And as far as the selection of sources goes, why don't you just prove them wrong if you believe them to be. Just because they don't fall within your god almighty, scholarly, government-approved realm doesn't mean they are false. Wasn't it you that told me I need to expand my focus to include other viewpoints? How about you heed your own advice.
Unfortunately I don't have time to go through the half dozen essays you reference each week and point out what I see to be their flaws. Therefore, it makes my life much easier (and the case you are trying to prove much sturdier) to provide sources that are well regarded/often cited/peer reviewed. In peer reviewed journals fragile logic and faulty assumptions are eagerly torn apart. In the wide world of the internet . . . this does not always happen. (in fact . . . you can probably find a source for any statement you want to make . . . but that doesn't mean it's worth a damn.)
I don't recall referencing either "god almighty" or "government-approved." It's interesting that you so readily dismiss these sources as such. I, for one, trust a peer-reviewed journal far more than some Austrian website espousing a radical and ill-regarded agenda.
Additionally, I never said that I didn't read your sources. I do. However when I see a complete lack of reputable citations, and when internet searches show a complete lack of critical analysis of these articles, I can not trust them. As far as the theories presented go . . . they are interesting. Beyond that, they are not useful.
