REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

[Observer]

@AliceKinnian

You seem to me to be a real human, contemplating real thoughts about life.
The thread you which you started, "Establishing a Life of Meaning", seems real.
And the post you added to the "Parenting In The Simulation Age", also seems real.

But please understand - the jaded folks here have spent decades proving stories fake.
For you to understand the perspective of folks here, you need to ponder all the threads.
This will take years or decades of quietly reading through each page of the 1000 threads.

To begin to understand that nobody was killed on 9/11, you need to read Simon's intro link.

At the very least, you should watch Simon's 19 videos which are currently hosted on this page.

First realize how thousands of fake "victims" were simulated to start wars, that is the first step.
Then realize that all the media-pushed "victims" are simulated, all of the "terror" stories are fake.
Then realize all of the "Nuclear Bomb" stories and "Humans in Space" stories are equally totally fake.

Your kids must memorize all the official stories (to get money) AND your kids must also learn the truth.
See, no need to choose between "teaching them the official stories OR the truth" you need to teach both.
You are lucky to have a relatively-rich husband ("who formerly worked at NASA") financially supporting you.

Enjoy his money (which he received for helping knowingly/unknowingly prop-up the "Humans in Space" fraud.)
Enjoy your lucky free-time at home (which he pays for with his current mainstream job, whatever that may be.)
Enjoy your lucky life which most would LOVE: someone paying for your organic food and your home-schooling gig.

I recommend you carefully watch the 19 videos (by Simon, the creator of this site) in the order shown on that page.
And I recommend you carefully read through the threads here for 100s/1000s of hours before posting more. Learn 1st.

PS - while learning how to notice the illogic in all the official stories [lies], "photos" [images], and "videos" [animations],
over the next 100s/1000s of hours reading through the threads, I also recommend some appropriately real mellow music.

Summary - Yes, you seem to have already intelligently realized: the official stories (even in "history" & "science") are lies.
You are experiencing rational feelings about that grand realization and about a spouse who doesn't admit/know the truth.
Your thoughts seem intelligent, rational & compassionate, and you seem to be doing your best to teach your children well.
In addition to teaching them the official stories to pass the official tests, teach them to notice lies using Logic and Analysis.
Gradually, after reading enough of the past decade of posts here, you can gain the perspective to be a contributing member.
Relax, remain centered & happy by keeping your awareness (not worried about futures) firmly aware of each Present Moment.

[sunshine05]

Observer, what's with your weird margins? And, I disagree that one has to watch every video and read every thread here in order to participate. You're so condescending. WTF

[fbenario]

Observer, what's with your weird margins?

Read the bottom two posts:

http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 4#p2405954

[hoi.polloi]

I currently have no professional expertise, nor novel insights - I am here primarily to learn from others and gather their beliefs for consideration in the evolution of my personal ideology.

I am very sorry about your need for therapy on some issues but this isn't the place to get it. I believe you will be better off and we will be better off if we part ways here since the forum is not designed to accommodate every personal therapeutic purpose. Please do feel free to enjoy the contributions of people compiling research here. I have heard that Fakeologist "loves" all people in a way, and people use it as therapy at times. If you wish to demonize or praise CluesForum or its members without actually seeking to understand the content of the forum, that does seem to be the place it is done sometimes. It's mixed with people who do read the forum as well. I do recommend that if you think that's more your style. Do take care! And good luck!

[antipodean]

Nail on head

Your kids must memorize all the official stories (to get money) AND your kids must also learn the truth.
See, no need to choose between "teaching them the official stories OR the truth" you need to teach both.
You are lucky to have a relatively-rich husband ("who formerly worked at NASA") financially supporting you.

Enjoy his money (which he received for helping knowingly/unknowingly prop-up the "Humans in Space" fraud.)
Enjoy your lucky free-time at home (which he pays for with his current mainstream job, whatever that may be.)
Enjoy your lucky life which most would LOVE: someone paying for your organic food and your home-schooling gig.

And when my son discovered that he lived in a world of fakery, he said "Don't worry Dad I know what to say & write in order to pass the exams"

[Observer]

@Sunshine05 (Lynne), on one hand, asking new members to read every thread before posting is an overly extreme request.
On the other hand, if one would read a little more consistently here before posting, one would know topics already covered.
For example, you should have read a little more thoroughly here before posting "9/11 and other false flags". Do you see why?
Even though 9/11 was used as a pretext to start war(s), mislabeling 9/11 a "false flag" implies "victims" were "killed" on 9/11.

Maybe back then CluesForum forgave mislabeling the 9/11 hoax a "false flag" & forgave mislabeling other hoaxes "false flags".
Now in 2018, CF doesn't allow the "false flag" term. New members should even state in their intro: nobody was killed on 9/11.
Folks should watch SeptemberClues movies & read CluesForum's 9/11 threads to have even an inkling of the perspective here.
Folks who haven't properly studied will mistakenly post about "false flag" "conspiracy theory" & "Bush killed 3,000 9/11 victims".

It's rude for sudden posters to expect their opinions to be read, without first reading the vicsim evidence already posted here.
It's absurd for CluesForum to waste time on supposed thinkers who won't even state in their intro: nobody was killed on 9/11.
e.g. AK "stumbled" here crying for St. Anthony, hasn't read CluesForum 9/11 threads and hasn't even watched SeptemberClues.
The replies she has received (from myself and others) have been quite kind. But in general, CluesForum must be more vigilant.

To prove one has studied SeptemberClues and CluesForum, new members should state in their intro: nobody was killed on 9/11.
Furthermore, to avoid the problem of initial agreeable posts followed by a "one victim was real" claim, folks should even state:
- "I have never met physically-in-person, any character who later supposedly became a 'victim of a terror event'. Unmet 'online-friends' invalid."
- "My family/friends, whom I've met physically-in-person, have never met physically-in-person any such 'victims'. Unmet 'online-friends' invalid."
- "I've never witnessed any 'terror injury' and neither have my family/friends whom I've met physically-in-person. Unmet 'online-friends' invalid."

This way, people (& A.I. programs) can no longer post agreeable posts now followed by time-wasting false 'victim' claims later.
CluesForum has wasted so much time on debaters who argued "maybe some killed on 9/11" & "my tribe did not do Holodomor".
Years of semi-agreeable posts sprinkled with years of time-wasting debate could've been prevented, by strong initial vigilance.
"Hi, maybe some were killed on 9/11, my sister met Todd Reuben, my niece attended school with his daughters." Boom, banned.
That's just an example of a typist who placed the false claim in their intro post. What about those who wait till their 500th post?

All members are ipso-facto asking CluesForum's millions of readers to become emotionally invested in their idea-seeding posts.
So before CluesForum's millions of readers consider even 1 post by a potential new member, the intro post should clearly state:
"I've watched Simon's 19 videos (3h54m) I've read 9/11 and other threads here & I have ZERO 'terror event victim' stories."

[HonestlyNow]

Observer,
Just a note on the formatting of your last post at this thread. I normally read this forum at a zoom level of 133% on the Mozilla Firefox browser. The result for that particular post is that each sentence ends on the following line with only one or two words. It's not pretty, and not what I think you are intending. (Yes, I know that I can change the zoom level.)

[Observer]

Thanks HonestlyNow

Based on your kind feedback, I made it all smaller. Small enough so that even if quoted it remains "pretty". I probably will simply stop doing such formatting from now into the future, since: #1 discussion about artistic formatting style takes focus away from the vital content written, #2 similar lengths in posts (just like similar sounds in songs) is admittedly an unneeded self-applied limitation which can cause content to unfortunately vary from the original intended sentences, and #3 since it takes so much time and energy to get similar lengths while staying close to the original intended sentences, it really is an artistic yet impractical expenditure of life force.

So anyway, to avoid all future "character-creating then eventual claim-making" time-wasting "be nice to me and my unbelievable claim (which goes against everything CluesForum has painstakingly proven over the years) give me the benefit of the doubt as being an honest non-shill because we have agreed on so many various points" emotional warfare from new or medium-term or even long-term members, hopefully a stronger claim-prevention rule can be considered and implemented, which basically says "Admit in your first post if you think anyone was actually killed on 9/11 (or if you think anyone was actually killed in ANY of the 'terror' hoaxes busted here at CluesForum) and if so, automatic banning, it's 2018 and nobody here is on the fence about such a topic.

Basically, "If you're ever going to claim 'maybe there were some 9/11 victims', or 'I know someone who says they knew a victim', or anything like that, you must make that claim right up front in your intro post, not later after many trust-gaining posts, you must state your unbelievable claim (about 'victim' debate/evidence, 'nuclear bomb' debate/evidence, 'humans in space' debate/evidence, whatever) right at the start in your intro post (which will then of course result in an automatic banning, sorry but not sorry, CluesForum has played along enough over the years with 'possibly real, possibly honest, agreeing with many things but then eventually making surprise claims' characters over the years, no more such drama is needed. Make such claims over on some 'maybe some victims were really killed in 9/11, maybe some humans really have floated in space' forum or blog somewhere. Don't even bother making such claims at CluesForum."

Perhaps if CluesForum becomes more vigilant about not allowing any still-vague-about-the-full-extent-of-media-fakery posters to even get past the intro stage, then someday BrianV (who once called me a coffee machine due to my formatting, beep-boop) might visit sometimes as one of CluesForum's co-founders, one of the original 100% vicsim-realizers (2005 SSDI list-checked) much-needed lifelong ultra-strong guard against faulty words, phrases, ideas.

To put it more concisely, I don't think it's too much to ask for people to actually spend a few hours (days/weeks/months, even years) familiarizing themselves with the conclusions CluesForum has come to over the past decades, before allowing such obvious non-readers to innocently/naively/maliciously post opinions/speculations/doubts/conjectures/claims which have already been thoroughly proven wrong by righteous research here.

Proposed Introductory Acknowledgement Statement:
"I've watched Simon's 19 videos (3h54m) I've read 9/11 and other threads here & I have ZERO 'terror event victim' stories."

[sunshine05]

I disagree that there must be all of these requirements, observer. I think you need to lighten up. We want people to feel welcome here to learn the truth about these events. So ridiculous that you read through my old posts so you could criticize me for how I labeled a topic.

You obviously see yourself as a gatekeeper for this forum.

It's a shame you drove Brianv away with your ridiculous post about cameras in space. He was one of the best contributors and I enjoyed his posts for many years.

[hoi.polloi]

Just trying to make peace here.

Observer, it's generally the admins' requirement that members read posts about the topics that they are commenting on or at least demonstrate the same critical thought level on their topic, not necessarily every single thread on the forum, before posting. And if people are getting the impression you are a gatekeeper (it's not just sunshine05) our forum does not seem very inviting or open. It's already not very inviting or open due to the extremely fringe nature of these topics in our dumbed-down society. I agree with you that it would help people to actually read what they are commenting on and feel they will certainly back up anecdotes (e.g.; from so-called terrorist victims) with evidence. I also appreciated brianv's rigor, even when many complained about brianv being too harsh. Maybe that was a mistake on our part. Time will tell. Observer, I think everyone appreciates that you not make too much of a modern art form of verbosity of your posts. This place has only so much room for that kind of long-winded stretching before it looks a bit clownish. (Although congrats on a truly interesting/entertaining skill).

sunshine05, I don't think it's very fair to connect Observer's post to brianv's departure. He is an intelligent person who is often extremely astute about who he "vets" in his own mind. He doesn't need our help to decide to leave. He's left the forum three or four times now? We may disagree with who he vets but let's face it, he is often right. He is not right, in my opinion, about pre-judging the TYCHOS, but I would think that, wouldn't I? I happen to find Simon's work very compelling.

Now excuse me for thinking I needed to do something about any extremely minor squabble but Simon and I are particularly sensitive to this right now due to the work we are doing in the USA and the encounters we are having with people feeling they must protect their reputations by plugging their ears when being introduced to the Copernican system's broken logic. We'd like CluesForum to remain a place that does not focus so much on personality (or even the amount to which someone is blunt, as long as they are not being cruel or mean-spirited or accusatory) at this moment. Not enough people are just looking at the logic of a given matter.

Please understand CluesForum was and is never meant to be a privileged position. It is just an experiment in spreading information that may prove too obtuse for most people. So if someone is banned from CluesForum, so what? Does that mean we dislike that person or feel any way about them at all? Does that mean we don't want to discuss the topic with them in person? Not at all! It simply means one thing: the space we created to discuss a possibility that goes against mainstream media is being disrupted — whether it be by paid shill or unpaid shill or troll or innocent disruptor or just someone that can't spell all that well and refuses to spell check. It is not a comment on who they are. Just their compatibility with this exercise in free speech.

It's just about that member's tendency not to "work with" or understand the material. Nothing personal meant, ever! I would say to you, Observer and sunshine05, we don't have beefs with you. Just keep away from each other if you're not going to focus on the forum's topics together. Thank you.

[Observer]

Lynne - a relative lack of reading comprehension skills, and relative lack of will to consistently read posts here, caused your mistaken assumption above about who posted what, and when, about cameras in space.

First, reading comprehension is important. It seems you don't realize Brian wrote "Last Post Ever" about a May 22nd camera joke by Simon: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2405943#p2405943

Also, consistently reading as folks do here is important. Based on Simon's TYCHOS research Brian asked for his account to be deleted on March 24th: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2405467#p2405467

Brian disagreed with Simon's TYCHOS work, plus later seems to have felt Simon's joke about NASA's images implied an actual belief in the ISS. It's too bad Brian currently doesn't realize how much Simon respects Brian's contributions.

Understanding the past evolving thoughts and current conclusions of the top thinkers here is why I highly recommend prioritizing reading CluesForum everyday in addition to (or instead of) whatever other sites you prefer to read.

If you truly had the will to make the time to prioritize consistently comprehending each post here, you'd know Brian rightly called out your favored "false flag" phrase specifically as "garbage" even last January: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2405189#p2405189

Even though you felt kindred to AliceKinnian since you both wisely homeschool your kids, her posts simply showed she hadn't read the research here enough yet. Which is why I simply am recommending more reading of the research here by all.

OK, please answer the gatekeeper litmus question Lynne, though your blog admits Sandy Hook was a hoax, why do you still "think some people may have been inside the towers" on 9/11?

[Observer]

Hmm, OK Hoi, I'll quiet down. I simply think no serious reader of CluesForum should still think people "may" have been inside the towers on 9/11.

[Mansur]

The introductory part of my email to Simon:

I am Hungarian and live in Hungary; I am in my fifties ...

I'm in general more interested in the theoretical side of things than on the things themselves. This would mean a lot of disadvantage, especially if one is lazy a bit, but on the other hand it can save really unnecessary efforts. So perhaps a double laziness.

As far as media frauds are concerned, I think there is no media news today that would not be a fraud (so the question itself that whether this or that media news are scams or not plays perhaps in some degree into their hands, or it contains some naiveté at least).

I knew this already in my youth, but I kept myself away from it and I did this later more and more consciously. (There were times when I did not even know the names, and faces, of major politicians.)

I do not remember what exactly and actually caused the "turnaround" in me… Anyway: I'm here now.

Sorry, please, these silly words, but one feels uneasy in speaking of oneself without any real and concrete apropos.

---------

Greetings for everyone and anyone.

[Dani]

Dear Simon,

I am a young lady, and wish to become a member of CluesForum.

My username is Dani. I have been educating myself in the art of photography so that when I am an adult I can work as a professional photographer.

I have been “homeschooled” since third grade, and we are not a news watching family.
I have not been traumatized in anyway as it relates to topics or “news events” discussed on the forum.

I was around the age of ten when I started to ask questions about the news, my dad showed me the posts on this forum about Sandy Hook, 9/11, and the Oklahoma City “bombing” in particular.

When my dad showed me pictures of the “news event” it felt like a game of spot the bullshit.

I look forward to contributing where I can.

Yours truly,

Dani

[simonshack]

Welcome, Dani !