THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Post Reply
Selene
Banned
Posts: 193
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:59 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Selene » Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:54 am

hoi.polloi wrote:I think the main problem I have with your writing style is that in not adopting a "freethinking" mentality (which is a bit of a contradiction, I suppose, akin to being intolerant of intolerance, but nevertheless this way to be is not necessarily as exhausting as you have made it out to be abhorrent) you constantly need to jump to and hold onto the model that most convinces you.

CluesForum allows people to not do that — to be more free of the "lumping" and "joining" that is admittedly in all of our every day habits. We are here for more free raw data without building tenuous towers of theory. It is definitely necessary to let go of the need for established theory to sometimes see the whole big pile of tools available. Established theory is everywhere else on the bluddy Interwebs. Simon has traditionally taken this stance more than I have, but now I must leapfrog back to an even more conservative stance on it. When there are contentious theories, our forum serves as one of the lone places to look at all the building blocks rather than piecemeal removing them and replacing them in established dogmas.

You are constantly weighing/pitting, in so many words, "this is where I am now, this is the model I exist in now, this is my favorite" rather than freely allowing information to speak for itself. By doing this, you condemn information that does not fit with your theory and your beliefs, and you only offer "alternative theory" as the opponent rather than no theory, which is the most scientific basis for future theory.

I am implying you haven't really demonstrated a willingness to comfortably exist in the "nobody knows" arena of thought. That's what I mean by hugging to the mainstream side of things.

Of course you're free to have your theories and your personal ideas, but why can't we leave that alone for one good peaceful moment and just let the raw information stand?
You're right on the theory part for Earthlike matters.
Not on the media hoax matters.

I am not "believing a media story and convince me of the contrary". That is different for science, and exactly why I see a discrepancy between these two themes.

It becomes a rather philosophical discussion then; what tools do you have to actually look at the facts if you refrain from any theory.

If you state "Dinosaurs or heliocentricity -or even evolution as a whole- is nonsense", then how do you explain observations? How do you come up with ideas? Arrange your thoughts? Formulate arguments why it should be called "nonsense"?

And if you choose the nihilistic approach, that's of course fine. But then "Flat Earth 'Theory'" or "Dinosaurs are a Hoax" statements are also not allowed according to your own ways of thinking. If you say "I don't know what the Earth looks like and how it is positioned in a universe and if that even exists", then how can you talk about Flat Earth "Theory"? Isn't that formulating or supporting an alternative theory, a way you hold against me? Where's the consistency?

My base is (natural) science and I don't agree with "having no theory is scientific". Science is also not a doctrine, it's a way of approaching problems, of analysing reality, of channeling your observations. For me that is the base to reject the Apollo missions (apart from all the obvious fakery in images and contradictions in the presented story, it's the science that doesn't fit). If you ask from me to reject science as I see it, then yes, I am not in the right place. But I don't see why and how that applies to the media hoaxes where science helps us to debunk those stories. Planes cannot fly into buildings like we saw "happening" on 9/11. That is physically impossible. To suggest that "I should abolish basic physics" is kicking the toolkit away.

I am promoting Cluesforum on other websites because I think the majority of work done on the media hoaxes and the space hoaxes is scientific. Comments I get from others is that the users here are completely crazy. I do not want to promote craziness, yet logical thinking and detailed analysis, just what I praised you for on 9/11!

If I see that in the "Earth matters" as well, not only I can be convinced, but also the message spread further. Until now, I do not see that. ICFreely has posted a nice set of links which I will respond to in the Dinosaur Hoax topic.

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by brianv » Fri Mar 27, 2015 7:15 pm

Heres another RIDICULOUS story.

According to this story, if I read the translation right, Andreas Lubitz had an Italian girlfriend:

Airbus precipitato, è italiana la fidanzata del copilota Lufthansa Andreas Lubitz


Image

Era fidanzato con una ragazza di Roma, Valeria (.cellitti), il copilota Andreas Lubitz che ha fatto schiantare l’Airbus A320 della Germanwings. Sul profilo Facebook del 28 enne tedesco era indicata la relazione con l’italiana nata nel 2014. Non mancano foto dei due che raccontano un rapporto molto felice.

I found the story and image on:
http://infonews24.com/it/esteri/airbus- ... as-lubitz/

Who posted original source at libero-news, however, the story is no longer viewable on the page linked at that source.

Source:: http://libero-news.it.feedsportal.com/c ... tory01.htm

However, if the image posted along side the story was supposed to be Andreas Lubitz, it looks a little different to his images posted in the Telegraph below:

Image
Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of the doomed Germanwings airliner, competing in a Lufthansa marathon in 2013. Credit: Wolfgang Nass/BILD

Image
Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of the doomed Germanwings airliner, competing in a Lufthansa marathon in 2013. Credit: Wolfgang Nass/BILD

Or the images below:

Image
(OK, maybe a little)


Image

Image

Looking further into the matter, an explanation is found at the site below:
http://www.sudinfo.be/1249725/article/2 ... e-je-ne-su

Rédaction en ligne:

Image

Une incroyable méprise nous est arrivée jeudi d’Italie. Pendant quelques heures, les plus grands médias de ce pays, comme la Repubblica ou Il Messaggero, ont annoncé que la petite amie d’Andreas Guenter Lubitz était originaire des Abruzzes.

Ils ont alors montré, sur leur site internet, une flopée de photos d’une certaine Valeria Cellitti accompagné d’un certain Andreas Guenter. Des photos tirées de la page Facebook des tourtereaux. On y apprenait notamment qu’ils s’étaient connus en 2014, qu’ils avaient effectué un beau voyage en Toscane. Sur une des photos, on les voyait poser devant le dôme de la ville de Sienne. La Valeria en question, âgée de vingt-huit ans, est diplômée en histoire de l’art à l’université de Berne (Suisse). Son ami Andreas Guenter est un Allemand originaire de Bonn.

Hier soir, la pauvre Valeria a réagi suite aux nombreux coups de téléphone reçus sur son portable « Je suis bien la Valeria Cellitti que vous recherchez, j’habite bien à Berne... et je suis en train de manger au restaurant avec mon patron », a-t-elle répondu. Son petit ami s’appelle bien Andreas Guenter, il a bien une adresse Facebook mais, et c’est important : « Il est cuisinier, est âgé de 38 ans et, surtout, il est bien en vie ! »

Il ne s’agissait donc pas du fameux Andreas Guenter Lubitz qui a eu la funeste idée de crasher l’Airbus sur une montagne alpine ! Valeria nous apprend qu’elle vit depuis le mois de janvier 2014 à Berne, en compagnie de son amoureux. Qu’elle a vécu auparavant à Rome. « J’ai reçu... 3.000 demandes d’amis aujourd’hui sur Facebook ! Je ne peux même plus entrer sur mon compte. Mon téléphone est saturé. Je vous remercie pour ce jour de gloire », a-t-elle conclu. Sympa, la Valeria !










http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviatio ... ubitz.html

http://www.7sur7.be/7s7/fr/33226/Crash- ... dhtmlHeres another RIDICULOUS story.

According to this story, if I read the translation right, Andreas Lubitz had an Italian girlfriend:

Airbus precipitato, è italiana la fidanzata del copilota Lufthansa Andreas Lubitz


Image

Era fidanzato con una ragazza di Roma, Valeria (.cellitti), il copilota Andreas Lubitz che ha fatto schiantare l’Airbus A320 della Germanwings. Sul profilo Facebook del 28 enne tedesco era indicata la relazione con l’italiana nata nel 2014. Non mancano foto dei due che raccontano un rapporto molto felice.

I found the story and image on:
http://infonews24.com/it/esteri/airbus- ... as-lubitz/

Who posted original source at libero-news, however, the story is no longer viewable on the page linked at that source.

Source:: http://libero-news.it.feedsportal.com/c ... tory01.htm

However, if the image posted along side the story was supposed to be Andreas Lubitz, it looks a little different to his images posted in the Telegraph below:

Image
Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of the doomed Germanwings airliner, competing in a Lufthansa marathon in 2013. Credit: Wolfgang Nass/BILD

Image
Andreas Lubitz, the co-pilot of the doomed Germanwings airliner, competing in a Lufthansa marathon in 2013. Credit: Wolfgang Nass/BILD

Or the images below:

Image
(OK, maybe a little)


Image

Image

Looking further into the matter, an explanation is found at the site below:
http://www.sudinfo.be/1249725/article/2 ... e-je-ne-su

Rédaction en ligne:

Image

Une incroyable méprise nous est arrivée jeudi d’Italie. Pendant quelques heures, les plus grands médias de ce pays, comme la Repubblica ou Il Messaggero, ont annoncé que la petite amie d’Andreas Guenter Lubitz était originaire des Abruzzes.

Ils ont alors montré, sur leur site internet, une flopée de photos d’une certaine Valeria Cellitti accompagné d’un certain Andreas Guenter. Des photos tirées de la page Facebook des tourtereaux. On y apprenait notamment qu’ils s’étaient connus en 2014, qu’ils avaient effectué un beau voyage en Toscane. Sur une des photos, on les voyait poser devant le dôme de la ville de Sienne. La Valeria en question, âgée de vingt-huit ans, est diplômée en histoire de l’art à l’université de Berne (Suisse). Son ami Andreas Guenter est un Allemand originaire de Bonn.

Hier soir, la pauvre Valeria a réagi suite aux nombreux coups de téléphone reçus sur son portable « Je suis bien la Valeria Cellitti que vous recherchez, j’habite bien à Berne... et je suis en train de manger au restaurant avec mon patron », a-t-elle répondu. Son petit ami s’appelle bien Andreas Guenter, il a bien une adresse Facebook mais, et c’est important : « Il est cuisinier, est âgé de 38 ans et, surtout, il est bien en vie ! »

Il ne s’agissait donc pas du fameux Andreas Guenter Lubitz qui a eu la funeste idée de crasher l’Airbus sur une montagne alpine ! Valeria nous apprend qu’elle vit depuis le mois de janvier 2014 à Berne, en compagnie de son amoureux. Qu’elle a vécu auparavant à Rome. « J’ai reçu... 3.000 demandes d’amis aujourd’hui sur Facebook ! Je ne peux même plus entrer sur mon compte. Mon téléphone est saturé. Je vous remercie pour ce jour de gloire », a-t-elle conclu. Sympa, la Valeria !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviatio ... ubitz.html

http://www.7sur7.be/7s7/fr/33226/Crash- ... ings.dhtml

moved here from "Germanwings" - brianv.

*******
Huh? What is this mess, Brian? You moved your own post to the Derailing Room? (Well, that's what it looks like, anyway...). And what's up with the 'doubling' of the material in this post? Besides, this post (whoever wrote it - I can't remember now) ain't that bad - and deserves not to be in the Derailing Room. This isn't the first time you have shown poor proficiency with the forum functions (and dubious judgment) so, sorry - but I am suspending your mod permissions for now. Maybe we can talk this over via e-mail - or over Skype? Let me know. (simon)

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat Mar 28, 2015 7:35 am

Selene wrote: You're right on the theory part for Earthlike matters.
Not on the media hoax matters.

I am not "believing a media story and convince me of the contrary". That is different for science, and exactly why I see a discrepancy between these two themes.

It becomes a rather philosophical discussion then; what tools do you have to actually look at the facts if you refrain from any theory.

If you state "Dinosaurs or heliocentricity -or even evolution as a whole- is nonsense", then how do you explain observations? How do you come up with ideas? Arrange your thoughts? Formulate arguments why it should be called "nonsense"?

And if you choose the nihilistic approach, that's of course fine. But then "Flat Earth 'Theory'" or "Dinosaurs are a Hoax" statements are also not allowed according to your own ways of thinking. If you say "I don't know what the Earth looks like and how it is positioned in a universe and if that even exists", then how can you talk about Flat Earth "Theory"? Isn't that formulating or supporting an alternative theory, a way you hold against me? Where's the consistency?

My base is (natural) science and I don't agree with "having no theory is scientific". Science is also not a doctrine, it's a way of approaching problems, of analysing reality, of channeling your observations. For me that is the base to reject the Apollo missions (apart from all the obvious fakery in images and contradictions in the presented story, it's the science that doesn't fit). If you ask from me to reject science as I see it, then yes, I am not in the right place. But I don't see why and how that applies to the media hoaxes where science helps us to debunk those stories. Planes cannot fly into buildings like we saw "happening" on 9/11. That is physically impossible. To suggest that "I should abolish basic physics" is kicking the toolkit away.

I am promoting Cluesforum on other websites because I think the majority of work done on the media hoaxes and the space hoaxes is scientific. Comments I get from others is that the users here are completely crazy. I do not want to promote craziness, yet logical thinking and detailed analysis, just what I praised you for on 9/11!

If I see that in the "Earth matters" as well, not only I can be convinced, but also the message spread further. Until now, I do not see that. ICFreely has posted a nice set of links which I will respond to in the Dinosaur Hoax topic.
Just provide your raw data, any of its sources and why those particular instances of those source are trustworthy if you need us to trust that source and data to accept the premise of further raw data. We don't need all the reflection of how it fits in your philosophy. We do want to know why we should trust anything we haven't experienced and built up a reasonable guess about firsthand. I think you can get this if you try.

Yes, we do have a philosophical difference of opinion from the mainstream. And possibly yourself. You seem to imply that what you believe in is worthy of anyone's belief because of the way you have posted your pre-determined and obtuse belief as if it were significant to the topic at hand.

We value forensics, we value basic physics (which we are still determining and testing and wondering about and drawing from our collective experience for) but that is entirely different from accepting some of the most troubled aspects of our modern times:

war;
"scientific breakthroughs" (particularly as revealed or joked about in fake news);
history (always a contentious subject, but necessary since it is the very consequence of the fake news stories we examine);
politics and how it all works (also contentious, but inevitably subjective when we examine apparently political or semi-political hoaxes);
"space exploration";
"dinosaurs";
"news";

Nobody is suggesting you throw out your senses. On the contrary, we ask you to use them — particularly your own. Not others' senses, nor their expertise.

Comparing complex theories to basic repeatable observations of how the world basically physically functions is a stretch you are not the first to make. We have been accused of throwing out all reason and common sense just by suggesting someone is lying. Just because we don't have an obligation to trust your source of belief doesn't mean we think you are personally full of shit. If you absolutely must have that unique caveat when using our forum, it would be unfortunate since it's an immense distraction compared to others who have understood what we're doing right away. Why is this hard for you?

This is a place where, habitually, we have the need for people to back up their "belief" with named sources of information. Since you have so far been unwilling to do that for any of your endorsements of official theory, we can only request that you stop telling us (however unintentionally or furtively) you have such sources and that therefore everyone should know your status of belief in such things.

Another option would be, I think, more useful to everyone: you posting specifically your case for dinosaurs (as I read you are gearing up to do, and for that — thanks) or for satellites.

Then, you can please spare us your soft "musings" that you are not "convinced" by ... what exactly, I don't know. Convinced that our site's premise is valid? That it's okay to request raw data?

I really think you are missing the point when you assume the site is trying to convince you of a theory. (Flat Earth? Huh? No, I don't think we even have declared we have a "TV fakery" theory, have we? Point out where I'm wrong or a specific case where this is explicitly said and the word "theory" isn't being used in a more general way.)

My rhetoric about us having no theory may have been misunderstood by you but at least now we are talking about things the way Simon has set up for the premise of the forum: to share — here — a place where nobody is pressured to believe much of anything (except very basic philosophical things like "You have free will" and "You can use words to communicate to others what your senses pick up"), and your own direct observations and perceptions of the world and of the mainstream media can be shared.

You confuse our asking you to stop pressuring others with your belief in theories under question here for a request that you stop believing. Believe whatever the heck you want! Just stop turning our forum into your church of "satellites probably are real anyway" and "dinosaurs sure have a lot of evidence that I cannot bring up now" or alluding to appeals to population like, "but so many people believe in [insert topic]" and "I'm not swayed by [insert other thing we are questioning]"

Just let us ask questions and it's fine.

If you wish to take what you find here and continually post your private feelings about it all without being subject to normal questioning, I suggest you stop posting your feelings here, and you start a blog or web site. This has been the path of not a few researchers who have passed through CluesForum and gone on to make their own interesting area of the Internet.

Our site requests that you give us your thoughts from the perspective that nobody whom you trust is automatically worthy of our (or hopefully anyone's) trust. And you should post accordingly!

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by brianv » Sat Mar 28, 2015 1:05 pm

Good Grief Simon.

I moved the post manually because the mods couldn't be bothered and it clearly was derailing your own efforts. I didn't have 'move' permissions only edit. That's why you will see the stub remaining in the thread!

I think you need to have a chat with yourself on Skype. Poor proficiency indeed!

******
Well, if this is the case (that you could only move posts manually) we must have a bug in our forum's mod permission system. Last time I checked (before disabling them this morning), the below functions were all set to "yes":
-Can lock topics
-Can merge topics
-Can move topics
-Can split topics

Anyhow - you're right to tease me about php proficiency - as I'll readily admit I'm no php-whiz myself and will have to ask Hoi or Nonho for assistance on this matter...(simon)

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by brianv » Sat Mar 28, 2015 2:00 pm

You changed my permissions when I removed those [what I considered to be provocative] posts by an erstwhile member. However, I could still 'delete' and 'edit' posts by other members, I of course never used, only to correct typos [quite often by your good self], [there's one there now actually "PATERNAK"], and to cut and paste that single post into the derailing room - where I left a link to avoid confusion. That didn't work! Yes, please check my permissions, I don't want any 'mods' except perhaps 'edit' whereby in future instead of moving the post I could simply mark an offending post for the attention of mods.

PS I wasn't teasing you about php as such...there's other matters that may have escaped you in my opinion - which I will not be sharing with you on Skype, suffice to say.

mlebek
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Germanwings 4U9525 Airbus crash, 24 March 2015

Unread post by mlebek » Mon Mar 30, 2015 7:01 am

No wreckage at the crash site, no memory card in the blackbox, no suicide note of the alleged suicide pilot, no power dive before crash!

I think this plane was blown to warn germany and other european states not to brake off negotiations with russia. The killed school class was a give-away.
What then followed was a EU desinfo campaign to blame the pilot to save the airline from paying millions to the relatives of the victims.

In first reports there was talk of an emergency call, a smoking engine and debris miles before the crash zone. But then EU-mass-media started to remediate this and is now blaming the co-pilot. He is/was now depressive, dangerous, unable to fly, islamic, angry, dreamed of crashing airplanes #$@%...

Maat
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Germanwings 4U9525 Airbus crash, 24 March 2015

Unread post by Maat » Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:41 am

mlebek wrote:No wreckage at the crash site, no memory card in the blackbox, no suicide note of the alleged suicide pilot, no power dive before crash!

I think this plane was blown to warn germany and other european states not to brake off negotiations with russia. The killed school class was a give-away.
What then followed was a EU desinfo campaign to blame the pilot to save the airline from paying millions to the relatives of the victims.

In first reports there was talk of an emergency call, a smoking engine and debris miles before the crash zone. But then EU-mass-media started to remediate this and is now blaming the co-pilot. He is/was now depressive, dangerous, unable to fly, islamic, angry, dreamed of crashing airplanes #$@%...
What the hell are you talking about? :blink: There's nothing in this ridiculous story that indicates anything was actually "blown" or any real people "killed"; on the contrary!

I suggest you read a topic from the beginning before posting anything again. And, since you have rarely posted, please introduce yourself in the REQUIRED thread: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=838

bostonterrierowner
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 10:01 pm

Re: Germanwings 4U9525 Airbus crash, 24 March 2015

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Mon Mar 30, 2015 8:45 am

mlebek wrote:No wreckage at the crash site, no memory card in the blackbox, no suicide note of the alleged suicide pilot, no power dive before crash!

I think this plane was blown to warn germany and other european states not to brake off negotiations with russia. The killed school class was a give-away.
What then followed was a EU desinfo campaign to blame the pilot to save the airline from paying millions to the relatives of the victims.

In first reports there was talk of an emergency call, a smoking engine and debris miles before the crash zone. But then EU-mass-media started to remediate this and is now blaming the co-pilot. He is/was now depressive, dangerous, unable to fly, islamic, angry, dreamed of crashing airplanes #$@%...
looks like another bot got activated to litter the forum with retarded disinfo crap

Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Observer » Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:56 am

hoi.polloi wrote:
Post images and prove the images are forgeries.
Um, are you sure you understand the point of this site?
Um, another irrational reply to my rational post. Here we go, off to the derailing thread.

I'm surprised you seem to have interpreted that good summary sentence in a bad way.

Point #1
Well I know you agree the point of this site is NOT
to merely post various opinions about the world
without actually posting and analyzing images
shown by news companies which are forged.
You call people out for lack of contribution
in the vital area of forgery gathering & sharing,
and rightly so, I respect that action I have seen.

Point #2
And I know you agree the point of this site is NOT
to merely post images without supplementing with
an opinion of what IS so illogical about this image,
what thing in this image is impossible in real life.
You call people out for lack of contribution
in the vital area of forgery analysis presentation,
and rightly so, I respect that action I have seen.

Point #3
And I know you agree the point of this site is NOT
to debate about what exact thoughts are occurring
in the minds of the various people who pay for these
CGI images to be forged and broadcast, because really,
it doesn't matter if the physically impossible depictions
are "left there by mistake, on accident, so very stupidly"
or "put there on purpose, intelligently, for some reason"
or "put there by good-hearted whistleblowers" (haha, right)
none of those theories matter because they are just that:
Theories. Beliefs. Claims.This site is the opposite of that.

This site negates theories, negates beliefs, negates claims.
Finding all big lies broadcast by the news companies and
exposing those lies, focusing especially on the visual lies
of images and videos. Refusing to get sucked into debates
about WHO paid for this and WHY did they insert this pixel.

Which is why I was so surprised when you (the guy who I once
respected, the guy who I thought was the most revolutionary
person next to Simon, the guy who I thought would someday
write a revolutionary call to arms that could actually motivate
the poorest 99.99% to take back the earth from the richest 0.01%)
...refused to answer my question about, "What should we DO now?"

I mean that's great that you refused to give your belief about that,
but it was awful how you got so hung up on the details we disagree:
whether the movie actually layered a helicopter Live shot in realtime,
or whether that part and everything else as well was all pre-packaged.

And you basically announced, "If you are implying that the payers of this
movie made this entirely in advance, watched the final cut MANY times,
and even purposefully requested and approved of the physically impossible
things which I call mistakes, and, thus these payers actually WANT people
to revolt in a way which would give the payers the ability to initiate strict
everything, then you are implying that the payers of this movie are smart,
highly-intelligent 'geniuses' who think many reactions ahead just like chess,
this is the unconscious "the richest are more clever" idea that I really hate!
They are not smart, they are dumb, these are all stupid mistakes which they
didn't realize were in the final movie, the helicopter mistake was made live,
and if you do disagree with me about this 'on accident vs. on purpose' detail
then you're probably a Pied Piper trying to lead people away from the truth,
by your stupid naivité, which I have mentioned a few times now, or your being
a paid shill, which I also have mentioned a few times now. Pied Piper Observer."

Yeah, that's when I lost a lot of respect for you Hoi, the man I once highly respected.
Sure, I committed the sin of proclaiming my belief, my theory, my claim, about the details.
And thus you should have replied, "Don't push your beliefs, theories, or claims about the details."
If you had replied like that, that would have been a respectable action. But instead you replied,
as paraphrased above, with an attack on me personally, because I was "implying they are smart."

Even when I said, "OK, let's agree to disagree on the details. But we agree that the news images
are forged. So, what should the people reading this site, who agree about the forgery, do next?"
To which you replied, "Stop saying 'we' because there is no 'we'." Which is fine, and so I stopped
using the term humanity (due to your true point about that word, backed up by another poster)
and I started using the term individuals to be more precise. And yet still, when asked about how
to successfully create a revolution where the poorest 99.99% take it back from the richest 0.01%...
the most I could get my supposedly revolutionary leader to propose is: that marches might be good.

I mean, I know you never advertised yourself as revolutionary, so I can't claim any false advertising, haha
I just had personally in my own head and heart imagined that you were so mentally revolutionary like Simon
AND that due to your relative youth combined without your obviously high intelligence: I had hoped that you
would be proposing some REAL revolutionary actions, I was ready for my mind to be blown, I was ready to act.

But in the end all I got was "marches might be good" and a lecture about how I am naive - or - I am a paid shill.
I still respect Simon. I'll bet he's got some revolutionary ideas which he keeps quiet. But I think you have none.
You still have the amazing writing ability, the keen sharp mind which is always looking for the lies, I love that.
I simply am saying that I am disappointed in your lack of ACTION suggestions for individuals who realize fakery.
And yes, I am disappointed in your most recent post, in which you tried to attack a very good summary sentence:

I wrote, in a summary of ideas which I agree with you about, "Post images and prove the images are forgeries."

What in the hell is wrong with that sentence? Seriously, Hoi. What?

That sentence includes the vital "Post images" part mentioned in Point #1 above,
AND includes the vital "Prove the images are forgeries" mentioned in Point #2 above,
AND it reminds one to focus on those two solid actions (thus, no theory debate needed)
so that sentence briefly and beautifully sums up Point #1 and Point #2 and even Point #3.

AND, that sentence perfectly sums up the totally true sentences which immediately precede it:

"One should never trust anyone's claims. One should merely find which images depict impossible situations. Like the impossible 4-meter humans, and the brightly lit North Face of the tower, and the Boston huge monitor missing. Nevermind being accepted by a group. Simply post images and point out which images have clear evidence of being CGI animations, since they depict impossible situations which could never be recorded live by a camera in real life. That's it. Post images and prove the images are forgeries. Simple really. Keep it simple."

So what are trying to say, when you claim there is something wrong with that sentence. Seriously.

Are you misinterpreting that perfectly fine sentence ("Post images and prove the images are forgeries.") to mean something strange, like:

"Post images [just random images that you haven't even thought about whether or not they are forged, just throw random images against the wall and hope maybe one percent turns out to be provable forgeries]
and prove [using lies or something] the images are forgeries."

That sure would be a twisted version, is that what you are trying to imply that I implied?

Here, I'll write it out for you more clearly so that you really have nothing to misinterpret:

"Post images [images which you are pretty sure are forged] and prove [using visual analysis presentation] the images are forgeries."

For example, I posted a summary of Kickstones finding, which was getting buried in numerology crap, so I made a re-presentation.

Then, later that night, I found some photos which seem to punch a hole in the "smoking-gun" of sudden appearance and time discrepancy.

Then, because I added a nice little summary at the end, about how important it is, to post images and prove the images are forgeries, you decided to reply irrationally again.

There, are we done with this attempt to initiate another argument? I'm not getting pulled into a debate with you, about your claim that I am writing bad things. My posts are clear.

I am writing good things, I apologize for the fact that I revealed some personal beliefs, and I'm sorry I idealized you in the past. But how can you try to start a debate about such a solid sentence: "Post images and prove the images are forgeries."

It's actually nice that you attacked my rational sentences (in the past, and now today again), because it has helped me grow spiritually. For real, hear me out here:

By realizing my "future hero revolutionary leader" is just some guy, with an ego, who just like everyone else can be 85% saying rational things but then 15% saying irrational things...

...this has helped me to totally drop the idea of looking "up" to anyone. Which is why I honestly now say, without any hint of sarcasm at all: don't trust anyone. Trusting some person as being a "trustable source of information" suddenly TURNS OFF the vital logical-thinking process of trying to find the lie. So thank you for really, really, really teaching me that Hoi. You don't trust me, you never did from the start, I don't trust you anymore. And I don't trust anyone anymore. And I even now boldly post "Don't trust anyone. Only trust your logical thinking process." So thank you, even though it hurt to read your various irrational replies to my rational posts, I am grateful to the universe for having helped me see that there are no revolutionary leaders outside to discover. The only one who one can truly figure out with intelligence honesty and purity of intent the best possible revolution is ONESELF, and the only one who can then implement the self-chosen next actions is ONESELF. The only leader who can lead me is myself. And the only person I can and will lead is myself.

Love & Gratitude :-)

anonjedi2
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by anonjedi2 » Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:51 am

Some curious formatting you've got going on there, what gives?

Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Observer » Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:18 am

Art. :P

Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Observer » Sat Apr 04, 2015 12:16 pm

I hope that people observing this little friendly "spat" notice the following things:
Hoi said his piece, over the past few months, and today, and now I said mine in reply.
I don't have anything left to say about the matter expressed above, I have said my piece.
I do NOT want people to start feeling like they should suddenly criticize Hoi, or myself, haha.
Notice that people can disagree about details and still learn various life lessons from each other.
So, perhaps Hoi might want to pen a rebuttal to my post above, or maybe just let it stand, because:
I have no ill will toward you Hoi, I'm glad your comment today allowed me to get those feelings expressed.
There's nothing left unsaid, no hurt feelings being hidden, no hurt feelings at all now. So no more drama needed.
Whatever your next post is, I will simply read it and think about it but I won't reply. I will let what you write stand.
I look forward to continuing to watch and think about daily the posting and proving of the earth's biggest image forgeries. :-)

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sat Apr 04, 2015 1:53 pm

Observer wrote:My posts are clear.
Image

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by brianv » Sat Apr 04, 2015 2:01 pm

My posts are clear
ly the work of an automated coffee vending machine
plugged into a telex

Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Observer » Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:29 pm

Beep Boop. :)

Post Reply