THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
ShaneG
Member
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:53 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ShaneG » Sun Oct 25, 2015 11:24 am

I presume you're alluding to myself as the troll, Painterman?

I'd say you win this round by default, since my legit on-topic post in the flat Earth thread was moved to the derailing room. You can have that thread.

It helps to have found common ground - ball shaped for yall - with the top dog, who has the power to censor the other side of the argument. Stick to the big fish imo.

You seem to be something of an expert when it comes to trolls and shills, giving us all a game theory lesson on how to deal tactically with a perceived troll.

At least you were provoked into a response here, albeit in a very smart and passive-aggressive manner. But now that we're in the chat room you don't have to worry about staying rigidly on-topic, as there is no topic.

It's fine that you think my posts are low content controversy, but what you're forgetting is that for a forum to thrive it needs different viewpoints (within reason) to generate discussion.

You're an intelligent guy, but I doubt your clever posts will be bringing the hits to CF any time soon.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6926
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by simonshack » Sun Oct 25, 2015 12:05 pm

ShaneG wrote:I presume you're alluding to myself as the troll, Painterman?

I'd say you win this round by default, since my legit on-topic post in the flat Earth thread was moved to the derailing room. You can have that thread.

It helps to have found common ground - ball shaped for yall - with the top dog, who has the power to censor the other side of the argument. Stick to the big fish imo.

You seem to be something of an expert when it comes to trolls and shills, giving us all a game theory lesson on how to deal tactically with a perceived troll.

At least you were provoked into a response here, albeit in a very smart and passive-aggressive manner. But now that we're in the chat room you don't have to worry about staying rigidly on-topic, as there is no topic.

It's fine that you think my posts are low content controversy, but what you're forgetting is that for a forum to thrive it needs different viewpoints (within reason) to generate discussion.

You're an intelligent guy, but I doubt your clever posts will be bringing the hits to CF any time soon.
Well, you - on the other hand - are either a bonehead, a troll or a buffoon. None of these categories are tolerated in this neighborhood - and the entity you call the 'top dog' (which I presume is alluding to yours truly) is now barking you out of the house. Yes, I have the 'power' to perform housecleaning - but I suppose your flat-shaped brain will register that as 'censorship'. Bye now.

Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Critical Mass » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:26 pm

For the new member Apache.

One of the projects I keep meaning to chase up might be something you'd be interested in.

Have you ever gone through the 'Oral Histories' from 9/11?

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Apache » Mon Oct 26, 2015 5:58 pm

Critical Mass wrote:For the new member Apache.

One of the projects I keep meaning to chase up might be something you'd be interested in.
I am very interested in it. It's why I joined here. I have a ton of stuff about the statements. As for Deputy Chief Charles Wells - I've not looked at him, but I have looked at a "Tim Brown". I wonder if it's the same one? He mentions Wells in this statement. Tim Brown is interesting from a different point of view - he was in the lobby of WTC1 for 3 minutes yet conveniently wasn't caught on camera by Naudet.
Critical Mass wrote:Have you ever gone through the 'Oral Histories' from 9/11?
Yep, I've gone through the oral histories (but not all of them).
1. A first trawl through looking for "witnesses" to the first plane in order to pull apart the Morgan Reynolds et al "first witnesses to a plane" report.
2. A second trawl through when I found that a horribly high percentage of those first plane "witnesses" were from Duane Street.
3. A third trawl through looking at the Duane Street lot.
4. A fourth trawl looking for statements from anyone who saw Jules Naudet in the lobby of WTC1 or mentions seeing a cameraman in the lobby of WTC1 (very few). And guess what - Battalion Chief of the Duane Street bunch, Pfeifer, makes no mention of Naudet being with him that day or of being filmed in the lobby of WTC1.

I've been sidetracked by Columbine and Waco so far, subjects that I don't have as much stuff about as 9/11, which is where my main interest lies.

Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Critical Mass » Thu Oct 29, 2015 12:42 pm

Apache wrote:
Critical Mass wrote:I am very interested in it. It's why I joined here. I have a ton of stuff about the statements.
Well I'm thoroughly enjoying your, confidential in nature, work so far & I observed myself looking forward to seeing more of it.

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ICfreely » Fri Oct 30, 2015 3:19 am

I just came across this via http://thetruthseeker.co.uk/. I’ve never heard of David Dees but I think many of the images in his gallery are quite telling of our current state of affairs.

The Art of David Dees – SATIRE Gallery
http://ddees.com/index.php/2015/09/11/d ... t-gallery/

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Apache » Fri Oct 30, 2015 12:43 pm

Critical Mass wrote:Well I'm thoroughly enjoying your, confidential in nature, work so far & I observed myself looking forward to seeing more of it.
:lol: Thanks CM. There's some more "noticing" and "watching" coming up in my report on the "first plane" witnesses, along with a lot of Royal "we" and not much "I saw" going on. Might be a couple of days yet though as it's quite long.

Critical Mass
Member
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:33 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Critical Mass » Sun Nov 01, 2015 6:09 pm

One interesting thing I've noticed recently is how the term 'conspiracy theory' keeps changing.

Originally, and to this day, it is a legal term.

However after the 'assasination' of JFK it was pushed by the CIA as a term to discredit those pointing out holes in the official story and, in general, it related to a specific idea. That a conspiracy of two or more individuals were involved in JFK's 'murder' & not the reported 'lone gunman'.

Somehow by the 90's the term had become associated with UFO believers & the like... the X-files 'lone gunmen' & Mel Gibsons 'Conspiracy Theory' were classic examples of 'tin foil hat' types depicted by the media.

During most of the post 9/11 world the term appeared to change again... even though the official story of that day was an actual 'conspiracy theory' (that of 19 evil Muslims all under the command of an uber-evil Muslim as he plotted from his secret cave fortress) the term was used to describe any alternative opinion on the days events.

In recent years 'conspiracy theory' has degenerated to mean any idea not supported by the government of that particular day. Even disagreements over a politicians alleged birthplace became subject to 'conspiracy theories'.

The evolution of the use of this phrase from a specific attack through to an 'unusual' belief & to any disagreement whatsoever with officialdom has now gone even further.

http://www.vox.com/2015/10/27/9622358/w ... iler-death
Glenn is like a younger brother you've watched grow up. The Walking Dead has invested a lot of time into developing the character, and fans love him. That's why, despite all the evidence of his demise, many are still holding out hope and clinging to conspiracy theories that his death wasn't real.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/ ... int-to-no/
Strangely, the reason conspiracy theorists (like myself) believe Glenn is alive is not because of what happened in the show itself. Viewed in a vacuum, it’s hard to fathom that Glenn somehow survived what...

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGtluLW9ZoI

In short the term 'conspiracy theory' now means an alternative interpretation of a TV show.


Quite funny really... the new definition is a lot better then the old one anyhow.

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Apache » Sun Nov 01, 2015 6:49 pm

So they are saying that conspiracy theories are ok to discuss as long as they are in discussed in relation to fiction? rofl. In the usual malignantly narcissistic way, black is white and up is down.

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ICfreely » Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:32 pm

Speaking of fiction, I saw a hilarious promo on the History Channel for Einstein's brain. Michio Coocoo & other high priests discuss the mysterious disappearance of the brain of the 'greatest genius of all time'...

I have to agree with ProperGander in regards to media outlets like the History Channel are the greatest purveyors of conspiracy theories. Seeing as our current paradigm is based on an enormous pile of fabricated theories, it is necessary to constantly churn out outlandish conspiracy theories to muddy the waters thereby keeping people confused & distracted. The idiotic conspiracy theories, by comparison, lend credence to the official 'Consensus Theory.'

Anyhow, I haven't watched it and don't really care to either (don't think I could sit through it). I was just wondering if anyone saw it.

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ICfreely » Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:08 am

I would also appreciate any peer-reviews of my last couple of 'Einstein and other gods of science' posts. There are so many ways I could proceed that I don't know where to start. I kind of have to gauge where everyone's at. Any thoughts, critiques, insights?

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ICfreely » Wed Nov 04, 2015 5:10 am

Well, I guess it's too soon so I'll back up a bit. I'm running out of words to explain the insanity of theorem based 'knowledge.' You either get it or you don't. To each his own, I guess!

This invaluable book helped me improve my vision & changed my worldview. Yes, you really can CURE your imperfect sight. Enjoy!
The Cure of Imperfect Sight by Treatment Without Glasses - W. H. BATES, M.D. (1920)
http://visionsofjoy.org/pdfs/BatesPerfectSightWG.pdf

PREFACE

This book aims to be a collection of facts and not of theories, and insofar as it is, I do not fear successful contradiction. When explanations have been offered it has been done with considerable trepidation, because I have never been able to formulate a theory that would withstand the test of the facts either in my possession at the time, or accumulated later. The same is true of the theories of every other man, for a theory is only a guess, and you cannot guess or imagine the truth. No one has ever satisfactorily answered the question, "Why?" as most scientific men are well aware, and I did not feel that I could do better than others who had tried and failed. One cannot even draw conclusions safely from facts, because a conclusion is very much like a theory, and may be disproved or modified by facts accumulated later. In the science of ophthalmology, theories, often stated as facts, have served to obscure the truth and throttle investigation for more than a hundred years. The explanations of the phenomena of sight put forward by Young, von Graefe, Helmholtz and Donders have caused us to ignore or explain away a multitude of facts which otherwise would have led to the discovery of the truth about errors of refraction and the consequent prevention of an incalculable amount of human misery.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE
Do you read imperfectly? Can you observe then that when you look at the first word, or the first letter, of a sentence you do not see best where you are looking; that you see other words, or other letters, just as well as or better than the one you are looking at? Do you observe also that the harder you try to see the worse you see?

Now close your eyes and rest them, remembering some color, like black or white, that you can remember perfectly. Keep them closed until they feel rested, or until the feeling of strain has been completely relieved. Now open them and look at the first word or letter of a sentence for a fraction of a second. If you have been able to relax, partially or completely, you will have a flash of improved or clear vision, and the area seen best will be smaller.

After opening the eyes for this fraction of a second, close them again quickly, still remembering the color, and keep them closed until they again feel rested. Then again open them for a fraction of a second. Continue this alternate resting of the eyes and flashing of the letters for a time, and you may soon find that you can keep your eyes open longer than a fraction of a second without losing the improved vision. If your trouble is with distant instead of near vision, use the same method with distant letters.

In this way you can demonstrate for yourself the fundamental principle of the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without glasses.


Reason and Authority
SOME ONE—perhaps it was Bacon—has said: "You cannot by reasoning correct a man of ill opinion which by reasoning he never acquired." He might have gone a step further and stated that neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts, can you convince some people that an opinion which they have accepted on authority is wrong.


Scientific Credulity
Huxley refers to the observations of Helmholtz as the "facts of adjustment with which all explanations of that process must accord,"2 and Donders calls his theory the "true principle of accommodation."3

Arlt, who had advanced the elongation theory and believed that no other was possible, at first opposed the conclusions of Cramer and Helmholtz,4 but later accepted them.5

Yet in examining the evidence for the theory we can only wonder at the scientific credulity which could base such an important department of medical practice as the treatment of the eye upon such a mass of contradictions. Helmholtz, while apparently convinced of the correctness of his observations indicating a change of form in the lens during accommodation, felt himself unable to speak with certainty of the means by which the supposed change was effected,3 and strangely enough the question is still being debated. Finding, as he states, "absolutely nothing but the ciliary muscle to which accommodation could be attributed,"7 Helmholtz concluded that the changes which he thought he had observed in the curvature of the lens must be effected by the action of this muscle; but he was unable to offer any satisfactory theory of the way it operated to produce these results, and he explicitly stated that the one he suggested possessed only the character of probability Some of his disciples, "more loyal than the king," as Tscherning has pointed out, "have proclaimed as certain what he himself with much reserve explained as probable,''1 but there has been no such unanimity of acceptance in this case as in that of the observations regarding the behavior of the images reflected from the lens. No one except the present writer, so far as I am aware, has ventured to question that the ciliary muscle is the agent of accommodation; but as to the mode of its operation there is generally felt to be much need for more light. Since the lens is not a factor in accommodation, it is not strange that no one was able to find out how it changed its curvature. It "is" strange, however, that these difficulties have not in any way disturbed the universal belief that the lens does change.

For nearly three-quarters of a century the opinions of these masters have echoed through ophthalmological literature. Yet it is to-day a perfectly well-known and undisputed fact that many persons, after the removal of the lens for cataract, are able to see perfectly at different distances without any change in their glasses. Every ophthalmologist of any experience has seen cases of this kind, and many of them have been reported in the literature.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Wed Nov 04, 2015 7:17 pm

ICfreely, I am sorry I have not had time to read the forum much lately, and I don't want to derail your plea for comments — your stuff is certainly worthy of attention — but I just wanted to announce in the CHATBOX that we have a new "The Clues Chronicle" issue out, regarding 9/11 vicsims.

In the future, when we talk about the subjects you are passionate about, our conversations about it may inspire us (or you) to go in one or another direction with it. However, that won't be for some time, since we are busy catching up to basics like 'The Moon Landing' hoax and so forth. If you want to contribute some material to those topics mentioned here: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2397412#p2397412

... then we may be able to wrap it into those topics as we address them in roughly that order.

Wacky, "well-connected", attention-seeking scientists definitely have made their mark in a number of hoaxes.

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ICfreely » Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:51 am

hoi.polloi wrote:...I don't want to derail your plea for comments...
No worries, Hoi! I’m in no hurry. I realize that my last couple of posts in the “Einstein…” thread may take quite some time to sink in (if ever). When I first came across that $hit my jaw damn near hit the floor. I must have read it like 9 to 11 times. Just thought I’d pull a Bernays & do a little public opinion poll.
hoi.polloi wrote:If you want to contribute some material to those topics mentioned here: viewtopic.php?p=2397412#p2397412
I $ho’ do, Monsieur Polloi! ;)

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ICfreely » Thu Nov 05, 2015 7:27 pm

Just keepin’ it real,
Science Made Up - Constructivist Sociology of Scientific Knowledge - Arthur Fine
The realism/antirealism debate largely sidesteps science. The debate over a constructive reshaping of constructivism may be more important. For the hope is to liberate constructivism from its own global ideology, with its overblown rhetoric and poor philosophical understanding. The aim is to urge constructivism in the direction of an open, social particularism. That seems to me the heart of the program, the right corrective to philosophical (especially realist) distortions of science, and the place where lots of good work can be done too. Among the work to be done is to achieve some understanding of what is actually involved in rational acceptance and proof in science, of what, in Boyle’s words, deserves “a wise man’s acquiescence.”
http://faculty.washington.edu/afine/SCI ... E%20UP.pdf
Wise man say, “Think, McFry, THINK!

Post Reply