THE "CHATBOX"

[brianv]

Hi Simon, "congrats" this day (a bit strange, but maybe the right way of pointing to the anniversary of the exposure of the biggest single hoax of our lifetimes), 1 short question/comment: in the last sentence, "peruse" should be "persue"?

Selene

Identity problem much?

[HonestlyNow]

1 short question/comment: in the last sentence, "peruse" should be "persue"?

Peruse is most appropriate in this context.

Define peruse:
— read (something), typically in a thorough or careful way.
— examine carefully or at length.

[simonshack]

Thanks, Honestly Now.

'To peruse' is an 'art' you might wish to pursue, Selene.

[brianv]

Thanks, Honestly Now.

'To peruse' is an 'art' you might wish to pursue, Selene.

Hah!

[hoi.polloi]

brianv, I figured out a way to do a splash page for the day, but we are only receiving a little over 100% more traffic for the day, and that is due to go down after this anniversary.

Thank goodness people are forgetting 9/11! Is 14 years roughly the needed time for a PsyOp to start fading into irrelevancy?

[fbenario]

Right now, I am sifting through unused user names and deleting them and doing some posting tests and registration process tweaking. Just got rid of 500 unused names of what looked like gibberish and advertising or otherwise weird.

Excellent. I've been waiting years for you to delete 'members' who never made use of their membership. I think you should also delete everyone who has never even posted once, since they have violated our rule that new members are required to introduce themselves. You should also delete all pre-2015 members with only a single post.

Since none of these entities is posting, removing them will affect us not at all. To the extent any is a real person, he'll still be able to read the forum to his heart's content.

[Seneca]

Speaking of that, who is "Headfloss" and why is he listed under moderators here : http://www.cluesforum.info/memberlist.php?mode=leaders?

[hoi.polloi]

Ahh, you've reminded me of a time that a trusted person was a moderator (and named themselves Headfloss) while neither Simon and I could be present on the forum and we were concerned it would all fall apart in our absence. But funnily, they never made use of it because nobody posted by the time we got back to it. Yes, it's possible to delete all of the no-post folks. One day when I am bored I will do that.

[fbenario]

Hoi wrote:

Thank you so very much for the donations we have received so far. Without revealing who gave what, we will next post about how much we have received in donations, and show you that y'all have made a big difference in keeping us going. (And this will also show you that you don't need to always give thinking we are desperate.)
...
We have worked very hard to maintain our distance from such scammy looking things, because we are concerned that any such practice we adopt could easily become a (rather good) excuse for people to avoid us and information that may benefit them. I also hope that you understand we happily give away this data, which we hope will improve the lives of millions the world over. You have no obligation whatsoever to ever donate to this site (and it would be embarrassing, I think, at least for me, if I didn't feel we were giving some public service to the less fortunate than ourselves) so please know that this is a public service we provide happily; in an ideal world, we could get hosted for free by someone reliable and technically proficient that we both trust. For now, we stumble through our ignorance and shoestring budget out of our own patience and passion and curiosity, and we are all too proud to be responsible for such a groundbreaking (and hopefully, world improving) information repository.

There has got to be a way to formalize ongoing financial support from committed forum members. It seems inexcusable to me that Simon and Hoi would be worrying on a monthly basis if they'll be able to continue funding the forum - especially since annual costs right now are only about $500.

Any ideas how to set this up to give the forum greater future certainty, and enable Simon and Hoi to worry no more about the forum's funding?

[hoi.polloi]

No, no, fbenario, please. Thank you, but that's the opposite of what we need. Let us keep donations informal and a personal choice. Formalities like "subscription" are definitely creepy and not in the spirit of free public giving; otherwise it starts to feel like "Public Radio" or something, which (as we know) is a problem.

Unless we have some sort of personal crisis, things are okay and affordable for us. And all we'd really benefit from a different situation is a way to find trustworthy friends to give us free space and bandwidth. However, that is something only Simon and I can do for ourselves since trust of strangers is not a gift you can give others. Don't worry about it. The post was just made for transparency's sake.

[AmongTheThugs]

I will donate again very soon. This website really means a lot to me; without SC/CF I believe I would still be oblivious to reality. It's that important. That's why I have donated and had shirts made.
Every member should donate on occasion. I'm a wage slave and most folks would consider me "poor". My first child just turned six months old. Despite, I often contemplate how I can help this website. I firmly believe that this is the most valuable info available on the internet. Some t-shirt and button designs are in the works.
(Hoi! Sorry I have not been in touch. I'll email you soon)

[hoi.polloi]

Thanks, AmongTheThugs. I am in a similar position. I would also like to start making some give aways to folks, soon. But please do not sell them, except if it's just to cover the initial costs of making them.

I just wanted to let y'all know I updated the front page of www.septemberclues.org. Should look less messy now.

[dblitz]

I'd say most of us here believe that every image released by NASA is a fake. But this postulate leads us into a conundrum. Almost every image released by NASA confirms the electric universe model and contradicts, or is unexpected in, the standard astrophysical model promoted by NASA.

Take comets for example. NASA and every mainstream astrophysicist believes the tail of a comet is the result of sublimating ices cast off into space. For this reason comets are often described as dirty iceballs. Why then does every picture of a comet look like a blackened dry rock? There is no ice to be seen in any NASA image of a comet. In the electric universe theory a comet is a piece of debris left drifting in space after a catastrophic cosmic event (something the electric universe theory is full of) and it's tail is the result of a charge difference between the comet and its electrical environment. In the electric universe model a comet's tail is part of a glowing plasma sheath that includes the coma. The appearence of comets in NASA imagary is predicted by this model as the surface is subject to electrical discharging and so should appear black and pitted with craters just as we are shown.

There are many other comet predictions made by the electric model that have been 'confirmed' by NASA experiments, in fact a whole series of predictions were made by physicist Wal Thornhill before the Deep Impact probe was supposedly crashed into comet Tempel 1 and all of them 'came true.' Here is a video about it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn_HqbMmn-4 (Sorry, couldn't get the link to embed.)

Comets are just one example among many but to keep this short I wont go into details on any other aspects just yet. The question is: If NASA images and data are faked, why are they faking an electric universe instead of a standard, gravity only one? Are they preparing us for a paradigm shift in astronomy as part of some controlled awakening? I dont know but I think it deserves discussion.

Edit: Spelling.

[hoi.polloi]

Um, dblitz, let us bear in mind that this is the same kind of crowd that used every fake 9/11 picture to invent "Directed Energy shot from a space beam in outer space by space people" and a handful of other "theories" which excuse the pictures. Making up shit based on connecting bad data. Does it mean the towers never existed? No.

Similar to the banking problem, right? They don't care what we create out of their fake money if we are using their fake money instead of our own wealth/currency/et cetera. This is what they do. This is their pattern. They are betters and attention whores. They have the gambling sickness.

NASA images are problematic but they are creative abstractions of reality. So they would have us playing with the abstraction and not the real stuff of life.

Observations we make. Discoveries we make. Experiments we design and conduct and celebrate the mysterious results of. Pure speculation is all we have until we are willing to use our own senses. We don't have to be hypocrites. If you doubt every single image, what does that really mean?

Does it mean you think they made it up out of thin air, as if they were really that imaginative?

I doubt you think that. Most likely, the result of having a bunch of people over the centuries genuinely speculating, trying to draw crowds or act like secretive school children "in the know", and occasionally even conducting real experiments (though it sometimes seems there are centuries between related experiments) is that inevitably some real knowledge has been gained.

However, that real knowledge (on occasion made by genuinely curious people rather than useless Kepler-types) has never been coalesced and given to the rest of humanity in the most honest way, as presented by the people who could give context to the discoveries, has it? Instead, it's been a crowd of zealots and power-tripping control freaks who only heard the buzz of the Masonic "philosophers" trying to turn dust and rocks into sex with deities or whatever sad thing it is they think they're trying to do, and tried to use the discoveries to invent new hypnotic forms of herding people.

They always want to be "on top" so they fake what hasn't been discovered. They fake multiple possible results and branch it off in those varieties. Want to believe in "evolution" now? Okay, they got dinos for that. Need something for "aliens"? Here it comes, down your gullet from five media monopolies.

So if someone faked an experiment to fit a "theory" that fit with some old Masonic philosophy, would we know? Then if another fool came along looking at the same data anyone could see and developed their own "theory", would we know? The benefit that develops for lazy people like us is simply their competition for our attention. Since we occasionally have some forms of realizations that nobody can really deny well, they incorporate that data to avoid being called out as the charlatans they are. And that, we can probably assume, is how the truth they incorporate in their nonsense is generally updated.

But to get to the real truth, the real stuff that will have them scrambling to make abstractions of it, rather than the backasswards way it is now, we have to observe and use the senses we were blessed with. Presently, we are in a troublesome spot when we are not willing to confirm data for ourselves. So if we rely somewhat on the idea that their own competition over the centuries has revealed a bit of truth, you don't have to pick a theory that makes sense, you can pick one that suits your biases and your philosophies and world views and they will develop it for you.

Complete with products, temples, lifestyle stores, a selection of potential breeding partners, etc.

This scrambling lately in the "truth" community for one particular, perfect model to base everything off of is troubling to me. It's like celebrity worship by comparison to the creative art world. Why can't we simply take each model and each experiment on its own merits?

Are we so desperate to prove our beliefs; are we like NASA in that way? Must we? Really? Do we plan on solving the universe this year?

If 'electric universe' is closer to the truth, who would know exactly how to extract that truth from the childish illustrations NASA puts together? It must be based on something anyone can verify. Otherwise, it's in the realm of fantasy built on top of truth.

It makes the most sense to me that, while NASA doesn't know what the fuck is going on either, that they are doing their best to make sure nobody knows more than them. In that case, yes, it's plausible a deliberate paradigm shift to 'electric universe' may be where everyone will soon have to find themselves.

On the other hand, doesn't it make logical sense that electromagnetism simply has something to do with the universe because we know it exists? Must it literally explain everything ever? I hope this answer makes sense to people. I am not trying to poo-poo very exciting discoveries. On the contrary, I could probably name dozens of equally exciting experiments in various fields having to do with connections we might draw in a holistic theory. And some discoveries are more important to us than others. Simon's definitely got a doozy coming up. But as we pressure the science priesthood to cough up more data, shouldn't we also be conducting our own experiments? We can't learn everything from the pre-existing Internet theories alone. We've got to start using our senses and our brains. And when we do, let's please respect the various world views that are out there.

[brianv]

"Almost every image released by NASA confirms the electric universe model " Judy Wood Science 101

Every image released by NADS confirms that there is a half blind cretin using PhotoShop in a little shed somewhere, making space cartoons.