THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on May 14th, 2017, 4:56 pm

patrix, with truly all due respect, I think it is critical that the human race begins to develop a "defense" against the most obvious signs of fakery and forgery, and if you would recommend our site to others (though I know many are reticent to do so for various personal reasons) you should demonstrate an understanding of our research. Please do work on your basic abilities to detect fakery, CGI, compositing and signs of doctoring. It is integral to the arguments of this forum. Please educate yourself on the differences between the excuse of "compression error" and the simple logical problems with the "physics" of the CGI shown on 9/11.

I appreciate your humble stance, but definitely take up our invitation to no longer remain helpless to manipulative imagery. You don't have to be an expert. Just use your brain. On our site, you not only have permission. You are encouraged to doubt video and imagery and help everyone come to understandings about what is or is not a raw unedited/untampered image. And to at least know about, if not understand, the many ways that imagery is tampered with today.

A great place to start is to watch some Hollywood "behind the scenes" featurettes, found on many DVDs or even all over YouTube, which compare a production's pre-modified footage to the final format. If you see just these enough, you can begin to see blatant and obvious signs of the seams and glue, where it isn't already apparent.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4748
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Flabbergasted on May 18th, 2017, 5:27 pm

Over the last couple of decades a story about a monstrously large “Pre-Columbian” Chinese fleet has surfaced in the Western media, giving rise to the so-called “Zheng He fever”.

It’s strange that such an impressive military and technical accomplishment could have remained ignored for centuries. It also begs the question of how long it took China to reach the pinnacle of naval engineering which they paraded along the shores of the Indian Ocean in the 1400s. Their 140-m long 9-masted super junks seem to have materialized out of the blue. Manned by 28,000 men, the fleet is said to have consisted of approximately 300 ships, 62 of which were king-size. Large vessels were equipped with sophisticated balanced rudders and water-tight bulkheads. Some people have expressed doubts the ships ever existed (a 140-m framework without iron is hard to picture), but in 1962 a rudder post measuring 11 m was found in the original shipyard. By reverse calculation, the respective hull would have been an estimated 152 m long.

Chinese super junk compared to Columbus' Niña:
Image
Source of picture and information: “1001 Inventions: the enduring legacy of the Muslim civilization”, p. 254-7.

One wonders how all this relates to China’s propaganda efforts to conjure up the image of a super power, past and present. I am not dismissing the story (allegedly backed up by Zheng He’s own writings and the existence of artifacts in museums), and I do suspect seafaring was much more common in the distant past than most historians are willing to concede, but the whole thing appears to be cluttered with fiction and politics.

For the record:

A boy by the name Ma He was born in Kunming, Mongolia, to Muslim parents. His father and grandfather took him on pilgrimages to Mecca during which he perfected his Arabic and Chinese language skills. When his town was invaded by the Ming dynasty, Ma He was taken prisoner and made a eunuch. He became a servant in the imperial household of Duke Yan (Zhu Di) who later seized the throne and became the Emperor Yong Le.

The boy was very gifted and grew up (according to some accounts, over 2 m tall) to become a successful military commander and the emperor’s closest advisor. He received several high honors, was allowed to use the surname Zheng (hence, Zheng He), and was eventually given command of the Chinese imperial fleet.

Over a period of 28 years and assisted by other eunuch leaders (including Hou Hsien and Wang Ching-Hung), Zheng He conducted seven expeditions, some of which required the fleet to split in two: 1) Champa, Java, Sumatra, Ceylon and Calcutta (1405-1407), 2) Siam, India and Cochin (1407-1409), 3) East Indies and Quilon (1409-1411), 4) East Indies, Bengal, Maldives and Hormuz (1413-1415), 5) Java, Ryukyu, Brunei, Hormuz, Aden, Mogadishu and Mombasa (1416-1419), 6) 36 states between Borneo and Zanzibar (1421-1422), and 7) 20 realms and sultanates from Java to Mecca to East Africa, possibly rounding the Cape (1431-1433). There is no record of a voyage to America, as claimed by historical novelist Gavin Menzies.

Map of expeditions:
Image
Source: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0 ... 2/map.html

As the story goes, the expeditions were not motivated by greed, but by scientific discovery, trade (gems, minerals, plants, exotic animals, drugs, medicine), the wish to improve navigational and cartographical knowledge, and the desire to make “the transforming power of the imperial virtue” known to all nations.

Zheng He apparently died in India in 1433, on his way back to China. At the time, Confucian philosophy was enjoying a comeback. The internationalist outlook which characterized early 15th century China was replaced by a more isolationist mindset, and seagoing trade was eventually banned. In 1625, the Chinese emperor ordered the destruction of all oceangoing ships. If true, this change in Chinese government policy was everything the European explorers could have wished for.

Lecture by Adam Smith:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le7r93whykg
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 618
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on May 18th, 2017, 8:55 pm

Interesting concept. It does make one wonder.

My question has often been about the subject of the apparently ancient Great Wall of China. My early impressions as a very young child, as stupid as this may sound, were that the Great Wall had been largely constructed off and on throughout the 1900's and 1950's — at the same time that I was holding in my head the idea that this wall was somehow holding off great hordes of invading armies from the West, from "BCE" times. Was the wall left incomplete for many centuries? Has it always been under construction? I am totally laughably ignorant about the subject, even though I am sure I have heard contradicting facts. Having never been to China to see the wall, my present expectation is that one would encounter miles and miles of truly ancient wall, with portions under construction and looking newer and/or "restored". Does someone on the forum know more?

Today, it is absurd to people to suggest that the "unearthed terracotta army" was but an artistic creation in the most recent centuries. Yet, my mind does wander toward hoaxy possibilities when we are told to believe certain speculations about the past are to be held in higher esteem than others.

If we are to learn about the propaganda of our own world, we should certainly study those who have had mastery of propaganda for thousands of years: China!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4748
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby antipodean on May 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Having visited both.
The part of the wall I visited was the closest part to Beijing it was basically a day trip there and back. It had obviously been reinforced and fixed up. You could just walk along it.
It's possible it could have been fixed up to match the myth, to attract the tourists once China had relaxed restrictions on western tourists.

The Terracotta army did look real to me as in according to the myth.

But the most amazing man made monument I saw in China was 'Big Buddha'
Image

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FclnWjil2o
antipodean
Member
 
Posts: 553
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 2:53 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby patrix on May 19th, 2017, 9:40 am

@Hoi: Regarding your previous post, yes you’re right, I need to hone my skills at detecting fakery, but I find it hard. If someone, like the researchers here at Cluesforum points it out I’m able to see it, but otherwise not. I guess we all have different skill sets. And it was a bit too naive of me to even suspect there is a 9/11 video you haven’t analysed yet.

So, on the same subject, I found some very clear footage showing the “Car attack” on Times Square today. I’m unable to see it’s fake but of course I’m suspecting it is.
Thought: Are these “attacks” priming for stricter vehicle control maybe?

http://www.tmz.com/2017/05/18/times-squ ... ard-rojas/
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 100
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby brianv on May 19th, 2017, 3:57 pm

^ Richard Rojas = Dick Red or Red Dick :rolleyes:

Are these “attacks” priming for stricter vehicle control maybe?


No, it's to sell newspapers and keep clowns watching "t.v. news".
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3835
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby bongostaple on May 20th, 2017, 6:06 pm

The deliberate errors and inconsistencies make sure the 'conspiracy' folks start posting about every event as soon as possible. The believing masses will therefore repeatedly and almost simultaneously, feel revulsion at 'terrorist attacks' and at the 'tin foil hat brigade' too, for being disrespectful. They will eventually get fatigued to the point that they will assume all 'conspiracy' theories are from whack-jobs with no respect for the dead.

I'd worked out the outcome of the above a long time ago, but it only just occurred to me now about the errors being deliberate. It's to minimise the time from event to conspiracy theory appearing on the internet, with the aim of maximising the public distaste with 'whack-jobs', again and again and again. It's a 2-layer system of DBA.
bongostaple
Member
 
Posts: 54
Joined: October 4th, 2016, 12:53 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby brianv on May 26th, 2017, 12:47 pm

antipodean » May 26th, 2017, 8:55 am wrote:
Grown men kicking a bag of air around a field while idiots on sofas dutifully drink gallons of whatever beer is being flashed at them while moronically shouting at the box of flickering lights - beautiful game indeed!


I have a confession to make public. I occasionally play the odd game of social soccer, and 5 a side soccer with colleagues at work.
When in my 20s & 30s I played competitively though not to a high standard.


I did too, and quite ably, until I discovered electric guitar and girls. To quote Little Big Man, I guess that was the end of my footballin' period. No but seriously, there is nothing wrong with playing football at that level, it's the multi headed monster of alcohol and religion and television bit that I dislike. Not to mention the stupid fucking haircuts. About three years ago, I was dropping my brother to a hotel to meet friends, inside the foyer to the left was a large lounge where parents and children were celebrating communion by screaming at a giant tv screen. One man caught my attention, he was holding an 18 month old child on one arm and a pint of lager in the other and was roaring louder than anyone else - like he himself was taking part in some bizzare shouting competition. Really scary. I reported the incident to my better half. I'm so glad...
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3835
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on May 27th, 2017, 8:59 am

bongostaple » May 20th, 2017, 5:06 pm wrote:[...] it only just occurred to me now about the errors being deliberate. It's to minimise the time from event to conspiracy theory appearing on the internet [...]


Woah. Powerful idea. But still assuming they don't make mistakes, which I think is our own mistake.

Well, I still think some mistakes are just mistakes. And some spinning and excusing is just that — they have to make the most of every situation, even the fuck ups.

But it's funny how some seem more deliberate when they are the ones that get exposed. I think it's far more common that the "agenty" videos point out "suspicious" things and allege things but often avoid clear forensics. I guess if you could show an example of an obvious clue actually exposing a Psy-Op and yet it is coming from a suspected agent, then I would be more convinced of that idea.

Plus, I'm sorry but I don't feel "discredited" by having our forum to discuss the truth. Quite the opposite. I think we should all feel pretty darn happy with the truth, and work to spread it.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4748
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby bongostaple on May 28th, 2017, 8:15 pm

Hoi, I agree that this is a rare place, to be able to discuss such things. The DBA reference was to conversations with people, be it family, friends, work, whatever, and what happens when one person even intimates that only some of the bullshit is.... bullshit, the media-conditioned behaviour kicks in.

Also, I agree that some mistakes are not deliberate, but having thought about it, if you were making sure there were mistakes and inconsistencies in an operation, then you can happily allow some participants to fuck things up, so long as they are heavily compartmentalised. That way the mistake-making-minion will be much more convincing.

Any properly damaging mistakes would never be covered in mainstream media, so most people wouldn't accept theories from anywhere else. I'd like to think that a few specific exposes could build some grass roots questioning of the official line, but the truth that the whole shooting match is, by and large, fake, is just too dissonant for most people to give internal credence to.

And the other problem is that in general, humans have very short memories.
bongostaple
Member
 
Posts: 54
Joined: October 4th, 2016, 12:53 pm

Previous

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Prescient and 5 guests