NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby DSKlausler on October 20th, 2015, 1:27 pm

simonshack wrote:*
The question is: what can we do? All ideas are warmly welcome.


If this issue is as important as you state, and if some do in fact arrive here... could you not alter the front page to include "Today's Hottest Item" or somesuch? In that hot box place maybe the five most simple and clear bullet points as to why FE is blatantly false (links to details of course).
DSKlausler
Newbie
 
Posts: 9
Joined: September 30th, 2015, 12:31 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby edgewaters on October 20th, 2015, 11:25 pm

Painterman wrote:
edgewaters wrote:Flat Earth is no transition in alternative media. How can anyone say that after Judy Wood and Alex Jones and everything else? Show me a time when alternative media wasn't infiltrated.


What's transitional about the Flat Earth psyop is not that it's an infiltration. The alternative media has always been infiltrated. Alex Jones established his niche and grew in market share, but he co-exists with outlets like this one with only the occasional mention to ridicule this type of content. The Flat Earth, on the other hand, is a hostile takeover. It's not just looking for market share, it's trying to change the nature of the alternative media itself, mostly by poisoning the well with intentionally goofy subjects that 1) wreck our brand equity for potential new recruits to this information and 2) severely reduce our effectiveness by sending us down dead-end streets of pointless research. Once the real alternative media is all but destroyed from this treatment, the established pattern says they intend to bum-rush the territory with unlimited funds, rebuild a Disney and McDonald's version of what we had, and call the result which they own the "new" alternative media.


How is any of this really any different from the truth movement? To me, what I see, is that this place has faced the exact same thing already. I was late into the game so I didn't see how it was handled, but if I did have that experience, that's what I would be drawing solutions from.
edgewaters
Member
 
Posts: 90
Joined: January 22nd, 2013, 4:49 am

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby Painterman on October 21st, 2015, 1:23 am

edgewaters wrote:How is any of this really any different from the truth movement? To me, what I see, is that this place has faced the exact same thing already.

Could you be more specific? Just saying "the truth movement" does not identify a plausible "exact same thing" as the psyop now targeting this forum.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby edgewaters on October 21st, 2015, 6:36 am

Whether just this website or dozens of websites the options and problems are the same, it's just much harder.

I think they're attacking the idea, including Kaysing's work and everything up til Clues, trying to poison all of it. They could just hack this place, if it was just this place.

Check this out:

http://www.iflscience.com/space/russian ... n-landings

Is this connected? Maybe they're trying to rub out and poison the idea as prep for a Mars hoax or something.
edgewaters
Member
 
Posts: 90
Joined: January 22nd, 2013, 4:49 am

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby Painterman on October 21st, 2015, 10:48 am

simonshack wrote:The question is: what can we do? All ideas are warmly welcome.

Here's an idea I'll put out there for consideration.

Simon, your sincere concern over the Flat Earth psyop deserves to be shared with as many people as possible, and leveraging this website's high traffic is just the way to do that. Your emotion in this matter is justified, and when eloquently communicated it can help all this website's many visitors understand the situation too.

For this purpose, an open letter posted on the site starting with words like "Dear visitor to Cluesforum" seems right. This letter would explain the potentially tragic results of the unfolding Flat Earth farce. The letter would be accessed by clicking a link that appears prominently on the front page (which someone lands on by typing "cluesforum.info" into their browser). Or, if you think the urgency of the situation warrants, the entire message can already be on the front page without the visitor having to click anything.

Although this letter and the NASA DBA thread will have content in common, important differences include the letter's emphasis on a personal, conversational style rather than analysis, and placement up-front on the site rather than layers deep in the forums.

The basic idea here is that Flat Earth propaganda appeals to roughly the same media fakery micro-community that finds its way to Cluesforum (as the Flat Earthers' market research agrees - e.g. "Flat Earth Clues"). So right here on the front page of Cluesforum is where to reach actual and potential Flat Earth dupes and put them wise.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby simonshack on October 21st, 2015, 1:54 pm

Thanks for the suggestion, Painterman - I'll consult with Hoi and see what we can do (although I'm a bit reluctant to even mention 'Flat Earth' on the forum's front page...)


Someone (anon0250) over at fakeologist.com posted a link to this interesting essay on "bullshit in social media" which I find rather pertinent - within the FE context (but not limited to the FE Psyop, by any means...):

I have selected a few excerpts - but the whole essay is well worth a read:

Social Media and Bullshit (excerpts)

by Rasmus Kleis Nielsen

(............)
In summary, social media seem to be accompanied by a
lot of bullshit because we know so little and because there is
a lot at stake. The gulf between the supply of justified beliefs
and the demand for much more, and more detailed and extensive,
and for various interests and in various ways instrumentally
useful, knowledge about social media creates space for
bullshit. (More space than in some other areas of human
activity, such as mathematics.) This situation is both intellectually
interesting and a real analytical challenge for those
trying to understand social media.

Intellectually, bullshit is interesting because it connects
directly with a broader set of questions concerning the relationship
between what we might in lack of a better term call
ideas (beliefs, knowledge, and some definitions of culture)
and technology. Analyzing the particular role of bullshit when
it comes to the development, use, and implications of social
media falls clearly within a wider interest in discursive formations,
ideology (whether sincerely believed or cynically held),
and other systems of thought that have the power to objectify
that of which we speak and transform the world when we act
upon our beliefs.
(...)
In terms of the political economy animating large parts of
the production of knowledge and knowledge-like statements
about social media much depends on how effectively the marketplace
of ideas works (in the academy but more importantly
beyond). This raises the usual questions about the relationship
between power and knowledge, about the relationship between
folk theories, professional forms of knowledge, and various
kinds of science, as well as the interests involved and who
bears the consequences of acting upon or espousing bullshit.

One thing I think we can say (and this essay outlines my
justifications for that claim) is that bullshit is here to stay and
will continue to play an important role for how we understand
social media, how they are used, and for what they
mean. Therefore, we need to take bullshit seriously as an
intellectual and analytical problem.

http://sms.sagepub.com/content/1/1/2056 ... 5.full.pdf
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6313
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby Painterman on October 21st, 2015, 10:06 pm

Simon, I think your reluctance to mention Flat Earth on the front page has to do with wanting to avoid legitimizing a nonsensical topic or delegitimizing your other topics with a self-inflicted DBA. I agree this concern would have to be carefully weighed.

For the sake of clarity, I'll risk repeating myself and explaining something you already know, to redraw this important diagram in a slightly different way. A dividing line between "ball earth skepticism" discussions and Flat Earth psyop exposés is called for. So-called "ball earth skepticism" is a parody. No one selling it takes it seriously. But the Flat Earth psyop is an assault on the cohesion and viability of the independent research community acting as competition to, and a check on, organized media. Thus, however much a joke "ball earth skepticism" may be, the Flat Earth psyop is a serious matter, like how the article you excerpted describes. By the way, I shall check this article out in full, thanks for posting.

As for this open letter idea, how or if you do anything about it is of course entirely up to you. Just in case you do implement it, I would like to say a bit more, again risking redundancy for the sake of clarity. What I have in mind is a personal appeal (as opposed to mere essay), from you (as opposed to "the Cluesforum staff" or some such) to each site visitor (e.g. "Dear Cluesforum reader"), explaining the siege your years of work is under and warning others about the nature of the attack we're facing. This wouldn't require fancy web design, nor would it be presented in an overly-polished setting that subtly belies its urgency. Rather, it would be a from-the-heart telling of your story - something legitimate enough to grab people's attention, make news in the media fakery micro-community, and become a fact of the landscape that is difficult for the Flat Earth fakers to pretend doesn't exist like they pretend with every piece of evidence that debunks their absurd pitch.
Last edited by Painterman on October 22nd, 2015, 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby fbenario on October 22nd, 2015, 1:34 am

simonshack wrote:Someone (anon0250) over at fakeologist.com posted a link to this interesting essay on "bullshit in social media" which I find rather pertinent - within the FE context (but not limited to the FE Psyop, by any means...):

Social media is similar to the loathsome Fox News tv channel in that, the more time you spend with either, the dumber you get.
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2164
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby hoi.polloi on October 22nd, 2015, 2:36 am

Painterman wrote:For the sake of clarity, I'll risk repeating myself and explaining something you already know, to redraw this important diagram in a slightly different way. A dividing line between "ball earth skepticism" discussions and Flat Earth psyop exposés is called for. So-called "ball earth skepticism" is a parody. No one selling it takes it seriously. But the Flat Earth psyop is an assault on the cohesion and viability of the independent research community acting as competition to, and a check on, organized media. Thus, however much a joke "ball earth skepticism" may be, the Flat Earth psyop is a serious matter, like how the article you excerpted describes. By the way, I shall check this article out in full, thanks for posting.


The sad truth is that these things are not true for everyone following it. "Ball Earth Skepticism" is the most innocuous way to phrase just what it purports to be — which is why it is not a parody. It is a search phrase used deliberately to attract people to the dead end of the "Flat Earth" videos that have dominated the NASA-skeptic market. Legitimate people are attracted by the misleading title and get stuck in the lingo being crafted by and for that demographic and those pretending to be a part of it.

To be more clear still, let me just suggest that edgewaters is right in the sense that this is a very familiar pattern: a "demographic", such as data collected from an independent and loose research group with 'camaraderie', is crafted carefully to be attractive to their language. The language is insinuated into the group and mixed with doses of weakness catalysts by those pretending to be a part of that group. For example, if the group has a "distaste" for research or for detecting infiltration, occasional phrases are inserted once enough attractive language has been agreed with. Those phrases may sound like, "I just don't bother with the research, I'm not very good at it," or, "I am just a simple person asking simple questions," but these usually serve as literary hand-waving to dismiss the responsibility of actual research or constructing and conducting new experiments. "You really want me to believe all of [insert controversial phenomenon] is fake? Disprove all of it!"

It may just be that this particular weapon is noxious when combined with the most publicly reviled beliefs. We have already passed beyond some of them. But the "danger" I think you sense, Painterman, is something that we may have difficulty controlling from now on. Because we really don't know. We are only using faith or belief now to say to ourselves, "This is a concept that the public has largely researched/considered to its natural limit" (e.g.; unicorns) or "This is something the public has questions about" (e.g.; rocketry).

Consider the labels that have been thrown at us over the years. The "Conspiracy theorist" joke, the "No planers" scaremongering tactic, the "Moon landing deniers" label and on into the "Holocaust deniers" stage (as Critical Mass just sagely pointed out). All used to shut down serious, clear, rational talks. And we can guess that each of these labels is designed at the moment of its creation in the mind of the author to be a kind of "curse word". The positive aspect of this is that we can see that some of the people who use these words have nothing more than such "curses" to throw at us, which have no rational basis.

They do, however, have some social power when used enough. So we ought to be careful, for sure. Loudly declaring "We are not Flat Earthers!" sounds a bit desperate, but is something like that what you have in mind?

You may say the cuss "Flat Earther" is actually being connected to a mockery of our research, but as edgewaters points out, this has always been the case. Fake "Conspiracy theorists" have gathered and have turned it into monetary "success". Fake "no planers" like Nico Haupt and Ace Baker have been trying to insinuate their language into our parlance and it just so happens we did take on the term "psychological operation" and moved on. Fake "Moon landing deniers" have also tried to present a mixture of good and bad evidence. I believe the fake "Holocaust deniers" would do the same thing given a chance. And now we have NASA doubters proudly taking on the labels "Flat Earth" and "Ball Earth Skeptic" even though those things have been designed for them to take on.

There are truly not as many reviled mythical things left for us to be associated with. Next thing you know, they will just say, "Don't go to CluesForum. Thar be dragons."

I am not sure how to really address it, or if it should be. Our strongest position may be to maintain distance from it, just as we have with things considered "too laughable" for mainstream consideration. Or not. Simon maybe has some intuition about how to handle it. I think distance is alright. To be selective with our language should not be a problem, since I believe we actually use a larger vocabulary and more diverse series of writing styles than the boring "Flat Earth" YouTube video makers. However, we have to address — carefully — our own NASA doubts in order to distinguish them, while being very cognizant of the fact that this is, by no means, the last "curse word" they will tie to a limited hangout of the hoaxers' own creation.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4704
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby Painterman on October 22nd, 2015, 6:37 am

hoi.polloi wrote:The sad truth is that these things are not true for everyone following it. "Ball Earth Skepticism" is the most innocuous way to phrase just what it purports to be — which is why it is not a parody.

The phrase "ball earth skeptic" is a clever marketing invention that's a parody to those who coined it because they know very well the Earth is a sphere. Though you're correct that the phrase is not a parody to everyone. The saps who get subtly eased into giving the notion of a flat Earth any credit whatsoever by means of this ambivalent label (and therefore waste increasing amounts of research time on hypnotically enticing, but always inconclusive, Flat Earth videos) don't get that it's a parody. The joke's on them.

Loudly declaring "We are not Flat Earthers!" sounds a bit desperate, but is something like that what you have in mind?

If caps lock qualifies a declaration as loud, then Cluesforum loudly declares itself to be EXPOSING MEDIA FAKERY. So let's do that. Let's expose the "alternative" media fakery that is perpetrating a farcical hoax on the independent research community.

As to whether Cluesforum should or should not have a declared position about the shape of the Earth, I don't have an opinion.

You may say the cuss "Flat Earther" is actually being connected to a mockery of our research, but as edgewaters points out, this has always been the case.

It is called the Flat Earth psyop because it's a broadly coordinated "cognitive infiltration" campaign aimed at hijacking the means, and wrecking the reputation, of independent research in general and Cluesforum especially. This is a new phenomenon.

Letting ourselves think "this has happened lo these many times before" is what the Flat Earth psyop is hoping Cluesforum will do, because that implies there's no real harm in failing to take action when action is both essential and clearly within our job description as media fakery exposers.

Our strongest position may be to maintain distance from it, just as we have with things considered "too laughable" for mainstream consideration.

I wouldn't call failure to take action "our strongest position" when action is both essential and clearly within our job description as media fakery exposers.

The content of the Flat Earth hoax is indeed laughable. However, the results won't be funny if we stand idly by and allow this media hoax to continue unexposed. So no, I don't recommend maintaining distance - that is what the Flat Earth psyop is hoping the mighty Cluesforum will do. Let's expose them instead.
Painterman
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: September 16th, 2015, 1:02 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby edgewaters on October 22nd, 2015, 1:15 pm

Painterman wrote:If caps lock qualifies a declaration as loud, then Cluesforum loudly declares itself to be EXPOSING MEDIA FAKERY. So let's do that. Let's expose the "alternative" media fakery that is perpetrating a farcical hoax on the independent research community.


I agree very much. I think maintaining a persistent, laser focus on fakery and hoaxes is the best option to avoid derailment.

As to whether Cluesforum should or should not have a declared position about the shape of the Earth, I don't have an opinion.


I believe taking positions is always a liability. If you take a position, you have to defend the position, and that saps time and energy you might otherwise be putting into going on the offensive. It's much easier to simply be a critic, always on the attack, than being forced into a defensive position.

My guess is that it's prep for a big NASA hoax of some sort. Marginilizing the hoax issue will soften the ground for acceptance by the general public.
edgewaters
Member
 
Posts: 90
Joined: January 22nd, 2013, 4:49 am

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby hoi.polloi on October 22nd, 2015, 3:15 pm

Painterman wrote:It is called the Flat Earth psyop because it's a broadly coordinated "cognitive infiltration" campaign aimed at hijacking the means, and wrecking the reputation, of independent research in general and Cluesforum especially. This is a new phenomenon.


I agree to an extent. I suspect what they hope for us to do is to get distracted by their power and try to fight it on their terms. That is not new. They are just exerting a lot more of their power on it now by tying in Flat Earth with all other "Sandy Hook" and "9/11" type research. So the level of Katamari is new, but their effectiveness is not new.

Let's see how the "mainstream media" is supposed to hate on research and call it "Flat Earth" thinking now. Wait, that already happens. We also haven't beat the term "conspiracy theorist" but we are up against trendmongers and that's what they do 24/7. If you want to make a difference in social media, go on social media and fight it. And good luck. I recommend not doing in until you are blue in the face. I am trying my own best with 'The Clues Chronicle' right now.

This site itself is pretty strong and has been and will continue to be. Unless you have more particular direction that can directly address it, let's keep spitballing.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4704
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby simonshack on October 22nd, 2015, 4:55 pm

Dear Painterman,

I agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts and concerns - and sincerely thank you for expressing them so eloquently. Here is wishing that more forum members, new and old, will chime in and help us work out a 'strategy' to counter the Nutwork's latest ploy designed to further dumb-down the masses. For now, though, I'm happy with how this thread is going and the way its title - "NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY" - stands out (among our topics list) in all-caps / bold type to our readership. Thing is, at this moment in time, most or all of my energies are being spent finalizing my upcoming TYCHO-SSSS 'solar system' model which, I can assure you, will put to rest BOTH "ball-earth-skeptics" and "Copernican-believers" - in one single serving. (Of course, I'm well aware of how terribly lofty that sounds, but ... well, time will tell). As some guy recently said on TV, "I don't have time for a roundtable with the Flat Earth society"... ^_^
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6313
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby ShaneG on October 22nd, 2015, 10:49 pm

Painterman wrote:
simonshack wrote:The question is: what can we do? All ideas are warmly welcome.

Here's an idea I'll put out there for consideration.

Simon, your sincere concern over the Flat Earth psyop deserves to be shared with as many people as possible, and leveraging this website's high traffic is just the way to do that.

Cluesforum is a niche minority sub-community, within an alternative truth-seeking demographic. You and I must have different opinions of what consists of "high traffic", because when I look at the home page and see this:

Image

I don't consider this to be a high traffic forum. Take a look at David Icke forum for example: there's approximately 50 times the volume of traffic there compared to here. Considering how small, and irrelevant - in not only the general mainstream, but the alternative media/truth-seeking mainstream - this site is: the saying 'don't fix it if it isn't broken' may well be applied, rather than desperately going on the defensive and weakening cluesforum' stance. Just because Simon has gotten all hot under the collar about this flat Earth business, and seems to care what the rest of the truth-seeking community thinks about CF's image, doesn't mean that anyone (in the greater scheme of things) genuinely cares. But hey, why stop with an open letter distancing CF from the flat Earth theories, because that's not the only subject that could be used to stigmatise the forum - why not talk about the Jews while you're at it?

Painterman wrote:For this purpose, an open letter posted on the site starting with words like "Dear visitor to Cluesforum" seems right. This letter would explain the potentially tragic results of the unfolding Flat Earth farce. The letter would be accessed by clicking a link that appears prominently on the front page (which someone lands on by typing "cluesforum.info" into their browser). Or, if you think the urgency of the situation warrants, the entire message can already be on the front page without the visitor having to click anything.

Easy there tiger. You've been a member here for just over a month, and already you're trying to engineer the make-up content of the front page. On any specific forum a person would have to establish themselves for much longer than you have before they become a dominant poster who dictates - or should I say coaxes - matters.


Painterman wrote:The phrase "ball earth skeptic" is a clever marketing invention that's a parody to those who coined it because they know very well the Earth is a sphere. Though you're correct that the phrase is not a parody to everyone. The saps who get subtly eased into giving the notion of a flat Earth any credit whatsoever by means of this ambivalent label (and therefore waste increasing amounts of research time on hypnotically enticing, but always inconclusive, Flat Earth videos) don't get that it's a parody. The joke's on them.

Excuse me, but how do you know for sure that the Earth is a sphere?

Here's me thinking that those NASA Apollo Earth pics were faked.
ShaneG
Member
 
Posts: 76
Joined: April 24th, 2013, 1:53 am

Re: NASA'S FLAT EARTH DBA STRATEGY

Postby hoi.polloi on October 23rd, 2015, 2:17 am

While I agree with ShaneG's point that we are pretty minor in some quantities (despite occasional number games by the perps, that we are familiar with), I also want to suggest we are qualitatively important, and I want to echo Simon's thankfulness to Painterman and others who have expressed care about the forum. It's appreciated when people act defensive on our behalf. We haven't been acting as though any given member, by default, has to establish themselves over time to gain automatic credibility in their suggestions, but it might be a wise idea given how Trojan users have worked on our forum in the past. In general, it does sound like we are just ideating.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4704
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Apollo, and more space hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests