• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Catherine Austin Fitts - is she credible?

Forums New posts

Is Catherine Austin Fitts credible?

  • YES

    Votes: 5 45.5%

  • NO

    Votes: 4 36.4%

  • Straddles the border between the two states

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • DONT KNOW

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • Total voters
    11

Free episodes:

Gareth

Gareth

Nothin' to see here
I always thought Catherine Austin Fitts was credible. She gets lots of respect around the web and the only thing I knew about her was her "What's Up With the Black Budget?", which is famous in ufology.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0209/S00126.htm

Her financial stuff seems really solid in general. Her site:

Solari | The Solari Report

But I listened to an interview with her a couple days ago where she supports a huge range of fringe ideas that Im guessing many here would chalk up to ATS inspired paranoia. Chem trails; free energy suppression; weather altering devices; the list goes on.

Heres the interview:

http://e4ltv.com/mantiverimfab/Veritas19Final.mp3

So, is she credible?
 
Gareth said:
I always thought Catherine Austin Fitts was credible. She gets lots of respect around the web and the only thing I knew about her was her "What's Up With the Black Budget?", which is famous in ufology.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0209/S00126.htm

Her financial stuff seems really solid in general. Her site:

Solari | The Solari Report

But I listened to an interview with her a couple days ago where she supports a huge range of fringe ideas that Im guessing many here would chalk up to ATS inspired paranoia. Chem trails; free energy suppression; weather altering devices; the list goes on.

Heres the interview:

http://e4ltv.com/mantiverimfab/Veritas19Final.mp3

So, is she credible?
Click to expand...

I don't think those ideas are so wacky. If weather modification is possible, then people are trying it. And if free-energy exists, then those people who make money on energy would make efforts to block it.

I don't see why these ideas are so crazy. They're all within the realm of conceivability, and they go along with how we'd expect individuals in power to behave.
 
BrandonD said:
I don't think those ideas are so wacky. If weather modification is possible, then people are trying it. And if free-energy exists, then those people who make money on energy would make efforts to block it.

I don't see why these ideas are so crazy. They're all within the realm of conceivability, and they go along with how we'd expect individuals in power to behave.
Click to expand...

Im open to them too Brandon.

What I was getting at is you dont normally hear credible people actually claim that all that definitely exists. I guess Im used to people that I consider credible being more conservative.

Im definitely leaning towards Fitts being very credible.

If you have some time, check out that podcast/interview I posted. Let me know what you think.
 
The first I heard of her was with an interview on C2C with George Knapp. She seemed pretty credible and didn't really wander into crazyland in this particular interview. I'll check out the link, thanks Gareth.
 
Gareth said:
If you have some time, check out that podcast/interview I posted. Let me know what you think.
Click to expand...

I listened to the podcast interview and I think it is fascinating. She is an intelligent and well-spoken person. I think I'm gonna look for more interviews to listen to.
 
She is a level or two above my namesake insofar as research methodology and reputation is concerned, however I fear she may be heading down the path of the Howler.
 
If I've ever had basic doubts about Fitts, it would be based on her fairly hard-core Republican background. I've listened and read for years her commentary on economic conspiracy (a well-defined crime in US law), and I think she is credible in her training, her information, and in her reasoning. If you know a lot of people in Washington, she isn't more conspiratorially-minded than most people who have had many years of bouncing around the inner tubes of big finance and little law, and have seen close up conspiracies that most Americans would disbelieve if told of them.

Plenty of credible people occasionally flirt with, or leave themselves open to, ideas that are unproved, unlikely, or just laughed at by the mainstream. Sometimes it can be a sign of weakening judgement leading to a general loss of perspective; sometimes it can be a cynical attempt to play on the credulous, maybe for an ego trip or to make money; sometimes is a result of perceiving realities that the majority haven't the ability or the inclination to deal with. I don't think people belong in categories of "credible" or "uncredible." That is just a lazy way of attempting to judge what is said by who is saying it. I think it is better to stick to judging what it said, independent of who is saying it. In any given day, the unreliable say true things, maybe by accident, and the reliable say false things either by accident or on purpose.
 
corechakra said:
I think it is better to stick to judging what it said, independent of who is saying it. In any given day, the unreliable say true things, maybe by accident, and the reliable say false things either by accident or on purpose.
Click to expand...

Statements worth repeating, and as you've inferred we can take-on someone's words or actions, or we don't have to. We should all take care - myself included, of course - in how we respond to the multitude of viewpoints we project, and subsequently subject ourselves to on a daily basis.
 
corechakra said:
Plenty of credible people occasionally flirt with, or leave themselves open to, ideas that are unproved, unlikely, or just laughed at by the mainstream. Sometimes it can be a sign of weakening judgement leading to a general loss of perspective; sometimes it can be a cynical attempt to play on the credulous, maybe for an ego trip or to make money; sometimes is a result of perceiving realities that the majority haven't the ability or the inclination to deal with. I don't think people belong in categories of "credible" or "uncredible." That is just a lazy way of attempting to judge what is said by who is saying it. I think it is better to stick to judging what it said, independent of who is saying it. In any given day, the unreliable say true things, maybe by accident, and the reliable say false things either by accident or on purpose.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent summation. Any person will benefit from reading your paragraph twice.

That being said, I believe a person can indeed be stereotyped as "uncredible" if they assert falsehoods frequently enough.
 
Here is a good interview with Dr. Joseph P. Farrell that Fitts posted to her Solari investment group last week.

They discuss:

* The steady stream of suspicious banker deaths.
* How Martin Bormann sold the Nazi intelligence network to CIA-Alan Dulles in 1947.
* The off-book system of financing UFO technologies.
* Bank of International Settlements dope running.
* George Bush's executive order in 1980 privatizing black budgets to fund the MIC corporations.
* The missing mega-tons of gold.

 
Her intelligence and educational credentials are certainly not in question. Beyond that, I think it would take a lot of beyond-Googling research verify or refute her more esoteric claims. OTOH, the actions of our government have indeed become increasingly murky over the years.
 
Back
Top