hoi.polloi wrote:Post images and prove the images are forgeries.
Um, are you
sure you understand the point of this site?
Um, another irrational reply to my rational post. Here we go, off to the derailing thread.
I'm surprised you seem to have interpreted that good summary sentence in a bad way.
Point #1
Well I know you agree the point of this site is NOT
to
merely post various opinions about the world
without actually posting and analyzing images
shown by news companies which are forged.
You call people out for lack of contribution
in the vital area of
forgery gathering & sharing,
and rightly so, I respect that action I have seen.
Point #2
And I know you agree the point of this site is NOT
to
merely post images without supplementing with
an opinion of what IS so illogical about this image,
what thing in this image is impossible in real life.
You call people out for lack of contribution
in the vital area of
forgery analysis presentation,
and rightly so, I respect that action I have seen.
Point #3
And I know you agree the point of this site is NOT
to debate about what exact thoughts are occurring
in the minds of the various people who pay for these
CGI images to be forged and broadcast, because really,
it doesn't matter if the physically impossible depictions
are "left there by mistake, on accident, so very stupidly"
or "put there on purpose, intelligently, for some reason"
or "put there by good-hearted whistleblowers" (haha, right)
none of those theories matter because they are just that:
Theories. Beliefs. Claims.This site is the opposite of that.
This site
negates theories,
negates beliefs,
negates claims.
Finding all big lies broadcast by the news companies and
exposing those lies, focusing especially on the visual lies
of images and videos.
Refusing to get sucked into debates
about
WHO paid for this and
WHY did they insert this pixel.
Which is why I was so surprised when you (the guy who I once
respected, the guy who I thought was the most revolutionary
person next to Simon, the guy who I thought would someday
write a revolutionary call to arms that could actually motivate
the poorest 99.99% to take back the earth from the richest 0.01%)
...refused to answer my question about, "What should we DO now?"
I mean that's great that you refused to give your belief about that,
but it was awful how you got so hung up on the details we disagree:
whether the movie actually layered a helicopter Live shot in realtime,
or whether that part and everything else as well was all pre-packaged.
And you basically announced, "If you are implying that the payers of this
movie made this entirely in advance, watched the final cut MANY times,
and even purposefully requested and approved of the physically impossible
things which I call mistakes, and, thus these payers actually WANT people
to revolt in a way which would give the payers the ability to initiate strict
everything, then you are implying that the payers of this movie are smart,
highly-intelligent 'geniuses' who think many reactions ahead just like chess,
this is the unconscious "the richest are more clever" idea that I really hate!
They are not smart, they are dumb, these are all stupid mistakes which they
didn't realize were in the final movie, the helicopter mistake was made live,
and if you do disagree with me about this 'on accident vs. on purpose' detail
then you're probably a Pied Piper trying to lead people away from the truth,
by your stupid naivité, which I have mentioned a few times now, or your being
a paid shill, which I also have mentioned a few times now. Pied Piper Observer."
Yeah, that's when I lost a lot of respect for you Hoi, the man I once highly respected.
Sure, I committed the sin of proclaiming my belief, my theory, my claim, about the details.
And thus you should have replied, "Don't push your beliefs, theories, or claims about the details."
If you had replied like that, that would have been a respectable action. But instead you replied,
as paraphrased above, with an attack on me personally, because I was "implying they are smart."
Even when I said, "OK, let's agree to disagree on the details. But we agree that the news images
are forged.
So, what should the people reading this site, who agree about the forgery, do next?"
To which you replied, "Stop saying 'we' because there is no 'we'." Which is fine, and so I stopped
using the term humanity (due to your true point about that word, backed up by another poster)
and I started using the term individuals to be more precise. And yet still, when asked about how
to successfully create a revolution where the poorest 99.99% take it back from the richest 0.01%...
the most I could get my supposedly revolutionary leader to propose is: that marches might be good.
I mean, I know you never advertised yourself as revolutionary, so I can't claim any false advertising, haha
I just had personally in my own head and heart imagined that you were so mentally revolutionary like Simon
AND that due to your relative youth combined without your obviously high intelligence: I had hoped that you
would be proposing some REAL revolutionary actions, I was ready for my mind to be blown, I was ready to act.
But in the end all I got was "marches might be good" and a lecture about how I am naive - or - I am a paid shill.
I still respect Simon.
I'll bet he's got some revolutionary ideas which he keeps quiet. But I think you have none.
You still have the amazing writing ability, the keen sharp mind which is always looking for the lies, I love that.
I simply am saying that I am disappointed in your lack of ACTION suggestions for individuals who realize fakery.
And yes, I am disappointed in your most recent post, in which you tried to attack a very good summary sentence:
I wrote,
in a summary of ideas which I agree with you about, "
Post images and prove the images are forgeries."
What in the hell is wrong with that sentence? Seriously, Hoi. What?
That sentence includes the vital "Post images" part mentioned in Point #1 above,
AND includes the vital "Prove the images are forgeries" mentioned in Point #2 above,
AND it reminds one to focus on those two solid actions (thus, no theory debate needed)
so that sentence briefly and beautifully sums up Point #1 and Point #2 and even Point #3.
AND, that sentence perfectly sums up the totally true sentences which immediately precede it:
"
One should never trust anyone's claims. One should merely find which images depict impossible situations. Like the impossible 4-meter humans, and the brightly lit North Face of the tower, and the Boston huge monitor missing. Nevermind being accepted by a group. Simply post images and point out which images have clear evidence of being CGI animations, since they depict impossible situations which could never be recorded live by a camera in real life. That's it. Post images and prove the images are forgeries.
Simple really. Keep it simple."
So what are trying to say, when you claim there is something wrong with that sentence. Seriously.
Are you misinterpreting that perfectly fine sentence ("
Post images and prove the images are forgeries.") to mean something strange, like:
"Post images [just random images that you haven't even thought about whether or not they are forged, just throw random images against the wall and hope maybe one percent turns out to be provable forgeries]
and prove [using lies or something] the images are forgeries."
That sure would be a twisted version, is that what you are trying to imply that I implied?
Here, I'll write it out for you more clearly so that you really have nothing to misinterpret:
"Post images [images which you are pretty sure are forged] and prove [using visual analysis presentation] the images are forgeries."
For example, I posted a summary of Kickstones finding, which was getting buried in numerology crap, so I made a re-presentation.
Then, later that night, I found some photos which seem to punch a hole in the "smoking-gun" of sudden appearance and time discrepancy.
Then, because I added a nice little summary at the end, about how important it is, to post images and prove the images are forgeries, you decided to reply irrationally again.
There, are we done with this attempt to initiate another argument? I'm not getting pulled into a debate with you, about your claim that I am writing bad things. My posts are clear.
I am writing good things, I apologize for the fact that I revealed some personal beliefs, and I'm sorry I idealized you in the past. But how can you try to start a debate about such a solid sentence: "Post images and prove the images are forgeries."
It's actually nice that you attacked my rational sentences (in the past, and now today again), because it has helped me grow spiritually. For real, hear me out here:
By realizing my "future hero revolutionary leader" is just some guy, with an ego, who just like everyone else can be 85% saying rational things but then 15% saying irrational things...
...this has helped me to totally
drop the idea of looking "up" to anyone. Which is why I honestly now say, without any hint of sarcasm at all: don't trust anyone. Trusting some person as being a "trustable source of information" suddenly TURNS OFF the vital logical-thinking process of trying to find the lie. So thank you for really, really, really teaching me that Hoi. You don't trust me, you never did from the start, I don't trust you anymore. And I don't trust anyone anymore. And I even now boldly post "Don't trust anyone. Only trust your logical thinking process." So thank you, even though it hurt to read your various irrational replies to my rational posts, I am grateful to the universe for having helped me see that there are no revolutionary leaders outside to discover. The only one who one can truly figure out with intelligence honesty and purity of intent the best possible revolution is ONESELF, and the only one who can then implement the self-chosen next actions is ONESELF. The only leader who can lead me is myself. And the only person I can and will lead is myself.
Love & Gratitude :-)