no honour or pride at all.

No wonder blogging is getting so big. People are sick of media that are controlled by people who want to own people's minds.

Is it important to convey one's version of the truth to other people on "world affairs"?

If they seem open to new things. Otherwise as you say... let them suffer, if that's how they want to live. You have to respect that choice.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by liamona

This thread sure is timely—did anyone else see the articles about how tiny red and gray chips found in the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center contain highly explosive materials like nano-thermite? Steven Jones and some other professors published a paper on it in the Open Chemical Physics Journal.

Yeah, Steven Jones has been searching for this evidence ever since he decided in 2005 that the attacks were an inside job. Here's the abstract:

Bentham Science Publishers (you can download the paper from this page)

There's also a theory that when you slam a Boeing 767 with ten thousand gallons of jet fuel into a flimsy steel structure, maybe the structure collapses. This one is quite interesting as well.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/pe...Papers/405.pdf

Only one floor actually needed to collapse in order for the rest of the building to collapse.

Is it really? I'm not completely convinced. They lay out the arguments in a pretty format, but I have trouble with the fact that "Popular Mechanics" is a Hearst publication.

Almost every peer-reviewed journal comes to similar or identical conclusions.

By the way, wasn't it interesting that Donald Rumsfeld confessed on September 10th, 2001 that $2.3 Trillion was "missing" from the defense budget?

Just because money is missing from the defense budget doesn't mean that the money was used by the government to attack its own citizens. Also, this doesn't fit with your theory that a few rotten apples just "helped this nefarious act along". Why would you need $2.3 trillion just to help it along? It would be much cheaper than that. Assuming that this story is true, you'd be better off arguing that the government used the money for planning and carrying out the attacks themselves.

You also have to explain why the U.S. government would do such a thing. Was it to give them an excuse to invade Iraq? In that case, why did they risk confrontation with one of their greatest allies and strategic suppliers of oil - Saudi Arabia - by letting fifteen Saudi terrorists carry out the attacks?

And why would Al Qaeda members claim responsibility for the attacks?

Of course not—but if "they" were able to get in contact with him before that war, what keeps "them" from being able to contact him now?

If Osama was responsible for the attacks, he'd probably try to hide somewhere. If Osama wasn't responsible for the attacks - and the U.S. government set up the attacks and made it look like he did it, and then started searching for him and tried to kill him - he'd still probably try to hide somewhere. Unless, of course, you want to argue that the entire government (including the current administration) and the military is part of the conspiracy.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by liamona

No kidding! I'm trying to do that, too. I just wish my mind's screen was as sharp as an HDTV's.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Brutha

As conspiracy theorists generally don't do much fact checking the noise produced by who ever wanted to cover up would lead to most of the facts being believed by conspiracy theorists being wrong.

In my experience, those you call "conspiracy theorists" are looking more square in the face at facts, while those that believe the 9-11 fairy tale are doing the ostrich thing. And the noise produced by those that would distract from the truth creates such a clamor, if one just begins paying attention to it, it begins to speak for itself.. You don't even need to read anything... just pay attention and listen to the noise and it will show you a lot.

[Brutha]

In my experience, those you call "conspiracy theorists" are looking more square in the face at facts, while those that believe the 9-11 fairy tale are doing the ostrich thing.

As there are a lot of different claims about 9/11 conspiracy theories a website seeking the true 9/11 conspiracy theory would list other conspiracy theories that they think to be false.

If all conspiracy theory people would do that and have one coherent theory that wouldn't contradict itself that theory wouldn't be able to be easily attacked by people like the Popular Mechanics people.

[Angela Leeds]

Well, the Popular Mechanics article is pretty funny... hardly a debunker or a potent attack. You can't legitimately attack good sense, lol.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

I think you'll find that both Brutha and I are quite nice guys, and we'd both be happy to look objectively at these facts you're referring to. If you're willing to tell us what they are.

Not, that's not my bag. Plenty of people out there that have done it well already. If the subject interests you, explore it. If not... it's always there for another day.

I don't understand.

When someone is in front of you, telling a very simple lie, there are many subtle signals that can clue you in to that fact... There are physical symptoms, such as where they are looking, the quality of energy that lies behind their eyes, how they move their hands. If you're sensitive, you can almost feel or see their heart-rate escalate, or their attempts to control it. You can observe aspects of their conversation... how are they attempting to manipulate or distract you? That one becomes quite entertaining, because it requires so much obvious effort. And if they are actually attacking you personally as an evasive technique, that's like a giant red flag they don't realize is just so obvious. If a truth is true, it doesn't require personal attack as an evasion.

That's just for one single little lie told by a single person. When it's a complex lie, with many layers, involving many people, the signs become so noisy and obvious if you are tuned into this dimension of people, it becomes truly a wonder how people don't notice. But if we're attuned to deception as being "normal", or if we have dulled our senses with certain mind-numbing beliefs or practices, or if our core beliefs rigidly lock out all perception that would challenge them...we just don't notice. We are not sensitive to the clamor of the very obvious "sights & sounds".

It's like with diet -- if we eat a diet full of crap & toxins & dead matter, we don't notice the power of the life in the living foods that might actually make it into our systems. But take out the "noise" and replace it with living foods, then what was not apparent before becomes utterly obvious.

That's what I mean by not noticing the "clamor".

[Brutha]

When someone is in front of you, telling a very simple lie, there are many subtle signals that can clue you in to that fact... There are physical symptoms, such as where they are looking, the quality of energy that lies behind their eyes, how they move their hands.

Just because the words that people say is well rehearsed and people aren't natural while they speak doesn't mean that you know what you know whether they are hiding something or what they are hiding.

And yes, that's natural for politicians that they don't speak heart to heart.

[Eric Roosevelt]

Sorry, I deleted my last post, thinking it was a bit redundant. It's alright though, since you still managed to respond to it.

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

Not, that's not my bag [presenting "the facts" is not your bag]. Plenty of people out there that have done it well already. If the subject interests you, explore it.

That's what we're doing, and the evidence so far points clearly towards that Al Qaeda operatives planned and executed the attacks - not least because they told us - and the theory that the U.S. government was responsible for the attacks is more likely to be a result of people's general distrust towards the U.S. government, than an honest attempt at analyzing the forensic evidence and understanding the context in which the attacks took place.

Sure, any complex event is likely to have some unexplained or contradictory factors. But it doesn't follow from that that the U.S. government was responsible for the attacks.

[Angela Leeds]

Okay, well, you and Brutha see different evidence and believe stories that are utter nonsense to me, while I notice other things which are screamingly obvious to me.

We see what we see... trying to persuade someone to see something they don't is silly & futile.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Brutha

But what do you expect from the CIA? Bright ideas?

Well, I expect to get my tax money's worth—you know, the ability to stop wild-eyed terrorists living in caves at the very least. Sheesh, is that a lot to ask for?

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

Almost every peer-reviewed journal comes to similar or identical conclusions.

And now we have Steven Jones' new paper in the peer-reviewed Bentham Science Publishers journal! Things are getting interesting.

Just because money is missing from the defense budget doesn't mean that the money was used by the government to attack its own citizens.

That's true—I didn't mean to give the impression that the two were linked. It's just yet another interesting 9/11 coincidence.

Also, this doesn't fit with your theory that a few rotten apples just "helped this nefarious act along". Why would you need $2.3 trillion just to help it along?

That's not my theory.

It would be much cheaper than that.

Yes, and a lot of it could've come from the profits the CIA makes from drugs.

You also have to explain why the U.S. government would do such a thing. Was it to give them an excuse to invade Iraq?

It sure helped, didn't it? But how about as a way to pass the Patriot Act? How is it that this massive document appeared in full form practically overnight?

In that case, why did they risk confrontation with one of their greatest allies and strategic suppliers of oil - Saudi Arabia - by letting fifteen Saudi terrorists carry out the attacks?

But they haven't confronted them at all. Instead, they've let Iraq be the fall guy for this.

If Osama was responsible for the attacks, he'd probably try to hide somewhere. If Osama wasn't responsible for the attacks - and the U.S. government set up the attacks and made it look like he did it, and then started searching for him and tried to kill him - he'd still probably try to hide somewhere.

My theory is that with black budget funding Osama bin Forgotten has had a face lift, and is floating around in the pool of some ritzy southern French hotel, chortling whenever he sees a video of himself on the news.

Unless, of course, you want to argue that the entire government (including the current administration) and the military is part of the conspiracy.

Like I've said before, the entire government didn't have to be behind the scheme in order for it to have been helped along.

[liamona]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

In my experience, those you call "conspiracy theorists" are looking more square in the face at facts, while those that believe the 9-11 fairy tale are doing the ostrich thing. And the noise produced by those that would distract from the truth creates such a clamor, if one just begins paying attention to it, it begins to speak for itself.. You don't even need to read anything... just pay attention and listen to the noise and it will show you a lot.

I agree with you. There's massive amounts of dissonance distracting from truth, and not just the facts surrounding 9/11. Look what happened last fall, when the bailout package had to be pushed through in a rush, just like the Patriot Act did. Some have called it an Economic 9/11.

It's the usual "Problem-Reaction-Solution" Hegelian paradigm: the government creates or exploits a problem, people react with fear and the desire for those in authority to rescue them from it, and the government magically steps in with a solution (that they've probably had in the works for a while).

On the bright side, because of the Internet people are wising up to the numerous false flag operations.

[Angela Leeds]

It's the usual "Problem-Reaction-Solution" Hegelian paradigm: the government creates or exploits a problem, people react with fear and the desire for those in authority to rescue them from it, and the government magically steps in with a solution (that they've probably had in the works for a while).

Yep, that's the whole point... get them begging for just what you want to impose on them, which they'd never in their right minds ask for otherwise.

On the bright side, because of the Internet people are wising up to the numerous false flag operations.

They are just so brilliant at such operations...it's the same model used over & over again because people keep buying it, lol.

[Eric Roosevelt]

That's true—I didn't mean to give the impression that the two were linked. It's just yet another interesting 9/11 coincidence.

If you mention something like that when you're discussing theories that the U.S. government was involved in the attacks, it's going to look like you're trying to link these events. I agree that it's an interesting coincidence, although I'm not sure whether it was actually relevant.

It sure helped, didn't it? But how about as a way to pass the Patriot Act? How is it that this massive document appeared in full form practically overnight?

If the U.S. government was bold enough to plot an attack against its own citizens, it would probably be bold enough to spy on telecommunications and medical records without passing any official legislation. The risk is much lower.

But they haven't confronted them at all.

Exactly, that's the point. The U.S. government goes to great lengths not to damage its relations with Saudi Arabia, which is why it would be highly unlikely that they would pick a bunch of Saudi Arabians to declare war on them. Why not Iraqis?

[Eric Roosevelt]

Originally Posted by Angela Leeds

Okay, well, you and Brutha see different evidence and believe stories that are utter nonsense to me, while I notice other things which are screamingly obvious to me.

I'd ask you for some examples, but since you've declined to use any facts or arguments I won't pressure you too much. On the other hand, when something is "screamingly obvious" it generally doesn't take much time or effort to explain it. It's entirely up to you what you choose to do.

We see what we see... trying to persuade someone to see something they don't is silly & futile.

I would probably have to agree that I can't persuade you of anything, unless you want to be persuaded.

[Angela Leeds]

Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt

I'd ask you for some examples, but since you've declined to use any facts or arguments I won't pressure you too much. On the other hand, when something is "screamingly obvious" it generally doesn't take much time or effort to explain it. It's entirely up to you what you choose to do.

I would probably have to agree that I can't persuade you of anything, unless you want to be persuaded.

How the towers fell is a great place to start, because that is definitely one of the things that is screamingly obviously not consistent with the official story.

I don't want to get into a whole prove/disprove what really happened on 9-11 discussion. Although I researched that for years, it's just not my thing to persuade people about it. If someone cares to know, they can do the work themselves, if their mind is receptive. There's tons of well-organized info available now. That wasn't the case when I researched it.