THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
guivre
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:48 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by guivre » Thu Jan 02, 2014 7:50 pm

Happy New Year! Always thankful this site is here. :)

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Thu Jan 02, 2014 10:30 pm

La Shona Tova :D

But seriously now , I wonder why no other MSM besiedes zerohedge.com pushes this:

Palestinian Ambassador to Czech Republic killed in a blast in Prague

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-01-0 ... -explosion

Dude was supposedly 56 (5+6=11) and the whole thing happened on 1.1.2014...

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:16 pm

Patrick Thorendahl, aka Peejet, has created a large collection of amusing celebrity pictures with himself photoshopped in:
http://www.mymodernmet.com/profiles/blo ... ity-photos

Image

I have seen worse handiwork. This guy must qualify for a job on a psyop team. Surprisingly, there are no obvious differences between the different elements in his pictures when submitted to error level analysis. So much for ELA!

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv » Fri Jan 03, 2014 4:35 pm

^ Who? What? Media spastics?

Why don't you submit the puerile photos images to Hacker Factor and tell them their ELA is worthless?

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 921
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Fri Jan 03, 2014 8:55 pm

Sometimes ELA is very useful. Sometimes it is inconclusive at best (okay, let´s say it as it is: sometimes it´s really useless). I don´t think they need despicable me to tell them at Hacker Factor. But I am glad the tool exists and I have used it or referred to it many times.

Rudy Algera
Member
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:15 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Rudy Algera » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:16 am

Is it always legs that are blown off, never arms or heads, by the fake bombings such as in Boston?
Have we seen these video's before?
Fake Exploded Leg Crap
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRfgugJxCOo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-ZCFJ_JPYM#t=19

icarusinbound
Member
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 8:49 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by icarusinbound » Sun Jan 05, 2014 1:53 pm

Rudy, the observation regarding limbs being hit so frequently (not heads/chests), has been made before. Shrapnel, in reality, of course displays no such selective kinetics.

Some interesting points made in that first video link, particularly the presence of a 'spectators' layer at the rear, when they'd already been dispersed (according to the conventional storyline). And the Adrianne Haslet video is intriguing- perhaps exessively so.

The analysis/interpretation that what we're seeing is clumsy Photoshop-style manipulation of real-world images may be a massive distraction. Consider a 'no planes' theory, perhaps for at least some of the Boston imagery. Pixel constructs, not people, may be a simpler and more-accurate explanation. Not altered photographs, perhaps some of the pictures were never initially-captured images-of-light in the first place.

But irrespect of method, all to what end? Why tell flawed fairytales, to grown-ups? Why bodge that last percentage of falsified realism, when the resources to ''fake'' it correctly/accurately are so vast, and (presumably) the stakes so high? Although the vast majority of Consumerland will swallow this candy the way it's superficially served, there are always going to be Smarts that'll read it right'n'real.

And therein lies the rub: are what we are perceiving accidental gaps in the scenery, or deliberate traps in the machinery, to attract and encourage investigation?

As a seasonal aside, here's a curious mainstream media self-confession of what's either massive collective scripted direction of 'local' news reporting, double-agency disinfo, or something else. What does the forum think?
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sun Jan 05, 2014 11:51 pm

And therein lies the rub: are what we are perceiving accidental gaps in the scenery, or deliberate traps in the machinery, to attract and encourage investigation?
Now that they know CluesForum and other sites are working to expose them, they are going to want to flush as many of 'us' out so they have a sense of the demographic they are dealing with. They are going to want to control it. They are already controlling some of it. Let'sRoll forum seems like a mixed bag.

In retrospect, I think part of this is the realization that the ab irato/Fakeologist group is not picky about sims being amongst them.

I am starting to wonder if the Conan O'Brien meme about scripted news isn't a story that's part of this "social media" control mechanism.
clues.GIF
Therein lies the main "social media" threshold of the simulation with obvious shills cavorting with genuinely interested parties, whereas a more sinister threshold remains here with the sims and fake users coming on here disrupting and derailing discussion because of our keen anti-social media awareness. It doesn't look like Fakeologist wants to purge itself of the Facebook and "amateur media" type sims, such as "Brian S Stavely". So I think we already do a markedly better job. I could be wrong. Maybe we just have the more sophisticated sims registering. :(

But you are right, icarusinbound, that the invasion is happening and it's going on constantly and it doesn't look like we are going to continue to attract crowds completely free of controlled opposition sims. And in that respect, it's hard to see a point in what we are doing. The Matrix is pushing and pushing.

Distancing ourselves from Fakeologist somewhat, as we have done, might be a good idea. I wonder why soon after Simon and I went on that show, two people who confused its audience about their identities ("Norwegian old man" must be Simon, and "chipper erudite chap" must be hoi) appeared, and at the same time an audience showed up saying Simon and I were acting as these two different people! How did that all happen? Was it innocent coincidence? Or is it a sly dilution of an inherent social power we didn't know we had — artificially created, waved in our face, and then lost to the "social media" elements of control, using the power of parodies/imitations?

Annoying. Weird. And it tells me they are not above stooping to this level with quite some effort, just to try to annoy and weird-ify people away from our site's true value, which is in its logic, facts and forensics, rather than some gossippy social goo.

I am not excited about CluesForum being "popular" in the traditional way popular things get to be popular if this is what it's like. I hope we actually awaken people and spark something new. Not a "social movement" but just people being smarter and more aware and nicer to one another with fewer lies, manipulation, posturing and exploitation. Is it naive of me to live in this hope? Perhaps. People seem to keep crawling back to the same old master: popularity contests.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

lux
Member
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by lux » Mon Jan 06, 2014 1:15 am

icarusinbound wrote: As a seasonal aside, here's a curious mainstream media self-confession of what's either massive collective scripted direction of 'local' news reporting, double-agency disinfo, or something else. What does the forum think?
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA
I see it as "Psy-op Aikido":
Aikido is performed by blending with the motion of the attacker and redirecting the force of the attack rather than opposing it head-on. source
I believe that awareness of news media fakery has increased in recent years, especially since SC and, more recently, Sandy Hoax which was the first psy-op I am aware of that actually sparked mention by the media itself of the growing belief that it was a fake event.

These Conan comedy bits serve to “redirect the force of the attack” and channel it into an amusing commentary on local news in an effort to turn the whole idea of media control into a harmless joke. Conan's example “news stories” are all fluff pieces with no real political or emotional impact so nothing of any import is revealed by them. The desired result, I think, is that when someone mentions fake or controlled news they think of these Conan gags and laugh it off as harmless silliness.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by bostonterrierowner » Mon Jan 06, 2014 8:15 pm

lux wrote:
icarusinbound wrote: As a seasonal aside, here's a curious mainstream media self-confession of what's either massive collective scripted direction of 'local' news reporting, double-agency disinfo, or something else. What does the forum think?
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM8L7bdwVaA
I see it as "Psy-op Aikido":
Aikido is performed by blending with the motion of the attacker and redirecting the force of the attack rather than opposing it head-on. source
I believe that awareness of news media fakery has increased in recent years, especially since SC and, more recently, Sandy Hoax which was the first psy-op I am aware of that actually sparked mention by the media itself of the growing belief that it was a fake event.

These Conan comedy bits serve to “redirect the force of the attack” and channel it into an amusing commentary on local news in an effort to turn the whole idea of media control into a harmless joke. Conan's example “news stories” are all fluff pieces with no real political or emotional impact so nothing of any import is revealed by them. The desired result, I think, is that when someone mentions fake or controlled news they think of these Conan gags and laugh it off as harmless silliness.
Great analysis Lux!

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:14 am

That's a possible intended (or hoped for) purpose. It may only work on some audiences. I have a feeling they are shooting themselves in the foot with this one. Adding on to your theory lux, another effect might be that it's focusing strictly on copypasta and not on the possibility of different scripts and movies being coordinated together to greater psychological effect.

We know on 9/11, for instance, that while the scripts were similar, they were not exactly the same. Nor would it have been wise to have them be.

The Conan piece — which seems to be a fluff piece itself — makes it seem as though the idea of Public Relations is to hopelessly hand off an identical script to those eager, wild-eyed reporters and pray that it all works out the same.

If the scripts are like strokes of a painting or notes in a song, we don't know how many people will imagine different scripts as an orchestration or "big picture". They will assume the power of a piece is only in its repetition. And not in its juxtaposition, harmony or other particular artistry. The news trains us to be annoyed by purposely placed blatant cajoling but does not train us to avoid seduction by its hypnotic elements — the more effective on intelligent people who don't think they can be fooled. Iron fist, velvet glove. They have us arguing about what is really going on, when it's both. You can see why so many have chosen the brusqueness of Fox News for their abusive hand of choice. Something doesn't sit right with them about that velvet glove, and harsh words are all they choose to trust or understand.

I think everyone on some level is trying to wrestle their freedom and their power from the dominant conversation but few have decided, as we have, to try to throw off that power completely and ignore it. Perhaps few have the wherewithal.

So if it teaches people the news can be coordinated, it's still gatekeeping on the power and intelligence of that coordination. We must learn to think of this business of controlling and organizing people as an art form or technical skill, just as any other. Even if it's not our favorite.

Farcevalue
Member
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Farcevalue » Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:40 am

Special Alert: The link for Raoul Moat under the Local Psyops section is returning a "Malicious URL" message via Avast.

Description here:

http://www.avast.com/en-us/lp-fr-virus- ... 9fc29b5eb5

I have not had this experience on other links.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:53 am

Thank you, this is fine to put in the suggestions thread as well. I'll censor it for now. Too bad. There are a few links there, that don't seem to be giving me trouble.

Edit: I see, it's the apparently government-seized image that gives your browser trouble?

Maybe your browser is just trying to protect you from sneaky USA perps! :lol:

I will post a warning! That's eerie.
Last edited by hoi.polloi on Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: problem link identified

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6983
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Wed Jan 08, 2014 11:46 pm

hoi.polloi wrote: Distancing ourselves from Fakeologist somewhat, as we have done, might be a good idea.

Hoi, I think you meant to talk for yourself here / not for ourselves. I have taken no distances from Ab. I really think Ab is doing as good a job as he could possibly do, diffusing the TV fakery message and many more topics researched on our forum - and upholding his personal, daily psyop/media-monitoring. As for the occasional shills and trolls, well they are bound to target his website too / just like the stuff we have been through for all these years - it is all part of our ... line of work. <_<

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:25 am

Forgive me for writing presumptively, but no. I wasn't just speaking for myself. I thought I was gathering a feeling of "mistrust of ab irato" from the beginning. Which I ignored, I don't know if you noticed, and I went to be recorded with you there. I wanted to promote my project on KFAI. Feel out the environment there. Why is it not okay for me to say, now, "Okay, I've tried it out. It's not comfortable. He did not create a safe-enough environment for this particular level of deep/extreme hard-line skepticism of online personalities."?

If I am wrong, then I wrote presumptively. And I apologize to anyone who thinks I was trying to speak for them. (I don't like when people do that!) Since I just have only noticed you, me and OneBornFree on there, I assumed most others don't get interviewed there or post comments or get sucked into the Fakeologist universe. You are right that I could be entirely wrong about that! I also noticed you were not on there as frequently, and I considered that "distance", so if I am wrong about that, too, sorry again.

But I do feel pretty strongly it is against my principles to be involved any more. I expressed my concerns about Brian S Staveley, only to be told, "Don't worry."

Yet has anything changed? I am just supposed to "not worry" about boastful simulations investigating simulations; am I to clap my hands and go to sleep now? The simulation will investigate itself?

No, sorry, while we have similar problems, we are both plagued by sims, I don't think they have the exact same problems as us. It seems to be a little more loosey goosey with the reality-social media-simulated personality crossover. Now, I am just speaking for myself. I admit that. While I don't fully mistrust ab's motivations (though I probably should not trust anybody at all since we know the perps read our forum and seem to adjust their propaganda/simulation strategy accordingly) I don't think they crack down on the sim well enough.

You could say the same for us. Well, then, let's just give up? Naw. B)

As for "our line of work" referring to pure volunteerism in the interest of investigating the media including anyone who seems to be investigating, I think you'd agree that's a bit broad if you include in the "line of work" people like ... well, you know. No need to bring up the same old big name radio personalities. So I am sorry if you don't persuade me in this instance. I don't think copying and pasting our articles, being a "fan", or having an interest in getting nearer to us constitute trustworthiness. Especially if the past is to be taken as any indication of what we should expect in the future. I don't need to go into the numerous examples. You know that.

To me it's not just about being targeted, but making people clearly aware of what's happening online rather than a clusterfuck of information. Otherwise, what's the point? You get enveloped and consumed by the sim and you don't care because you have a bunch of fans? No thanks.

Post Reply