THE "CHATBOX"

[kansasinnovember]

Jarvis cocker giving his opinion on our world leaders.

http://youtu.be/OZAiaHNo3Ds

[brianv]

Jarvis cocker giving his opinion on our world leaders.

http://youtu.be/OZAiaHNo3Ds

Bah, adverts, so I killed it!

[wtc-wtf]

I’m not to sure if this has already been mentioned here, but has anyone noticed the shadow that appears to crash into the North tower on the Peter Strid clip.


(Please note image has been slowed down, and image to the right has had exposure lowered.)

[Mitch Matrixx]

Mind opening experience

In an effort to create an open minded and realistic dialog on this forum, I found the need to challenge a few theories on the forum earlier today. I would like to clear any confusion this seems to have created for one or two members here.

*I am not new to this, I have been observing or participating on this forum for over one year. I am familiar with the forum rules goals and mission, so I don't think there is any misinterpretation there. Keeping an open mind, yet challenging the veracity of the accepted explanation should be the rule, not an exception.

*Today I have been labeled as arrogant, and experienced a little ad-hom here, and a little more ad-hom there, usually the sign of an inability to express one's self without becoming frustrated and resorting to low blows. I have never attacked anyone's ideas or reasoning on this forum, only pointed out what I perceived to be holes, or flaws within an overall theory and proceeded to back up my observations with external information.

*As a result of not retracting my statement or "correcting my thinking" to adhere to the general consensus, I encountered immediate resistance and argument from member(s), who seem keen to recycle the only evidence they had in their opposing argument. What is funny about this is that my information was laughed at, and written off as easily manipulated, but what about the evidence that the opposing members put forth? On what authority do we have that makes their argument any more valid? This is known as duplicity.

*We have a great opportunity here to have diplomatic discussion and debate, whether all parties involved will reach an agreement on certain ideas or not.
It would be highly insensible to allow ego to override data when we engage in these discussions.

*Finally, there is often times more than one explanation for an event or series of events. It is often stressed within this forum that all members and readers should engage in their research with an open mind. However, it is easy to become caught up in trap door thinking, in which one answer tries to fit the bill for a number of conflicting ideas or arguments, creating a closed loop type of research. I feel that there is a great propensity for this to happen when engaging the same ideas and explanations to members here. It would be quite a shame for members with different ideas or theories to encounter such a dogmatic platform.

[truthseeker]

In an effort to create an open minded and realistic dialog on this forum, I found the need to challenge a few theories on the forum earlier today. I would like to clear any confusion this seems to have created for one or two members here.

*I am not new to this, I have been observing or participating on this forum for over one year. I am familiar with the forum rules goals and mission, so I don't think there is any misinterpretation there. Keeping an open mind, yet challenging the veracity of the accepted explanation should be the rule, not an exception.

*Today I have been labeled as arrogant, and experienced a little ad-hom here, and a little more ad-hom there, usually the sign of an inability to express one's self without becoming frustrated and resorting to low blows. I have never attacked anyone's ideas or reasoning on this forum, only pointed out what I perceived to be holes, or flaws within an overall theory and proceeded to back up my observations with external information.

*As a result of not retracting my statement or "correcting my thinking" to adhere to the general consensus, I encountered immediate resistance and argument from member(s), who seem keen to recycle the only evidence they had in their opposing argument. What is funny about this is that my information was laughed at, and written off as easily manipulated, but what about the evidence that the opposing members put forth? On what authority do we have that makes their argument any more valid? This is known as duplicity.

*We have a great opportunity here to have diplomatic discussion and debate, whether all parties involved will reach an agreement on certain ideas or not.
It would be highly insensible to allow ego to override data when we engage in these discussions.

*Finally, there is often times more than one explanation for an event or series of events. It is often stressed within this forum that all members and readers should engage in their research with an open mind. However, it is easy to become caught up in trap door thinking, in which one answer tries to fit the bill for a number of conflicting ideas or arguments, creating a closed loop type of research. I feel that there is a great propensity for this to happen when engaging the same ideas and explanations to members here. It would be quite a shame for members with different ideas or theories to encounter such a dogmatic platform.

Mitch
I think in some respects you are correct. BUT! There are people here who have put in so much work, and study into the forum, that in my opinion can be at times a bit defensive to opposing views. BUT i do believe for the most part the more informed members do show respect, if you give them respect.
Let me clarify "defensive". When something is proven to be true, it can be frustrating to some, when others refuse to see the proof. I play a very small part of these discussions, BUT everything i have questioned has been answered directly, with proof of fakery.

[lux]

*Today I have been labeled as arrogant, and experienced a little ad-hom here, and a little more ad-hom there, usually the sign of an inability to express one's self without becoming frustrated and resorting to low blows. I have never attacked anyone's ideas or reasoning on this forum, only pointed out what I perceived to be holes, or flaws within an overall theory and proceeded to back up my observations with external information.

The "ad hom" I think you refer to as well as the label of "arrogant" followed these comments of yours (my emphasis) --

In this post you wrote:

“...the topical discussion of the existence of Space born satellites is ludicrous.”

and

“...deciding that all space related technology and current endeavours henceforth can't exist either is insane.”

In this post you wrote:

“This is exactly the point I am trying to make. The ignorant assumption that a few articles have completely dispelled all the other evidence that space travel is possible. “

and

“ If you choose along with others to take an ignorant role regarding the absolute wealth of information that is at your fingertips to prove to yourself that satellites exist, and work here in the real world (so to speak), that is certainly your choice.”

and

“...while I posted adequate external links to back up my side of the debate, you merely pointed me back into the forum's cyclical and self-congratulating text. “

Does it really surprise you that your posts were met with less than friendly responses? Does this at all register with you that you have adopted an arrogant, insulting attitude toward this forum prior to the posts you now complain about?

How would you respond to someone referring to your opinions as ludicrous, insane, ignorant and self-congratulating?

[simonshack]

Mind opening experience

In an effort to create an open minded and realistic dialog on this forum, I found the need to challenge a few theories on the forum earlier today. I would like to clear any confusion this seems to have created for one or two members here.

*I am not new to this, I have been observing or participating on this forum for over one year. I am familiar with the forum rules goals and mission, so I don't think there is any misinterpretation there. Keeping an open mind, yet challenging the veracity of the accepted explanation should be the rule, not an exception.

*Today I have been labeled as arrogant, and experienced a little ad-hom here, and a little more ad-hom there, usually the sign of an inability to express one's self without becoming frustrated and resorting to low blows. I have never attacked anyone's ideas or reasoning on this forum, only pointed out what I perceived to be holes, or flaws within an overall theory and proceeded to back up my observations with external information.

*As a result of not retracting my statement or "correcting my thinking" to adhere to the general consensus, I encountered immediate resistance and argument from member(s), who seem keen to recycle the only evidence they had in their opposing argument. What is funny about this is that my information was laughed at, and written off as easily manipulated, but what about the evidence that the opposing members put forth? On what authority do we have that makes their argument any more valid? This is known as duplicity.

*We have a great opportunity here to have diplomatic discussion and debate, whether all parties involved will reach an agreement on certain ideas or not.
It would be highly insensible to allow ego to override data when we engage in these discussions.

*Finally, there is often times more than one explanation for an event or series of events. It is often stressed within this forum that all members and readers should engage in their research with an open mind. However, it is easy to become caught up in trap door thinking, in which one answer tries to fit the bill for a number of conflicting ideas or arguments, creating a closed loop type of research. I feel that there is a great propensity for this to happen when engaging the same ideas and explanations to members here. It would be quite a shame for members with different ideas or theories to encounter such a dogmatic platform.

Dear Mitch,

You are raising a number of points of concern regarding the general attitude of this forum which I'll gladly address and comment. As I understand, your main concern is that of letting everyone freely express their own views and opinions in calm and diplomatic fashion. To be sure, I do share this wish with you. However, as you must have observed yourself over the time you have frequented this forum, the instances in which undue controversy and strife have arisen have quite consistently involved members with the following characteristics (not that this is your case):

- Omitting/refusing to introduce themselves as required (a simple 'hand-shake' requirement which we implemented in an attempt to weed out spambots and for everyone to get at least some minimal feel/idea of the new forum members' background/interests/motivations). As it is, for instance, roughly 95% of the steady stream of new Norwegian registrants (mostly rude/vacuous/petulant critics of our Breivik research) fall into this category.

- Registering under an anonymous proxy server. As far as I can tell, 100% of such entities have turned out to be antagonistic/provocateurs/troublemakers and whatnot.

- Virulently attacking any given research thread on this forum (incl. ad hominem attacks/insults at regular forum members) in ways that simply cannot be qualified as 'diplomatic' or 'open-minded'. Naturally, such entities are not judged poorly by our regular members for their (conflicting) ideas - as much as for their bad manners.

For example, at this very moment we have a new registrant ("corncob2") rampaging over at the "Satellites - general discussion and musings" thread, who :

- Has refused point blank to introduce him/herself as required.
- Has squarely dodged responding to a simple yes/no question that I submitted (regarding the NASA moon landings).
- Has kept lashing out adjectives ostensibly aimed at our forum members in general ("morons, sycophants, paranoids") while laying out what would otherwise be interesting topics for debate. Does Cluesforum discourage debate? I don't think this is fair to say. "Corncob2" even has the impertinence to ask our member "Lux" - basically - to shut up !

"Now, kindly step aside, I'd like to hear from some of the posters who dispute the existence of artificial satellites."

I'd say "corncob2" is simply asking for a fight. Can it get more obvious than this?

So, dear Mitch, how do you propose we entertain diplomatic and open-minded discussions with such entities? Do you believe that, for the sake of plurality/freedom of speech, this forum should allow such antics - no matter how rude/ antagonistic/ provocatorial they get? And lastly, what exactly do you mean by "dogmatic platform"? Isn't this forum's focus precisely to try and challenge/pick apart/shatter the many dogmas of our times?

Sincerely yours

[whatsgoingon]

a

[arc300]

Hi,
Far be it for me, a mere noob who hasn't really offered anything on this site (yet?), but I'd like to ask/suggest this:

The 911 section comprises two distinct types of thread: locked threads, eg, '911 Simcity' etc., where the fundamental outlines and state-of-the-art research has been collated in a fairly concise and easily digestible form, and the 'as-yet-not-locked ( ) threads' where open and continually evolving conversations, suggestions, and 'bouncing of ideas' take place.

I really don't know anything about running or maintaining a web-site and the work involved, but would it be possible to do similar for the Moon Hoax threads? It might make it easier for a newbie or sceptic to come up to speed with what has been conclusively shown and what is still more in the realm of speculation. BTW, I LOVE speculation. Speculation makes the world go round.

[fbenario]

Far be it for me, a mere noob who hasn't really offered anything on this site (yet?)

Oh yes you have. I loved your threesome of space theories posted on May 2, vacuums, etc. Keep thinking and posting your conclusions.

[Maat]

Here's an old favorite Moody Blues song, Question, that I thought apropos of late but never knew until recently that it also has a line commonly misheard as:

♪ To learn as we grow old
The secrets of arseholes

Ref: http://kissthisguy.com/105misheard.htm

Real Lyric: To learn as we grow old
The secrets of our souls.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP9iOqdxS8c
(Full lyric in notes on Youtube)

It actually works perfectly both ways

Find more funny misheard lyrics of famous songs ►


Yep, the site's named after a misheard lyric in Purple Haze by Jimi Hendrix

[lux]

My favorite:

The ants are my friends,
they're blowin' in the wind
The ants are a-blowin' in the wind.
- Bob Dylan "Blowin' in the Wind"

[brianv]

My favorite:

The ants are my friends,
they're blowin' in the wind
The ants are a-blowin' in the wind.
- Bob Dylan "Blowin' in the Wind"

Haha reminds me of...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxELSzay2lc

[lux]

[pshea38]

ron paul v's lee harvey oswald (whose death was v. likely faked).

Isn't the resemblence remarkable?

I always thought that lee harvey looked and talked as if he had a tissue (or similar)
packed between his upper gums and teeth.
Are those eyebrows plucked and shaped lee?

Why the frown, man?

(Crazy, I know. But bear in mind that this is coming from a man who still believes that obama played
the role of osama. )