THE "CHATBOX"

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

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Prescient on November 23rd, 2016, 11:47 pm

Sorry for your loss, Simon.
Prescient
Member
 
Posts: 92
Joined: February 16th, 2016, 12:45 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby fbenario on November 24th, 2016, 1:55 am

Simon, I send condolences, empathy, and sympathy. All the best!
fbenario
Member
 
Posts: 2177
Joined: October 23rd, 2009, 2:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby sharing on November 24th, 2016, 2:06 am

Deepest condolences to you and your family, Simon.
Bien Amicalement,
Sharing
sharing
Member
 
Posts: 42
Joined: March 16th, 2013, 11:34 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby abirato on November 24th, 2016, 11:16 am

Sorry for your loss, Simon. You've related how much she meant to you, which is wonderful and touching to read. The empty house will be difficult at first, but I hope you're buoyed by your many shared memories. Since you're sharing such a personal story, was she as proud as we are of your 9/11 research?
abirato
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: August 10th, 2012, 1:49 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby simonshack on November 24th, 2016, 4:53 pm

*

Sincere thanks again everyone for your warm words - all very much appreciated (by yours truly, and surely, also by my dear mom!)

And yes, Ab - since you ask me I'd say she was very much 'on board' with my September Clues research - yet she would at times cringe / object when I'd share with her the unfolding of some 'smaller' psy-ops such as, for instance, that sorry Breivik saga in Norway. However, even though she (initially) refused to accept that the whole thing was an utter farce, I dearly remember (a cherised moment) when she broke out in a fit of uncontainable laughter as she watched Breivik's (supposed) lawyer Geir Lippestad 'pleading for his client' - as described in this old post of mine: viewtopic.php?p=2371577#p2371577

Kerstin, who never suffered fools gladly, had a knack for 'sniffing out' people's phony / contrived behaviors - and her 'verdict' on Geir Lippestad (after catching her breath) was: "Well, THAT guy is NO lawyer - THAT much is clear! More likely,just a piss-poor actor!"
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6375
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby starfish prime on November 24th, 2016, 9:22 pm

I'm very sorry to hear about your mother's passing, Simon. She must have been a wonderful woman to raise someone such as yourself. I hope that you and your family may find some peace in the joyous memories she has left behind!
starfish prime
Member
 
Posts: 59
Joined: August 3rd, 2015, 5:36 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby anonjedi2 on November 25th, 2016, 5:59 am

Sending love and condolences your way, dear Simon.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 698
Joined: December 31st, 2012, 6:50 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby sharpstuff on November 27th, 2016, 6:00 am

I am posting a link here in Chatbox, as I am not sure the best thread for it. I hope you will excuse me.

I have alluded to my cousin before when he sent me some material on Ripple Rock which I posted.

He has just sent me some very interesting information on the radar facility at Canewdon in Essex, UK. I know the area well, since I lived at Southend-on-sea for my first 18 years.

The material covers the radar facility before and during the Second World War and shows how sophisticated the system was. I thought by posting it, it might give some understanding to those who think 'satellites' might be necessary.

I have posted it to one of my sites as it is a .pdf and 16Mb. The title is GPS and Radar.

The link is here: https://sharpspeake.wordpress.com/2016/11/27/gps-and-radar/

My very best regards to all and especially Simon.
sharpstuff
Member
 
Posts: 86
Joined: February 4th, 2015, 2:31 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby bostonterrierowner on November 28th, 2016, 5:49 pm

I noticed that MSM cesspool has been buzzing about "fake news" recently .

There is supposedly a guy in the former soviet republic of Georgia running a "fake news sausage factory" and his "product" is later distributed mainly by FB and Google.

Its an example of the Sun Tzu's "blown cover as cover" strategy.

Awareness of media fakery must have become a real concern for TPTB and I have to admit it makes a very effective damage control effort.

From NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/world/europe/fake-news-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-georgia.html?_r=0

By making "fake news" mem go viral they will blunt MSM consumers' sensitivity to such issues in the future.
bostonterrierowner
Member
 
Posts: 845
Joined: May 2nd, 2011, 11:01 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Flabbergasted on November 28th, 2016, 7:36 pm

National Geographic‘s October 125th anniversary issue presents a series of multiracial types, suggestive of the future atomized Brave New World of Undefined. Nothing against the mixes and faces (many are actually quite handsome), but are they real people? It may be the way photos are processed nowadays, but to me they come across as simmy and fabricated.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/ ... hotography

Image
Jordan Spencer, 18, self-defined black/biracial.

One of the faces, that of a certain Solomon Hsiang (29), allegedly "Chinese and Jewish eastern European", apparently belongs to a real person in flesh and blood. Professor Hsiang has authored a number of studies on the social and economic impacts of climate change (read: global warming) and has appeared on TV programs explaining how even a slight increase in the temperature is likely to induce violent behavior and civil strife.

http://globalpolicy.science/solomon-hsiang-publications
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYcWNoPnEwc
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 638
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby SacredCowSlayer on November 29th, 2016, 3:20 pm

It's full steam ahead with the NEVER ENDING loads of bull from our psychotic govern-media clown nutwork operators.

Of course I was simply trying to get my work done yesterday when I got a text from a friend (who
is aware of fakery) about the ridiculous OSU (stabbing/shooting) event.

This friend asked me what I thought of the "police officer's" name and "photo".

Image

I said the name looks like "All-In-Whore-You-Joke" complete with a "Joker Smile". And that's the "hero". Please. :rolleyes:

And of course here's the name and image of the "suspect".

Image

There's not enough time to keep up with the silly daily horror show in our media. But I wanted to at least drop this off here in the Chatbox as I don't think it deserves a new topic by any means.
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 240
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Farcevalue on December 1st, 2016, 9:29 pm

Funny how the mass incidents took a breather for the election.
Farcevalue
Member
 
Posts: 375
Joined: August 27th, 2011, 12:21 pm

NATO Stratcom

Postby hoi.polloi on December 3rd, 2016, 2:35 pm

Thanks to Headfloss for finding this article: http://www.stratcomcoe.org/social-media ... id-warfare

Social Media as a Tool of Hybrid Warfare

This article contains a lot of information we are already painfully aware of, disguised as it were behind "good intentions" of forcing people to understand Western propaganda. It also paints a bizarre fiction — the continuing "cold war" between Russia and the West, among other psy-ops for various levels of our society.

But coming as it does directly from a NATO STRATCOM, it seems to be helping us on the theme of "hidden in plain sight" (or maybe "plainly purported to be slightly hidden").

I'll highlight some favorite passages. :blink:

Figure 1. Activities and effects framework by T. E. Nissen.JPG


Robert Brose discusses the developments
of cyber war and the so-called ‘netwar’
foreseen more than 20 years ago as two
emergent forms of warfare. Cyber war
refers to the disruption of information and
communication systems, whereas actors
in a netwar overtly and covertly seek to
‘disrupt, damage, or modify what a target
population knows or thinks it knows about
the world around it’.[20]

— page 11

By this definition, wouldn't the news media be considered cyber terrorism?

Crowdsourcing is increasingly used by
media employees and activists such
as civic journalists for fact-checking,
unmasking disinformation, and identifying
developments in a conflict.[28] It can be
used not only for intelligence collection
and analysis, but also as a tool in the
information war, revealing facts by sharing
crowdsourced information with the
public. For example, a joint project run
by the Atlantic Council and Bellingcat was
able to track and provide evidence of the
presence of Russian troops in Ukrainian
territory simply by collecting information
from social media profiles used by Russian
soldiers, Google maps, images in the media,
as well as information crowd-sourced
from eyewitnesses.[29] With the help of
open source investigation, including social
media, this approach makes it possible to
counter disinformation and offer valuable
support for strategic communications
needs.

—page 14

No mention of CluesForum! :rolleyes:

Attacking the target—blocking
adversary content or asking social
media platforms to remove the content
of specific profiles by complaining
about inappropriate content to
security. For example, Facebook
administrators removed the picture
of girl commemorating her father, a
Ukrainian soldier who had fallen in
Eastern Ukraine, after several pro-
Russian social media users reported the
post for containing graphic content.
natostratcom_pic.JPG


—page 19

The pseudo-neutral position of the paper is actually biased against critiquing (and hardly mentions the creation of) entirely false or simulated information. But in complaining about the complainers, they actually arm people with a powerful idea: to try to redefine propaganda when it's presented. In this case, the story makes it seem to a reader assuming the story actually occurred as presented as though Russians may have correctly identified the information (this dubious "photo of a military brat") as inappropriate or fake. And in flagging it (perhaps in the only manner they are permitted — for "graphic" content) they are able to complain about the propaganda as such.

Here's another fun passage:

Deception—creating ‘noise’ or
‘informational fog’ around a topic
in order to distract attention from
more strategically important events.
A significant example of this has been
the case of the downing of Malaysian
air flight MH17. Russian media
channels and social media distributed
a large volume of messages offering
numerous explanations for why the
plane crashed. Another bot campaign
was used to distract the public by
offering an ‘alternative explanation’ of
the murder of Russian politician Boris
Nemtsov, saying that he was killed by
jealous Ukrainians. This ‘news’ was
published just a few hours after the
attack had happened.[59]

—page 20

The article doesn't really help the reader understand how or why a "large volume [of] explanations" for a psy-op would be offered from both parties but again creates a strange boogeyman out of Russia — as if furious keyboard typing from the imaginary friends of some whip bearing riled up Russian youth is orchestrating explanations of propaganda. It doesn't seem to mention that the West seems to be employing the very techniques they are accusing 'foreign cyber warfare leaders' of using; nor does it mention any expansive budget and scope of State military forces.

At about the halfway point, this generically mistitled paper finally gets to the coolly shaded premise: Russia is under threat from all sides, they are wrongly defending their fiefs, and NATO STRATCOM is merely "watching chaos unfold" (which they of course have nothing to do with, and are merely shaking their heads in shock and disgust over due to the "strange" cyber warfare techniques they know nothing about).
:rolleyes:

However, research conducted by
the NATO StratCom COE suggests a
differentiation between the ‘classic
troll’ as described above and the
‘hybrid troll’, who engages in the same
patterns of behaviour as the traditional
troll, but operates in the context of a
particular political or military agenda.[91]

—page 27

I mean, what would NATO or STRATCOM know about trolls operating in the context of a particular political or military agenda? :lol: Surely, nothing, right?

They've "helpfully" identified for us the five main signs of a troll. Never mind fake characters, fake events, logical fallacies, emotional bargaining and all the other signs we know of breaking down an individual's critical thinking. These are the most dangerous trolls according to their "template" analysis:

Troll number 1: intelligent commentators critiquing U.S. globalist terrorism?

Blame the US conspiracy trolls
disseminate information based on
conspiracy theories and blaming
the US for creating international
turmoil. ‘Conspiracy trolls’ write long
texts presenting logical arguments
and unveiling the truth for readers.
However, the logic of the messages
inevitably breaks down
[How does it do that? With help from valiant NATO anti-troll spray? -hp]
and the end
result is always the same
—it is the
fault of the US. Comment length is the
first sign that this is a conspiracy troll.


Got it. So if someone writes any sort of essay and it ends up with a damning conclusion toward US military or military interventionism, they're a paid troll for the secret Russian army? Are these people considering themselves scientists? This paper must be intended for doughfeet.

Troll 2. Attractive women?

Bikini trolls post naïve, mostly anti-US
comments typically accompanied by a
profile picture of an attractive young
girl. The content is simple, containing a
question or/and a suggestion—‘Could
it be that only Russia is bad? The world
doesn’t work like that – maybe we
should look…’ which is then followed
by a ‘blame the US’ motive. Despite
the primitive message, the ‘bikini troll’
in fact significantly affects the Internet
community as is often not recognised
as a troll


Definitely suspicious for attractive women to have opinions. But then, female allure is dangerous in general and is to be avoided (recommends NATO). Perhaps STRATCOM must send in valiant NATO men to convince these women of the error of their ways. And if they are men disguised as women, you know what to do!

Troll 3. Trolls that troll!

Aggressive trolls, similarly to classic
trolls, post emotional and highly
opinionated comments intended to stir
up emotional responses from general
users. Classic trolls are usually highly
responsive, as they are interested in
prolonging verbal conflict, whereas
the responsiveness of the ‘aggressive
troll’ is very low.


They are calling the very definition of normal troll behavior "aggressive trolls". Hilarious! As if distinguishing the span of the troll's attention makes it more or less one particular type. Have they ever browsed Facebook? YouTube? This surely was not written by millenials.

Troll 4. People using references to make points?

Wikipedia trolls tend to post factual
information from Wikipedia (or other
authoritative information sources
such as history blogs). The information
posted is true per se, however it is used
in a context that leads the audience to
false conclusions and is unlikely to be
discredited, even by more experienced
users.


While I think we can agree using Wikipedia is a ridiculous candidate for "authoritative" sources, this "troll" identification rather indemnifies anyone who does not point out obvious contradictions in official information. It seems to be saying that people who question what is going on around them and make points backed up by "facts" or some technically undeniably true information are trolls for basically bringing the conversation back to a proper discussion. Identifying this behavior as "trolling" doesn't seem to give people a very good grasp on reality.

Finally, the fifth troll (which I think we can almost all agree is an actual problem with normal people and not just paid disruptors?) ... the post and run troll!

Attachment trolls post very short
messages with links to other news
articles or videos containing value laden information (for example, from
Russian news platforms, TV news, eyewitness videos in YouTube, etc.). It is
difficult to identify this troll, since its
message is less human.[95]


It is also the basic epitome of the average person's use of social media! Difficult to identify this troll indeed. It is hard to believe that this paper was written for adults out of high school, and is not some deep satire of the military mindset. But the context of the site indicates it is indeed meant to actually present itself as some kind of "intelligent advice" for thinking persons, and the document itself says it is trying to keep the Alliance really up to date on matters. (Poor Alliance if this document is the best of their employment efforts!)

It is so transparently anti-Russian pro-US propaganda that it begs us to ask if it's deliberately stupid in some way. It even seems to break down one's intelligence over the course of the first pages so that by the time they get to mentioning ISIS and other inventions of the Anglo-US military State, the gullible reader is ready to accept whatever simmy thing they have to say about it.

Even if there are groups that troll with this particular agenda, is it fair to identify the most innocuous methods of military persuasion as "cyberterrorism" when the most aggressive forms of propaganda go unmentioned? And even if we must identify "having an opinion on the Internet" as "cyberterrorism", must we then merge the very valuable distinctions between average persons and people with an obviously militant pro-State agenda?

The most propaganda-like portion appears around page 41, near the end of the opening essay, where it lies in direct contradiction to our own experience by identifying which players are in which roles:

It is a game of cat and mouse, where
‘bad actors’ continually develop new,
sophisticated methods of influence and
public opinion manipulation while social
media platforms and security services play
catch-up in countering them. A heightened
social media presence is more productive
than efforts to weaken other information
actors by limiting the distribution of
their messages. This is further proof for
decision-makers that ignorance and lack
of engagement in social media is no longer
an option


If you take the first part, "It is a game of cat and mouse, where ‘bad actors’ continually develop new, sophisticated methods of influence and public opinion manipulation" you have basically described all of civilization the world over, security forces especially included.

However, the second part of this run-on sentence ("while social media platforms and security services play catch-up in countering them") is deceptive in a number of anti-intellectual ways. Since the first forty pages were meant to break down your understanding and critical thinking, people may be susceptible to these ideas implied by the fragment:

1. Social media sites are benevolent anti-troll platforms

2. Social media sites are on the level and share understandings with paranoid pro-State security services that establish and/or manipulate them

3. Social media sites and security forces represent the interests of the West and of proper civilization

These implications directly lead into the rather posturing sentence that follows: "A heightened social media presence is more productive than efforts to weaken other information actors by limiting the distribution of their messages."

This bizarre statement implies that enormous super States (while in denial that they have basically developed and run troll factories probably since the very foundation of the Internet) are somehow "surprised" or "taken advantage of" by "information actors" that they are studying; and that the righteous goal of profiteering security forces is to both:

1. Censor diverse opinions, shut them up, stop them from expressing opinions (with the implication of threats of violence due to the involvement of selfsame security forces)
and
2. Become involved in overwhelming, derailing and otherwise interceding in social media that does not express favorable opinions

... with the latter being identified as the more "productive" method (though hardly even mentioning how often the "less productive" method, which implies their own level of Statist trolling, is being used.)

The flow charts at the end are priceless after their heaping slew at the start, but take a look for yourself and see if this is a convincing document to you. Unfortunately, the poor Latvians who have to put up with their friends and family in this NATO STRATCOM muck probably never read this stuff and remain as ignorant as ever about how out-of-touch the average population is meant to be kept.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: NATO Stratcom

Postby SacredCowSlayer on December 3rd, 2016, 9:03 pm

hoi.polloi » December 3rd, 2016, 8:35 am wrote:
Here's another fun passage:

Deception—creating ‘noise’ or
‘informational fog’ around a topic
in order to distract attention from
more strategically important events.
A significant example of this has been
the case of the downing of Malaysian
air flight MH17. Russian media
channels and social media distributed
a large volume of messages offering
numerous explanations for why the
plane crashed. Another bot campaign
was used to distract the public by
offering an ‘alternative explanation’ of
the murder of Russian politician Boris
Nemtsov, saying that he was killed by
jealous Ukrainians. This ‘news’ was
published just a few hours after the
attack had happened.[59]

—page 20


1. Social media sites are benevolent anti-troll platforms

2. Social media sites are on the level and share understandings with paranoid pro-State security services that establish and/or manipulate them

3. Social media sites and security forces represent the interests of the West and of proper civilization

These implications directly lead into the rather posturing sentence that follows: "A heightened social media presence is more productive than efforts to weaken other information actors by limiting the distribution of their messages."

This bizarre statement implies that enormous super States (while in denial that they have basically developed and run troll factories probably since the very foundation of the Internet) are somehow "surprised" or "taken advantage of" by "information actors" that they are studying; and that the righteous goal of profiteering security forces is to both:

1. Censor diverse opinions, shut them up, stop them from expressing opinions (with the implication of threats of violence due to the involvement of selfsame security forces)
and
2. Become involved in overwhelming, derailing and otherwise interceding in social media that does not express favorable opinions

... with the latter being identified as the more "productive" method (though hardly even mentioning how often the "less productive" method, which implies their own level of Statist trolling, is being used.)

Image
Image


Hoi,

Thank you for that intelligent and concise break-down of how these power clowns set about to define, interpret, and control perceptions and discourse (and everything else possible).

Their "definition" (alone) of Deception is as absolutely laughable as it is ironic.

"Deception-creating ‘noise’ or
‘informational fog’ around a topic
in order to distract attention from
more strategically important events."

Yeah, never mind that the "strategically important events" are themselves DECEPTIONS!

They maniacally embrace (by implication, via use of the word strategic) the idea that an "event" is both real/authentic and "important" simply because they say it is.

Oh yeah sure, it's the "fog" and "informational noise" (or is it a Trump(et) sound) that's the real deception. :rolleyes:
SacredCowSlayer
Member
 
Posts: 240
Joined: September 5th, 2015, 10:44 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on December 4th, 2016, 12:50 am

Yes, exactly! The article presumes manufactured news events are real and relevant to our society. Thank you for catching that, SacredCowSlayer!

And thank you for reading! :)
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4810
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest