The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

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

What should be the order of topics on 'The Clues Chronicle'? (select up to 3)

WAR: The Jewish Holo-hoax, Unclear Bombs, Cold War & Lying Leaders
12
13%
THE STATE: Banking Scams, Capitalism is Communism, Bad Religion, Public Relations, Propaganda, Hollywood & Magicians
12
13%
SPACE: Moon Hoax, Space Stations, Rocketry, Satellites & "Probes"
17
19%
GUNS: JFK, MLK Jr., John Lennon, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Breivik, Gabby Giffords, Batman & beyond
10
11%
TERROR: 9/11, 7/7 "bombing", Madrid, Mumbai & the further escapades of Mr. Allen Qaeda
16
18%
HEALTH: Ebola, AIDS, Flu, Pharmaceuticals, SARS & Health Scares
4
4%
TRANSPORTATION: Titanic, Princess Di, MH370, Lucitania, Train Wrecks, Com-trails & other transportation oddities
4
4%
SCIENCE GODS: Einstein, Kepler, Newton, Darwin & other hucksters
6
7%
NATURE: Earth Science, Global Warming, Dinosaurs, Fukushima/Tsunami & Slightly Unnatural Disasters
8
9%
 
Total votes : 89

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby Prescient on July 16th, 2016, 11:57 pm

Another great job Hoi. I haven't spent too much time on the Fukushima thread - but this podcast makes me want to read all of it.

Highlights include:

- the possibility that fake footage could be used to portray (partially) real events: this is huge and might even warrant its own thread?
Warriorhun's post: viewtopic.php?f=25&t=814&start=15#p2351312

- Ab's interview but especially the comment re media fakery "not having to prove a negative - they have to prove to us"

- the great soundtrack (as always)

More please! B)
Prescient
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: February 16th, 2016, 12:45 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby hoi.polloi on July 17th, 2016, 7:32 pm

Thank you.

Strangely, even though we tried to be more vague and permissive with our own ignorance of the full story, I think this episode might be more successful for those of us already familiar with the CluesForum brand of critical thinking. I haven't received much feedback, and it's hard to read feedback from people generally resistant to thinking harder about news events.

In any case, I remain hopeful (though not content) that occasionally we do reach out to more people.

Please, if you find it compelling in any way, share it with one other trusted friend or family member, so we can gather more feedback and understand how to make the show better. Thank you for listening!

Issue 11 will feature researcher Rochelle, whom K has met in person, and who sounds very interesting.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby Seneca on July 27th, 2016, 2:14 pm

I have finally listened to "The Clues Chronicle issue 10 : Hi, 'Ab' and 'The Fukushima/Tsunami Terror'" it while driving home from France. Here are some comments:

-I think Hoi and K have done a good job clarifying the most important questions regarding Fukushima and the Tsunami
-What I missed was a description of the best evidence for fakery and where to find it online. Not everybody will want to read the whole topic.
-In the interview with Ab I noticed that he gave a lot of compliments to Simon and Hoi. Nothing wrong with that, they deserve it. But by emphasizing how exceptional they are and seemingly ignoring all other contributors to Cluesforum and his own site, including K it doesn't feel like a collaborative effort. When I listen to K and Hoi it does. By the way, I didn't notice when K left, maybe I missed it because I was driving.
-I also agree with Ab's comment re media fakery "not having to prove a negative - they have to prove to us". That goes both ways: if I claim "X is faked", I think the burden of proof is on me. If I just claim "you have no proof for X, it looks fake to me" the burden of proof is on "them"
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby hoi.polloi on July 28th, 2016, 2:27 am

Seneca » July 27th, 2016, 1:14 pm wrote:I have finally listened to "The Clues Chronicle issue 10 : Hi, 'Ab' and 'The Fukushima/Tsunami Terror'" it while driving home from France. Here are some comments:

-I think Hoi and K have done a good job clarifying the most important questions regarding Fukushima and the Tsunami
-What I missed was a description of the best evidence for fakery and where to find it online. Not everybody will want to read the whole topic.
-In the interview with Ab I noticed that he gave a lot of compliments to Simon and Hoi. Nothing wrong with that, they deserve it. But by emphasizing how exceptional they are and seemingly ignoring all other contributors to Cluesforum and his own site, including K it doesn't feel like a collaborative effort. When I listen to K and Hoi it does. By the way, I didn't notice when K left, maybe I missed it because I was driving.
-I also agree with Ab's comment re media fakery "not having to prove a negative - they have to prove to us". That goes both ways: if I claim "X is faked", I think the burden of proof is on me. If I just claim "you have no proof for X, it looks fake to me" the burden of proof is on "them"


Great feedback, thank you.

I didn't want to censor Ab's praise, even though it definitely was too sweet to qualify as analysis. It seemed to go along with getting to know who Ab is and how his mind works on these hard topics. It does reveal (without our perhaps impolitely stating) that some of what we are also concerned about with Ab's site is his occasional unwillingness to look at what we'd consider obvious agents/actors. Even though "nobody agrees" on who those people are, sometimes "we" (some researchers) do agree on exactly who those agents/shills/perps are, and their connections. And it's unfortunate (without being thankless about the matter) that occasionally all we get from a researcher interested is that "CluesForum has a topic on this" or "I trust CluesForum to sort it out" instead of inspiring people to look into it for themselves. But just what Ab has done to wake some people up, and also introduce us to people like Kham, goes a very long way in my mind to a high esteem for Ab.

At this stage, however, it seems as though we've practically hit "full saturation" of awareness for those that wish to do research for themselves. Hopefully, that's not true, but I can see why Ab is cynical that way.

K did sneak out of the interview near the end, and we just continued on without her until K and I had a chance to catch up later. It was really tough to get all our schedules to work together this time. K and I are far west of Ab and all of us are busy.

I don't know if I fully agree with the "prove it's fake" burden being on us, anymore. I used to. It's too easy to fake things these days to expect everyone to prove it all fake. Being content to doubt the media is at least fair for anyone, I'd say. But it's a world view variation for sure.

I'll make sure to bear all of what you wrote in mind when assembling the next show. Thanks again for the listen and the feedback (and for introducing the show to at least one other person who understands English, when you find the right people interested in the topics).
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby CitronBleu on July 29th, 2016, 3:06 am

Hello CF members,

Thanks for all the great posts and contributions.

I haven't had the time to go through all the excellent posts, but will when I get the time ; have been spending a lot of time on the Nice event, and trying to enjoy my vacation :) at the same time !

If I may proffer a tentative explanation as to why the mass of people are reticent to the revelations exposed by researchers of our like is these manufactured so called terror acts are founded on the following premiss :

For the perps,

the feasibility and success of staged terror acts impact is founded on the complexity or impossibility for any one individual to grasp the depth and extent of the perceived horror, and thus to gauge normalcy of witness behavior and expose the manoeuvre.

They are terror acts, in that they are deeds which cause fear and grief. In this sense, they are real. When we deny this reality, we contradict ourselves.
CitronBleu
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
 
Posts: 265
Joined: August 29th, 2012, 8:45 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby Seneca on July 29th, 2016, 11:32 am

hoi.polloi » 28 Jul 2016, 03:27 wrote:I don't know if I fully agree with the "prove it's fake" burden being on us, anymore. I used to. It's too easy to fake things these days to expect everyone to prove it all fake. Being content to doubt the media is at least fair for anyone, I'd say. But it's a world view variation for sure.

Interesting.

I think the position "you have no proof for X, it looks fake to me" is actually a powerful position. By saying this you show that you are aware of how the scientific method works and that you are open to opposite views as long as they are supported by real proof. There will be better ways to formulate this.

I think it is important to use arguments that everybody can agree on. I find it very natural that the burden of proof lies on the person that is making a claim and not on someone that is denying the claim. It is a maxim (Maxeem :) ) of law.

If I claim that something is fake I feel that I have to prove this. This obviously depends on my definition of "fake". For me this goes even farther than "not real", showing an intent to deceive. (but then you also need to know my definition of "deceive")

I hope this makes sense.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby hoi.polloi on July 30th, 2016, 3:39 pm

CitronBleu wrote:They are terror acts, in that they are deeds which cause fear and grief. In this sense, they are real. When we deny this reality, we contradict ourselves.


Yes, that's exactly the problem. You've stated it more clearly than ever before, thank you.

The question from this understanding becomes how to approach the subjects now, in common dialogue with most people.

Seneca wrote:If I claim that something is fake I feel that I have to prove this. This obviously depends on my definition of "fake". For me this goes even farther than "not real", showing an intent to deceive. (but then you also need to know my definition of "deceive")

I hope this makes sense.


You should expound this. I see your point about having proof of willingness to deceive, though this is (of course) very slippery because even people who habitually lie will weasel out of it when cornered. This is totally different from someone being asked to explain themselves from their own perspective, and journalism's practice is to deliberately confuse the difference so that we must rely on their psychotic programming to learn who is or is not telling the truth.

Artificiality and construction of an image while claiming it is anything but, however, is a pretty good proof of some willingness to deceive on the part of a designer, even if it doesn't indicate who the designer is. (And, one wonders, why is there such a lack of credits and citation on every single news report? Possibly because of the number of stories of journalists being murdered for coming out with the truth. Is journalism as Psy-Opped as the rest of us? Possibly so.)

One thing I recommend that everyone finds is a basic "journalism" book given to students of "journalism" today. You will inevitably find a page (or a hundred pages, if you're lucky) on visual "ethics" which twists the meaning of photo manipulation in a number of bizarre directions. One book will tell you it's okay to modify things by "cleaning them up" so that a person is more attractive, and another will say the rule of thumb is anything that can be done in a traditional photo lab is perfectly fine (blatantly ignoring the fact that you could place the President on top of a flying grizzly bear and it would qualify as journalism under those rules).

They willfully ignore the psychological effect of lying to drive their pseudo-religion of "truthiness". Journalism is a problem, today.

And it's not the problem journalists themselves have been manipulated into barely elucidating if cornered.

The real issue is that journalism does not have consistent ethos/ethics/morals and yet the very training of a journalist in the school/industry/government department of journalism is that they are highly moral and respectful of others as long as they continue to annoy people in a particular way while ignoring the ethics discussion of their very practice.

It's a double standard to say that our own version of "journalism" (or annoying people with certain topics) is unacceptable but the mainstream and "alternative" ("indy" mainstream) way is perfectly ordinary, or at least is supposedly part of the best practices ever devised.

The whole discussion of what ethics means in the countless "ethics in journalism" dances is really about the ethics of a public existence. So them telling us we are not professionals or we are in the wrong for having a different approach to subjects is wrong of them and totally contrasts with their own invented Political Correctness. And I think a reasonable court of law (sorry for any oxymorons in this entry) allowed to look at the whole holistic picture (and not just a tiny sample under a narrow and obsolete framework) would agree.

I am not saying it's you doing it, either. I am just saying this is how we are trained to think. 'They are "professionals", therefore they can do what they want to everyone.'
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby Seneca on August 7th, 2016, 9:49 pm

hoi.polloi » 30 Jul 2016, 16:39 wrote:
Seneca wrote:If I claim that something is fake I feel that I have to prove this. This obviously depends on my definition of "fake". For me this goes even farther than "not real", showing an intent to deceive. (but then you also need to know my definition of "deceive")

I hope this makes sense.


You should expound this.


OK. I have a hard time following you here and maybe that is because you misinterpreted what I meant. Maybe you were looking for something more intelligent than what I actually wrote. I will try to explain it differently. Looking up the definition of the adjective "fake" gives the following: "not genuine; imitation or counterfeit. synonyms: forgery, counterfeit, copy, sham, fraud, hoax, imitation, mock-up, dummy, reproduction, lookalike, likeness, phoney, pirate, knock-off, rip-off, dupe..." This confirms what I was thinking, that the person making the fake thing usually has an intention to deceive.

All I am saying is that if you claim that something is fake I think the burden of proof is on you. Which is not even a problem because fakery is proven over and over on this forum.

What you wrote about journalists led me to review another definition: the word "fact". Is it common knowledge that many definitions of the word "fact" include something like "Something believed to be true or real"(regardless if it is really true)? I think this is very confusing: for most people the most important meaning of the word '"fact" is that it is true, proven. Yet it can be used in a entirely different way, without anyone noticing.

So a journalist could say: "it is a fact that X". Even if he knew that X was wrong, in a way he wouldn't be lying.

The translation of fact in Dutch: "feit" doesn't have these ambiguous definitions. The meaning is just "something of which it is certain that it is true or that it happened". Yet in my son's schoolbook the word was defined as meaning "Something believed to be true or real". It was in a section about "how to critically evaluate historical sources". What they actually learn is the "correct" way to interpret past propaganda.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby hoi.polloi on September 3rd, 2016, 3:46 pm

I see how people may be using slippery language, for sure. I guess if we don't wish to hold up standards of honesty and earnest communication, that's the sort of character we will get. Weasels.

Or perhaps rats ...

Living germs?

Here is "Jerry Germ" ... perpetrator of the AIDS scare!

From this topic on CluesForum, we present a very loose talk with Rochelle. I wonder what people will make of this new format. Is it better or worse than previous ones? Please give feedback and feel free to spread this to everyone you know. Just, please, don't use needles to do it.

The Clues Chronicle
Issue 11: The invention of AIDS

Image


This one's a quickie, scarcely more than 90 minutes.

But we'd also like to squeeze in one more show and have it done for the upcoming anniversary of September 11, 2016, which is why we (to try to drum up some volunteer from somewhere) want to announce:

The Clues Chronicle Issue 12: 9/11 anniversary show!
There are a couple concepts we could try for this:

1. TONIGHT! Is anyone willing to come on with Kham and I to free form chat about 9/11 and the Titanic 'disaster'? Ever so slightly structured around browsing the Titanic thread on our forum? The anatomic parallels and differences between 9/11 and Titanic, as hoaxes? We would like to try to complete audio checks and start recording around 4pm Mountain Standard Time (MST). That's more or less the middle of the night for our European members.

2. Simon's house for the (semi-)annual "9/11 is a hoax!" party, as we did last year on Fakeologist and devised the podcast format. Yes, this also means we'll be sort of celebrating one year of The Clues Chronicle. (Not that any of us is terribly excited about adding tons of anniversaries and so forth to an already obsequious calendar, but it does feel a little special that we've had the Vicsim Report out for seven years and so on.)

Let me know what any of you would like to do, if you'd like to get in on Issue 12. Not as much pressure as Ab's raw live audio. The whole thing will be treated with our editing formula, which is toxic to "um", "uh", "like", "y'know" and off-topic/irrelevant/dead-end meanderings. So speak your mind, and we'll give it a trim and edit a nice show with Simon's tunes added to boot. Anyone game for this? Tonight, Tomorrow, or next weekend?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby Farcevalue on September 3rd, 2016, 7:29 pm

I'm game.
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 380
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby Prescient on September 3rd, 2016, 9:00 pm

Yes I'd like to join too. I'm currently on UK time but don't mind staying up. I will email you my Skype.
Prescient
Member
 
Posts: 95
Joined: February 16th, 2016, 12:45 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby hoi.polloi on September 3rd, 2016, 10:46 pm

Okay, that sounds great. A couple extra voices will be nice!

Maybe we can meet on Skype and then jump on Teamspeak for recording or something. I will be home in about an hour to try to set things up. Farcevalue, please let me know how to reach you, or if you're already in touch with K, just message us then. Hopefully talk to yous/y'all/you folks soon!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby simonshack on September 4th, 2016, 9:24 am

Sorry to be MIA, guys - been tending to some house guests who just arrived - and only read Hoi's Skype invite this morning. Have a great talk! :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6432
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby hoi.polloi on September 4th, 2016, 3:33 pm

Thank you for the support! Still time to add more to the show, Simon!

We just recorded a very relaxing 2 and a 1/2 hours of musings about the state of the world and the hoax. Probably will be edited down to the typical 2 hours and released by next Sunday as Issue 12. If we want to jump onto Skype or Teamspeak then too, on Sunday, we could also do a bit of a live thing if you wanted?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: The Clues Chronicle — help decide the threads to read!

Postby hoi.polloi on September 9th, 2016, 7:01 am

The 9/11 Special is out!

Issue 12: Titanic and 9/11

Image

Thanks to Flabbergasted for the most hilarious cover inspiration. Thanks to Farcevalue and Prescient for the great chat!

Please let us know what you think! B)

And, as always, happy 9/11 hoax awareness day this weekend!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4868
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests