Research Philosophy

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:43 am

Possibly, corporations that don't benefit from transparency are already making attempts to shut down the Internet.

I can't endorse this kind of activity at all. Although the Internet is a huge energy burden on the planet, its uses for helping to form peaceful society are quite impressive! The concept of 'sharing' has also taken on amazing new meaning.

When you can give an infinite amount of something, it certainly changes the meaning of our generosity.

And when corporations go right to work to put a stop to that positive aspect of our existence, it certainly tells you where their interests lie.

The only 'hacker' thing I endorse is free gifting of truth, information, art, etc.

The increasingly obsolete and crumbling concept of copyright over ideas is not necessarily the worst thing to lose as our world becomes more connected.

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

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:52 am

SimonJCP - I said the Ozzy topic is closed. Sorry but you are late to add your 2 cents.

SimonJCP
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:23 am
Contact:

Unread post by SimonJCP » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:53 am

My apologies. I just skimmed through what people were saying.

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

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:54 am

No problem

fbenario
Member
Posts: 2239
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Unread post by fbenario » Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:42 am

On another thread today, Hoi said, "Since we don't really trust anyone anyway, it doesn't matter if we trust [so-and-so] or not."

Since this thread is about our research philosophy, I thought I would add a short colloquy I've had with my girlfriend more than once in the year this forum has been active.

I've told her repeatedly that, after discovering all the 9/11 media fakery, I no longer trust that anyone is acting in good faith on any subject at any time (other than her, and my parents, and even then I trust them only with respect to their relationship with me).

She responds by asking, if I trust no one, how can I take the work/research on this forum so seriously - 'deadly seriously', in my words.

My response, which she doesn't like? The only thing that matters is the work involved, objective evidence posted for all to review, to which I apply my own judgment/critical analysis. The supposed 'trustworthiness' of the person doing the posting doesn't matter with respect to the potential validity of the material posted.

She still doesn't understand the philosophical legitimacy of my position, since her whole world view is wrapped up in relationships - not objective, critical thinking. I find her subjectivity, and fuzzy thinking, very wearing on an ongoing basis.

godzilla
Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 9:43 pm
Contact:

Unread post by godzilla » Sat Oct 02, 2010 2:23 am

fbenario @ Oct 1 2010, 06:42 PM wrote: My response, which she doesn't like? The only thing that matters is the work involved, objective evidence posted for all to review, to which I apply my own judgment/critical analysis. The supposed 'trustworthiness' of the person doing the posting doesn't matter with respect to the potential validity of the material posted.
Well, if a contributor isn't 'trustworthy' after all, meaning a shill, then how could that "person" actually contribute anything other than something intended to ultimately steer the public and honest researchers away from the truth?
"It's not a matter of what is true that counts but a matter of what is perceived to be true." - Henry Kissinger

SimonJCP
Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:23 am
Contact:

Unread post by SimonJCP » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:09 am

godzilla @ Oct 2 2010, 03:23 AM wrote:
fbenario 4 Oct 1 2010, 06:42 PM wrote: My response, which she doesn't like? The only thing that matters is the work involved, objective evidence posted for all to review, to which I apply my own judgment/critical analysis. The supposed 'trustworthiness' of the person doing the posting doesn't matter with respect to the potential validity of the material posted.
Well, if a contributor isn't 'trustworthy' after all, meaning a shill, then how could that "person" actually contribute anything other than something intended to ultimately steer the public and honest researchers away from the truth?
Excellent point, Godzilla. When someone is busted, we really need to re-examine every contribution they've made.

I think, however, that a trend can be seen in the "Shill" community:

-"Loose Change" debunks some of the ridiculous aspects of the 9/11 official version and touches on the BTS data (a genuine smoking gun), but promotes disinformation like the "UA175 Pod", "AA11/UA175 Flashes", "A3 Skywarrior Hit The Pentagon", "UA93 was shot down", and other nonsense.

-"Missing Links" covers the Jewish/Zionist involvement in detail, but promotes planer-theories and ignores US/CIA/Military involvement (implying that it's a distraction when it clearly has merit).

-"911: In Plane Sight" soundly debunks the Pentagon plane-crash, but promotes the "Mike Walters" poison-pill/red-herring and spends most of it's New York portion trying to convince us that a "pod" was mounted on the underside of UA175.

-"Welcome To Terroland" and other works by Daniel Hopsicker give us smoking-guns about the alleged hijackers' ties to the CIA and Military. However, after presenting a sound case for the alleged hijackers being US agents, he turns around and says that they actually were Muslim hijackers who committed suicide attacks, but that it had to do with "drugs" (or something).

-MSRI spook Jim Hoffman soundly debunks official reports on the collapses (NIST, Bazant, etc.), yet tells us that airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and Shanksville.

This is Perp MO:
Gold + Disinformation

By giving us some factual information, we will trust them on things like:
"I think I see a BULGE on the underbelly of Flight 175!!"
"Dude, Flight 93 was probably shot down by an F-16 fighter jet!"
"The No-Plane theories are disinformation! A 757 hit the Pentagon! Remote control!"
"Well, the hijackers had those ties to the government and stuff, but they were still for real!"
"Well, there may not have been a plane at the Pentagon, but definitely in NY."

After giving us factual, provable data, we might trust them as experts and accept their deceptive theories.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2578
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Unread post by nonhocapito » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:36 am

fbenario 4 Oct 2 2010, 02:42 AM wrote: On another thread today, Hoi said, "Since we don't really trust anyone anyway, it doesn't matter if we trust [so-and-so] or not."

Since this thread is about our research philosophy, I thought I would add a short colloquy I've had with my girlfriend more than once in the year this forum has been active.

I've told her repeatedly that, after discovering all the 9/11 media fakery, I no longer trust that anyone is acting in good faith on any subject at any time (other than her, and my parents, and even then I trust them only with respect to their relationship with me).

She responds by asking, if I trust no one, how can I take the work/research on this forum so seriously - 'deadly seriously', in my words.

My response, which she doesn't like? The only thing that matters is the work involved, objective evidence posted for all to review, to which I apply my own judgment/critical analysis. The supposed 'trustworthiness' of the person doing the posting doesn't matter with respect to the potential validity of the material posted.

She still doesn't understand the philosophical legitimacy of my position, since her whole world view is wrapped up in relationships - not objective, critical thinking. I find her subjectivity, and fuzzy thinking, very wearing on an ongoing basis.
Not to trust anyone is a big mistake.
It is actually counter-productive because it makes you feel desperately lonely.

I think your girlfriend is right in expecting from you a sort of indisputable trust. Maybe her world is not objective but it is part of what warms-up, in a good sense, this planet.
Love, relations are a leap of faith --not an investment.

Even in relation to this forum and with the research, there is a similar part of irrational, which make us hope, even expect in a sense, that the respect for the research or thoughts of this or that person will turn into a real decent human relationship. Into a friendship. Because we need friends more than we need the truth.

I don't mean that, as a man, you have to be oblivious to the fact that we all can be betrayed or disappointed.

In fact, everyone disappoints us sooner or later because nobody can live up to our expectations.
But: we cannot always live up to the expectations of others, either. We are bound to shortcome and disappoint.

So maybe to trust someone means to make the conscious decision to trust someone: while knowing that the world isn't perfect.
I guess my point is that once we say "i trust you" we gotta stick to the game plan, we cannot go and ask for reassurance later.
We owe it to the others as they owe it to us.

This of course unless something revealing happens that makes us consider otherwise.
But even it that case, we should not blame the fact that we trusted someone, or that trust isn't good. Just the fact that a mistake has been made somewhere along the line --which is entirely to be expected in this world.

(Which may, or may not, apply to you personal relation to your girlfriend, or to what is going on these days on this forum.)

fred
Banned
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:43 pm
Contact:

Unread post by fred » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:55 am

Even with trustworthy people you have to be on the lookout for: coercion, impersonation, duress, etc.

It's pretty common for someone to get grabbed by the secret police, who then use the detainee's email, cellphone, etc to text message all his associates setting up meetings.

One of the youtube re-uploaders was held incommunicato for over a year on a bogus sedition charge (if he is to be believed).

You can't always assume that the online friend you talked to yesterday is the same person talking to you today. People get bought off, replaced, cave-in to threats, respond to blackmail, etc.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2578
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Unread post by nonhocapito » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:09 am

fred @ Oct 2 2010, 06:55 AM wrote: It's pretty common for someone to get grabbed by the secret police, who then use the detainee's email, cellphone, etc to text message all his associates setting up meetings.

(...)

You can't always assume that the online friend you talked to yesterday is the same person talking to you today. People get bought off, replaced, cave-in to threats, respond to blackmail, etc.
So where this leaves us? Nobody is your friend?

You say "pretty common" to be grabbed by the secret police, how is that measurement made? Is this Stalin's Russia? Isn't there a tad of fear-monger? Is it not that "they" want us to be scared?

fred
Banned
Posts: 592
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:43 pm
Contact:

Unread post by fred » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:36 am

nonhocapito 4 Oct 2 2010, 07:09 AM wrote:
fred 4 Oct 2 2010, 06:55 AM wrote: It's pretty common for someone to get grabbed by the secret police, who then use the detainee's email, cellphone, etc to text message all his associates setting up meetings.

(...)

You can't always assume that the online friend you talked to yesterday is the same person talking to you today. People get bought off, replaced, cave-in to threats, respond to blackmail, etc.
So where this leaves us? Nobody is your friend?

You say "pretty common" to be grabbed by the secret police, how is that measurement made? Is this Stalin's Russia? Isn't there a tad of fear-monger? Is it not that "they" want us to be scared?
Look, I don't know where you come from to compare it to 'Stalin's Russia', but over here all communications are monitored without a warrant, all phone calls are recored, all emails are routed to the NSA, you can be held in secret prisons as an 'enemy combatant', the outside of every envelope is photographed and stored, the list of everyone you called and what you talked about is available in real time, all your purchases are tracked, there are surveillance cameras everywhere you go, your bags are searched at the airports by hand and by X-ray...

I'd say things are easier for the secret police now than they were in Stalin's Russia.

In Stalin's day they didn't have Photoshop to make it easy. Faking photos required some skill. They didn't have computer animation.

So you tell me.

Everything is fine. Stay asleep. There's nobody in secret prison. No unmanned drones. You're free to say whatever you want and to come and go as you please without worry. Whatever.

If you don't have anything to hide you've got nothing to fear. The FBI, DEA, CIA, KGB, FSB, and Chinese Firewall are all there to help keep you safe.

There are no impersonators, undercover officers, secret police, computer hackers, and if you get raided they'll properly inventory all your stuff without looking at it. They won't pretend to be you and try to contact any of your associates.

I think Lenin said being so naive is charming if you're a five year old girl but a little bit pathetic in a grown up.

Even if you get caught selling marijuana they will impersonate you and try to bust everybody who calls you up. But no, for National Security, they all follow the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the EU Guidelines for Privacy Best Practices to make sure that they don't infringe on your right to privacy and free speech. It's not like there's any budget for those other things. You can publish a video critical of an event that happened 9 years ago and it won't be mysteriously deleted.

You can trust your bank, phone company and ISP not to share your information with other companies and the government? Google doesn't share your mail with them? They don't keep dossiers on you?

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

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:56 am

Hear hear!

Fred - you still got it man. It seems hard to communicate sometimes until you write a post.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2578
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Unread post by nonhocapito » Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:49 am

fred 4 Oct 2 2010, 07:36 AM wrote: Everything is fine. Stay asleep. There's nobody in secret prison. No unmanned drones. You're free to say whatever you want and to come and go as you please without worry. Whatever.

I think Lenin said being so naive is charming if you're a five year old girl but a little bit pathetic in a grown up.
Hey Fred, fuck you. I see you have the same fever to jump ahead and start putting labels on people, words in their mouth. And Hoi, if you think that this was needed for my benefit, you are annoying too. Nobody needs this constant paternalism.

I am paranoid enough by nature to have the police-state picture in mind. I was just asking how "pretty common" is measured for you Fred. On 10 honest researchers on this or other forums, how many of them end up snatched by the secret police? What's "common"? This a word you used, not I. Maybe in a polemic way, I honestly wanted to know.

And what do you come quoting Lenin to me for? I don't give a fuck what Lenin said or said not. So I am naive like a five years old? I am pathetic? Does this thought make you feel better? Good, I am glad I made you feel better. Once that's done, though, I wonder what progress we have made, what exactly you have accomplished by belittling someone on a forum.

The thing that i love the most about this research, about the whole TV fakery thing, I think I wrote it here somewhere, is the uplifting and positive spin it has, for me, the "solution" to the story: looking at the vicsims pictures and the videos and the memorials, it is hilarious and liberating. I can now laugh to the face of the king instead of cringe. It can be pretty powerful.
I had the feeling this good humor spread itself to our general attitude here. Not that it was a joke or anything, but we were not hypnotized by the enemy like a bunch of Alex Jones followers, because we could tell how fake was the stuff, how sloppy the job.

If this should be another situation where we fight an invisible gigantic powerful entity, and every other day the world is about to fucking end, and my shadow is my enemy, and even spreading the news is wrong because who listens could be a cheat, then what goal can I expect myself to really achieve?

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

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:00 pm

Now that's the bitchy, paternalistic "I'm the boss" attitude we all have with each other.

Looks like nonhocapito is starting to fit right in! Maybe he's alright after all ... :P

Actually, nonhocapito, I agree that the reason I find this research so uplifting is because it frees us from the responsibility of giving trust and politeness away for free to people who we don't know.

It is a sad fact that politeness doesn't really belong here - horoscope suggestions don't really play out that well - casual chit chat doesn't quite cut it.

Why?

Because people are pissed off at ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, Fox and the rest for lying with the fake polite smiles and 'above it all' attitude that you actually came to this board employing.

So don't act offended if you get pushed around a bit to see if you're made of stronger stuff. It's our form of showing love.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2578
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Unread post by nonhocapito » Sat Oct 02, 2010 5:22 pm

hoi.polloi 4 Oct 2 2010, 06:00 PM wrote: Now that's the bitchy, paternalistic "I'm the boss" attitude we all have with each other.

Looks like nonhocapito is starting to fit right in! Maybe he's alright after all ... :P

Actually, nonhocapito, I agree that the reason I find this research so uplifting is because it frees us from the responsibility of giving trust and politeness away for free to people who we don't know.

It is a sad fact that politeness doesn't really belong here - horoscope suggestions don't really play out that well - casual chit chat doesn't quite cut it.

Why?

Because people are pissed off at ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, Fox and the rest for lying with the fake polite smiles and 'above it all' attitude that you actually came to this board employing.

So don't act offended if you get pushed around a bit to see if you're made of stronger stuff. It's our form of showing love.
I accept this explanation and I thank you for it... but you must admit that, where I quoted that astrological thing, no research was being discussed but our paranoid feelings towards the members of the forum. I thought that that discussion could use some external suggestion to lighten the mood.

It was not casual chit chat, it had an actual purpose, same as other posts of mine around those moments, to balance the general dark mood the little I could-- but it wouldn't enter my mind, I wouldn't dream to do it when are discussed things regarding the research or more to the point and to the matter. But I will be more careful in the future to stick to the questions of research.

Lastly I don't ask for politeness per se, but I will act offended if I am offended, it is my privilege such as to offend me evidently is yours.
This doesn't mean I will stay offended long or make it personal, because I agree that we are here for more important things.

Post Reply