Posted: Feb 21, 2014 9:39 pm
If PositiveMoney really were cranks, then it would not be hard to find a credible refutation of their claims. That Blackadder has had to resort to posting a badly-written "first draft" of something that looks like an academic paper about this history of banking but is actually written by a retired industrial chemist speaks volumes. That he dismisses direct quotes from senior banking figures backing up PositiveMoney's claims speaks even more volumes.
There is no way the banking industry would allow PM to campaign the way they are campaigning, with no attempt to refute it, and not attempt to claim they have been misquoted, if PM's central claims are false.
I have read and watched multiple sources making the same claims, and providing the same historical context. I have seen no credible refutation of it. I have discussed this on numerous internet forums and never seen it debunked. Apart from the sheer unfairness and audacity, which in itself makes it near-unbelievable, there is no reason to disbelieve it.
There is no way the banking industry would allow PM to campaign the way they are campaigning, with no attempt to refute it, and not attempt to claim they have been misquoted, if PM's central claims are false.
I have read and watched multiple sources making the same claims, and providing the same historical context. I have seen no credible refutation of it. I have discussed this on numerous internet forums and never seen it debunked. Apart from the sheer unfairness and audacity, which in itself makes it near-unbelievable, there is no reason to disbelieve it.