THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Apache » Mon May 16, 2016 3:30 pm

A construction worker who won $1 million in a lottery scratch-off game four years ago has defied enormous odds by hitting a $1 million jackpot again.
It's a good advert for the lottery scam isn't it? However, the "win" doesn't look so great when you come across the following information:

nypost.com/2016/05/10/widower-wins-the-lottery-again/
“He usually buys the $10 and $20 scratch-off tickets,’’ said Mike’s Super Citgo boss Mike Abizeid. “Since I opened the store 11 years ago, he [has] spent $150 to $200 every day on scratch-offs.”
Every day? Not every visit, or every week - every day? Surely a misquote? :lol: Nope.

newsmax.com/TheWire/bruce-magistro-wins-lottery-twice/2016/05/12/id/728523/
Magistro, who plays the lottery every day
Not taking leap years into account and taking the lower $150 per day amount allegedly spent, the total sum is $602,250. So, Magistro, according to Abizeid (all these names look made up) spent over $600,000 over 11 years in order to ultimately win $1.4 million? I think I'd keep the $150 a day and put it into stock and shares, which would give a much better rate of return.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/11/new-york-man-beats-the-odds-to-win-1-million-lottery-a-second-ti/
The last time, my wife was sick and needed the money for bills and everything, It gave me the opportunity to stay home with my wife for three years. This time, hopefully, I’ll invest it and make more money off of it.
Where did he get the money from to spend on scratch cards every day prior to the 2012 win and then during the 3 years when his wife was ill if the money was used for medical bills?

This story has no internal consistency and appears to have been entirely made up or Magistro is an inveterate gambler with a serious addiction to scratch cards and is being made out to be something he's not. Whichever it is, it keeps up the hopes of the proles that one day, they too might win the lottery and cease having to be a wage slave, a forlorn hope but one which keeps a lot of people going.

elmoastro
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by elmoastro » Mon May 16, 2016 5:12 pm

I love that the woman who announces the NY Lottery winners just knew he'd win again.

So is NY so crooked that they keep the money & pay off this actor? I mean, they have this game that millions of suckers, ahem, people play and spend money on. NY gets it's cut but that big cardboard check...who really gets the "winnings" if it's fake?

Is there a fix in on scratch-offs by some little outfit that cracked it? Is it bigger than that?

Be interesting to take a few of these suspect lotto grabs and follow the coins...

elmoastro
Member
Posts: 112
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 9:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by elmoastro » Mon May 16, 2016 5:16 pm

Reason I posted this lottery BS and the SpaceX urine articles is I was at lunch the other day and they were BOTH on the same newspaper page that day. When I blurted out "NO WAY!" without thinking, it turned a number of diner's heads haha.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon May 16, 2016 5:40 pm

elmoastro wrote:Reason I posted this lottery BS and the SpaceX urine articles is I was at lunch the other day and they were BOTH on the same newspaper page that day. When I blurted out "NO WAY!" without thinking, it turned a number of diner's heads haha.
It's so hard not to encounter this kind of thing when in the conventional media. The amount of speculation, misinformation and outright lies swirling around in people's heads is really incredible.

Most of it doesn't destroy their capacity for original thought or ability to function in life, but it may injure or slow it in some way with stress and self-entrapping behavior patterns.

I have been thinking lately about starting a number of different "LIVING ROOM" threads. One for commenting on "The Culture of the Reddit Community", another for "Children's Books that Teach Critical Thinking" and things like that, so that we can start to occasionally feel some respite from the madness. We could identify specific bad and good things in our culture and think about behavioral strategies for ourselves rather than those planted in us by Tavistock. There is a risk that too much of the site could get off topic (instead of calling out the fakery, we could get hung up on evangelizing) but the benefits could be that we feel more empowered and inspired about personal ways to change culture since we are already quite aware of the fakery and sometimes it can be disorienting to be empathic and yet not able to share good information with people who are afraid of it.

Basically, I am thinking about "Getting the Word Out" (like our current thread) but many different strategies. Would people be supportive of these kinds of topics? We have some going already, such as the "[Music containing truth]" thread and so on.

animus
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by animus » Mon May 16, 2016 10:54 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:There is a risk that too much of the site could get off topic (instead of calling out the fakery, we could get hung up on evangelizing) but the benefits could be that we feel more empowered and inspired about personal ways to change culture since we are already quite aware of the fakery and sometimes it can be disorienting to be empathic and yet not able to share good information with people who are afraid of it.

Basically, I am thinking about "Getting the Word Out" (like our current thread) but many different strategies. Would people be supportive of these kinds of topics? We have some going already, such as the "[Music containing truth]" thread and so on.
I had a similar thought a month ago: One could just ask some "dumb" question in a physics forum that is designed to lead up to a conversation into a favored direction. Examples:
In this rocket launch video the sun is setting within 12 seconds? How is that possible?
In these satellite images, all taken within 5 hours, there is absolutely no cloud movement on earth, how come?
In these satellite images, all taken within 5 hours, the moon isn't tidally locked to earth, why's that?
I think raising questions is a far better approach than telling them your truths. The goal should be to rouse their curiosity. The dupes calling us "crackpot" can also be delt with since we know their tactics and therefore can call them out, especially if the facts are on our side. So better to use only "no-brainer" examples.
Why a physics forum? Because I wouldn't mind to finally have a big brainy bunch of physicists working alongside us who can easily see through the bs jargon and minutiae we are often confronted with.


After I showed my (sort of) physics teacher the '12sec sunset' rocket launch video and questioned the very existence of said rocket he replied that he witnessed the Apollo 16 rocket launch with his own eyes. (He probably thought I was implying that no rockets ever existed :D ) In my response, I calculated, using the formula I learned from him, that the amount of kinetic energy of the CM on reentry is absurd. No reply from him after that, but I don't mind. In a forum the conversation is more likely to go on.

In case you want to read that section of my email:
Regarding the Apollo 16 mission:
Have you ever calculated the kinetic energy of the CM on re-entry?
"the Command Module (CM-113) had a mass of 5840 kg"
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecra ... =1972-031A

"Apollo 16 re-entered the Earth's atmosphere at eleven kilometers per
second
. Less than 14 minutes later, the spacecraft splashed down to the
waiting US Navy recovery fleet"
http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/a16summary.htm

KE = 1/2*m*v^2
KE = 1/2*5840kg*11000^2 [argh..forgot the m/s in the email]
KE = 353 Gigajoule

Now tell me, how do you lose 353 Gigajoule in less than 14 minutes
without burning out. And don't tell me the answer lies in the miraculous
heat shield :D

"The Massive Ordinance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb, the largest conventional
bomb ever produced in the United States, has a TNT equivalent energy
yield of approximately 11 tons (11 t)."
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent

1 ton = 4.184 gigajoules (cf. above link) so 11 tons should be about 46 GJ.
Quite the heat shield, huh :)
I don't know how many thousands of degrees that must be but I do know
that the heat doesn't just stop at the rim of the heat shield. No expert
scientist can tell me that the rest of the surface of the CM stays cool
enough to endure the heat inside. In fact, I don't even believe the CM
would make it to the sea without burning out first.

There are many other factors that point to the fact that all Apollo
missions were hoaxed but my above example alone should already suffice
to make you raise an eyebrow :)
btw I've made some serious headway with the translations. I'm about half way done. ...though I'm still missing a proof-reader.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue May 17, 2016 12:53 am

animus wrote:I think raising questions is a far better approach than telling them your truths.
Yes, that can be quite true.

Though "Mother Culture" (as Daniel Quinn called it) has whispered some sweet responses into their ears already, having in particular to do with permission to push away good questions with some pretty sad, and all-too-typical responses of the brainwashed:

If that were a legitimate question, wouldn't the Men in the White Coats have answered it already? (I can't, won't and refuse to believe I'm being lied to.)

Are you saying nobody's ever noticed the Photoshopping done on the NASA pics before? Are you saying you're so wonderful that you're the first to ever see it? (You're an egotist. I can't be fooled so easily. I am being bullied. Leave me alone!)

I'm not resistant to questions! I only give thought to reasonable questions made by non-crazy people. (You're nuts. They wouldn't lie to me. Therefore, I cannot handle questions that suggest they are lying or mistaken.)

I'll make sure to ask them about this at the next opportunity, yeah right! (I'm a coward, and I have to protect both my feelings and the feelings of the Men in the White Coats by presuming all critique and questioning of Their Great Answers has been addressed and dealt with so that I don't have to be subjected to the abuse that I am now giving you.)

In other words, the scientific data is on our side, but their belief in their own infallibility at judging who is or is not trustworthy makes a staunch enemy of the truth.

---

Great work on the translations, and thank you again for your work. If you need a proof-reader, you don't always need someone who understands the work. When I made the Korean subtitles for September Clues, I proofread with someone who had no clue about what the movie was about. They were just a stickler as a grammatical/colloquial native speaker. And since they were focused strictly on understandability, and I wasn't pushing anything on them, it increased their curiosity about the subject at hand. :)

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue May 17, 2016 1:07 am

animus wrote:he replied that he witnessed the Apollo 16 rocket launch with his own eyes.
If that's true, it would be interesting to hear at what point he lost visual contact with said rocket and what characterized its movement in full from launch to disappearance.

Seems most of the witnesses are kept quite far away, looking through binoculars, they are obediently turned away from the rocket to watch it on a screen, and many simply go home after it touches a layer of clouds. Others are undoubtedly lying or have convinced themselves they've seen a particular launch because, as you say, a bright shiny rocket just curved up. It's no surprise to me that professors of aerospace in universities are thoroughly brainwashed or agents of government. Various professors I've met will eagerly give examples of stalking, power games and courting/bribing that regularly occurs in universities. And that's not even to mention reported CIA tactics.

The way NASA and so on constantly cancel and reschedule those launches, you'd think they're actually looking for particularly obscuring atmospheric conditions so that their magic work can be masked, but I could be totally wrong about that.

Anyway, keep us updated about the e-mail chain. That's interesting.

animus
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by animus » Tue May 17, 2016 8:18 am

hoi.polloi wrote:In other words, the scientific data is on our side, but their belief in their own infallibility at judging who is or is not trustworthy makes a staunch enemy of the truth.
Cognitive dissonance is can be quite strong in the beginning. Everybody needs his own time to digest contradicting information. One example will make them raise an eyebrow but the matter will be forgotten within the next week, if not even the next few hours. That's another reason why asking questions is a good method because it gives them a reason to come back and answer. Then you can give the next no-brainer example that isn't in accordance to physical laws.
(I could have worded my email better. Telling somebody all Apollo missions were hoaxed is a hard pill to swallow. They should arrive to that conclusion on their own. I should only give the hints, so as to guide him through the process, and not say the big truths out loud so early in the conversation.)

Regarding your exemplary responses: Those are the easy ones which we should have no problem in replying to if the conversation is on the internet where you can confront them with visual examples. (On the 3rd exemplary response I'd quote 25 rules of disinformation to make other readers aware of the situation at hand.) Outside the realm of computers/smartphones it's not that easy to reason with them because they are practically closing their ears with their hands while you speak. Without visual help it can be a quite frustrating endeavor.
Great work on the translations, and thank you again for your work. If you need a proof-reader, you don't always need someone who understands the work. When I made the Korean subtitles for September Clues, I proofread with someone who had no clue about what the movie was about. They were just a stickler as a grammatical/colloquial native speaker. And since they were focused strictly on understandability, and I wasn't pushing anything on them, it increased their curiosity about the subject at hand. :)
Hm..good idea actually.
animus wrote:he replied that he witnessed the Apollo 16 rocket launch with his own eyes.
If that's true, it would be interesting to hear at what point he lost visual contact with said rocket and what characterized its movement in full from launch to disappearance.
I'll keep that in mind on our next email exchange.
Seems most of the witnesses are kept quite far away, looking through binoculars, they are obediently turned away from the rocket to watch it on a screen, and many simply go home after it touches a layer of clouds.
As with the nukes, it was paramount that (at least in the past) MANY people see it with their own eyes so they can talk/brag about it, making it real for everybody else as well! A rocket launch or a big fat (TNT) mushroom cloud is an intense experience you probably never forget and want to hold on to, even if it means ignoring basic facts. As a result, nowadays, you only need some occasional TV images to keep up the lie. The collective consciousness has already accepted it.
The way NASA and so on constantly cancel and reschedule those launches, you'd think they're actually looking for particularly obscuring atmospheric conditions so that their magic work can be masked, but I could be totally wrong about that.
So something like this: "When's the next time 'Suspicious Steven' is not at work? We need to connect our counterfeit loaded flash drive to the network station again." :lol:
Anyway, keep us updated about the e-mail chain. That's interesting.
Will do but don't hold your breath. The conversation stopped a month ago. He was mentioning building 7, so I gave him also a link to SC in that email. Just to make it clear that the rocket launch was not the only CGI presented to us.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv » Tue May 17, 2016 12:09 pm

Whenever I read that "someone witnessed something with their own eyes" - I ask why are they using "witnessed" instead of "saw". They are not under oath or in a court of law, and it's legalspeaky. We had hundreds of people who witnessed the second airplane, strange how not one of them saw the second plane. They are trying to convince us of something. Your A Pollo witness is probably lying.

animus
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2016 8:13 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by animus » Tue May 17, 2016 1:46 pm

brianv wrote:Whenever I read that "someone witnessed something with their own eyes" - I ask why are they using "witnessed" instead of "saw". They are not under oath or in a court of law, and it's legalspeaky. We had hundreds of people who witnessed the second airplane, strange how not one of them saw the second plane. They are trying to convince us of something. Your A Pollo witness is probably lying.
My bad. (But good point!)
Still, I did watch Apollo 16 launch with my own eyes, back in the 1970's. That was before CGI, and I saw it not on screen but in real life. My family drove down there and watched the launch from the side of the road.

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed May 18, 2016 12:44 am

Please view this topic and consider taking action with me: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1885

If you won't do it, I want to hear your response why you won't do it (and I want to convince you that you are wrong) :P

But I will listen and take your responses of support or responses of non-support to heart. As long as you post something about it in that thread.

Thank you for helping the world wake up to the hoaxes and become wiser and more peaceful.

Thank you.

starfish prime
Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:36 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by starfish prime » Sat May 21, 2016 7:41 am

Has this 9/11 video been discussed? I have never seen it before...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zov3msmY6MA

What is up with the floating ash? It is like NASA deciding to add stars because they have finally gained the ability to render them "properly"...

CluedIn
Member
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 12:15 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by CluedIn » Sat May 21, 2016 11:15 am

I had heard about this "new" video surfacing, but hadn't seen it. Does anybody happen to know where they are claiming this came from?

A few observations beyond the NASA stars (some look long like pieces of toilet paper):

At 9 second mark Towers are solid white - no windows

At the 35 second mark the camera pans up and the Towers slowly fade INTO view.

Notice the temperature on a clock is 69 - It was a crisp fall day 9/11/01 and would not have been 69 degrees that early.

People on the ground look non-chalant, lighting cigarettes, smiling at the camera - knowing there is a camera to look at. Nobody is covered in ash. The footage of the people on the ground are very crisp and clear - too clear for 2001 cameras.

At the 4 minute mark Ambulance #3 is driving down the road and a slight plume of smoke rises from the street - then the air is clear. Also a movie poster shown for movie called "Don't Say A Word".

The obligatory "Oh My God" heard throughout.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6952
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Sat May 21, 2016 11:53 am

starfish prime wrote:Has this 9/11 video been discussed? I have never seen it before...
Dear Starfish Prime,

That is by no means a 'new' 9/11 clip. Well, it is actually only six years old or so, since it was a clip included in the infamous "NIST-FOIA Cumulus" batch (all of 4.7 gigabytes of it) of 'never-seen-before-9/11-imagery' released back in 2010 (allegedly / officially due to a FOIA filed by ABC Television... I kid you not!)

Image

The above comparison is from my "UNDEBUNKABLE CLUES" thread (May 2011) : http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2354010#p2354010

Been there - done that. <_<

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv » Sat May 21, 2016 2:07 pm

Video? You are having a laugh. A question SP - do those "images" look anything like reality to you?

"Ohmygod" is a Sample.

Post Reply