Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

How the controlled opposition was designed to be part of the 9/11 hoax

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby hoi.polloi on Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:47 am

So MsQ has conformed to this "attack of my friends" quip, despite the fact that we've now spent a couple pages questioning images and credibility and not once "attacked" any living person.

In fact, it makes me wonder just why we've had so many registrations from folks endorsing this Staveley character but who can't get by the idea that he is just a Facebook profile and Skype voice to them by their own admittance!

No offense to anyone, really -- we just don't need friends of sims here who are going to whine and cry every time we ask whether a photo is real or not. MsQ you are suspended. If you change your mind about the importance of a dubious digital persona to your real life and real community (if indeed you have those) please ask Simon to reinstate you.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby kansasinnovember on Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:28 pm

Why does it now seem that members on Cluesforum can't stick up for and defend other members who they feel may be genuine for fear of being suspended or banned,it was only a few weeks (Nov 24th) ago that Simon made the following comment on the "Septemberclues on air" topic.

"There can be no room for infighting between like-minded people right now - we just can't 'afford' it! To those who still doubt the good intentions of Brian Staveley, take comfort in the fact that he is - for now - doing a damn good job in diffusing our common findings, on air".

If it turns out that Brian Staveley is a sim,I for one will hold my hands up and admit i've been done up like a kipper but i have to wonder that if he indeed was a sim why would he post so many images to the web (both still & video) knowing full well these would be scrutinised by fellow Cluesforum members.Am i now at risk of being suspended or banned by admin staff here for believing someone is innocent until proven guilty.
kansasinnovember
Member
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:53 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby simonshack on Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:44 am

kansasinnovember wrote:
If it turns out that Brian Staveley is a sim,I for one will hold my hands up and admit i've been done up like a kipper but i have to wonder that if he indeed was a sim why would he post so many images to the web (both still & video) knowing full well these would be scrutinised by fellow Cluesforum members.Am i now at risk of being suspended or banned by admin staff here for believing someone is innocent until proven guilty.


No, kansas - you're not at risk of that. All I'll say at this moment - is this:

1: I appreciate the efforts of Brian Staveley in helping diffuse our research.

2: I regret that the RealNewsOnline crew is now stirring up controversies - with regard to this forum.

We just don't need any of the latter. Is this clear enough?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6623
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby hoi.polloi on Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:18 am

Why does it now seem that members on Cluesforum can't stick up for and defend other members who they feel may be genuine for fear of being suspended or banned


How long have you been here? Cluesforum has always been ban-happy when it suspects a psychological game is afoot.


if he indeed was a sim why would he post so many images to the web (both still & video) knowing full well these would be scrutinised by fellow Cluesforum members.


If 9/11 was so much of a hoax, why would they broadcast it to millions of viewers? Would a sillier question be asked!

If you were a sim that Simon Shack was "endorsing" if partially, why indeed wouldn't you use the opportunity to point out contradictions in Simon's work? You could slyly point out that 'hey Simon doesn't criticize the fact that I'm a sim because I support his work - so he's a hypocrite!' and you could do this with other sims on a different site that would then steal the pioneering work away from CluesForum and we would be left to wallow in our stupidity for falling for fake fans, while they run the real investigation into the ground (or more accurately, into a limited hangout run by the hoaxers).

What is the purpose of this research - to collect fans? NO!

It's to work on finding the truth that is available to us. I am sorry that it seems some have lost the vision that an impure truth is still a falsehood. By having people accept Brian Staveley as "not simulated" but having such blatantly fabricated picture elements and images which indicate that he is, it throws into question the entire September Clues logic, in my opinion.

I don't know why Simon is defending users who can't tell the difference, like yourself, but if that's his instinct right now, I guess I can go with it. Maybe Simon just wants to inflate the forum membership with dupes or pretended dupes. Maybe Simon wants to force the hoaxers to support September Clues using their own power, which he may think is clever except it creates the very contradiction you raised: most people will ask 'why would the hoaxers support their own downfall?' and then abandon September Clues to the realm of nutters, but happily join a limited hangout or give up.

I think both of these things are stupid and signs of desperation on our part. I am not saying Simon doesn't know what he's doing, but I wonder ... why now do we stop the investigation? Why should we keep you on this site if you believe our fake users are doing the best work?

Simon posits that people might be a bit 'slow' but he hasn't accepted that excuse until now - he didn't accept it in the Oslo thread, he didn't accept it in any of his research into the bogus war on terror. So why here? With Staveley and his troupe of dupes?

Simon if you are lonely for followers, please don't give in to the sim! Have patience! Yes, there are shills online, Simon and I fear you do not see them. I am not trying to be dramatic. I just think you have your blinders on to something which pollutes the forum: the sheer number of fake friends we have on here.

I am seeing a kind of twisted sense of 'friendship' or 'support' from fake online user names here. Depressing. I mean I understand tolerating their presence - that seems to go with the territory - but their blatant lies and whiny complaints to just be believed, despite lack of proof?

:puke:
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby AmongTheThugs on Fri Dec 14, 2012 7:46 am

Seems that another joke is on us. I can admit that I was briefly fooled by the BS. I'm glad that Hoi finally did what I wanted to do. A blatant douche bag and borderline retard is not what September Clues should be associated with.
AmongTheThugs
Member
 
Posts: 199
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:07 am

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby Equinox on Fri Dec 14, 2012 8:27 am

hoi.polloi wrote:
Simon if you are lonely for followers, please don't give in to the sim! Have patience! Yes, there are shills online, Simon and I fear you do not see them. I am not trying to be dramatic. I just think you have your blinders on to something which pollutes the forum: the sheer number of fake friends we have on here.

I am seeing a kind of twisted sense of 'friendship' or 'support' from fake online user names here. Depressing. I mean I understand tolerating their presence - that seems to go with the territory - but their blatant lies and whiny complaints to just be believed, despite lack of proof?

:puke:


This post is just to present some facts from my perspective he is real. And too try and stop the credibilty of the 9/11 vicsim research from dropping. And I don’t have anything more to add. I’m going back to the imagery n archiving.

So Brian is a fake?

And the 2 friends below are sims?
Image

Is the woman featured below feature a sim?
Image


This video was uploaded by Brian 2008
Name – Celtics game with Brian.
• Uploaded -Released 17 Dec 2008

SOURCE--- http://www.myspace.com/video/ricefoot/celts-1c/48402919

Image

It features the following people

Image
Image
Image


The supposed sim woman with the melting head, appears live in the flesh in the video singing and also appears in the below photo from Brian’s Album.

The two real people that were featured in Brian’s Celtics video are also in the below photo of Brian’s album.

The two alleged Sims from the very top photo are all featured in Brian’s photo. They all appear in the video singing and jumping and also appear with other Sims in photos??

The two alleged, sims with the red squares (from the party)... The alleged sim girl (with the melting neck) (who is also in the celtics video. and the live guy from the celtics video all appear in the same shot.

Image

Here is Brian with the 2nd girl from the video.

Image

There are hundreds of photos (which I have seen) of these people together because they are obvious friends.


So all of these were Sims created with thousands of photos over four years ago?

It’s all cgi?

They are not Sims.

Brian S Staveley is not, a sim.

Here is a video made today...


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA3BNFD0j8Y

This post is just to present some facts from my perspective he is real. And too try and stop the credibilty of the 9/11 vicsim research from dropping. And I don’t have anything more to add. I’m going back to the imagery n archiving.
Equinox
Banned
 
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby simonshack on Fri Dec 14, 2012 6:47 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:If you were a sim that Simon Shack was "endorsing" if partially, why indeed wouldn't you use the opportunity to point out contradictions in Simon's work? You could slyly point out that 'hey Simon doesn't criticize the fact that I'm a sim because I support his work - so he's a hypocrite!' and you could do this with other sims on a different site that would then steal the pioneering work away from CluesForum and we would be left to wallow in our stupidity for falling for fake fans, while they run the real investigation into the ground (or more accurately, into a limited hangout run by the hoaxers).

What is the purpose of this research - to collect fans? NO!

It's to work on finding the truth that is available to us. I am sorry that it seems some have lost the vision that an impure truth is still a falsehood. By having people accept Brian Staveley as "not simulated" but having such blatantly fabricated picture elements and images which indicate that he is, it throws into question the entire September Clues logic, in my opinion.

I don't know why Simon is defending users who can't tell the difference, like yourself, but if that's his instinct right now, I guess I can go with it. Maybe Simon just wants to inflate the forum membership with dupes or pretended dupes. Maybe Simon wants to force the hoaxers to support September Clues using their own power, which he may think is clever except it creates the very contradiction you raised: most people will ask 'why would the hoaxers support their own downfall?' and then abandon September Clues to the realm of nutters, but happily join a limited hangout or give up.

I think both of these things are stupid and signs of desperation on our part. I am not saying Simon doesn't know what he's doing, but I wonder ... why now do we stop the investigation? Why should we keep you on this site if you believe our fake users are doing the best work?

Simon posits that people might be a bit 'slow' but he hasn't accepted that excuse until now - he didn't accept it in the Oslo thread, he didn't accept it in any of his research into the bogus war on terror. So why here? With Staveley and his troupe of dupes?

Simon if you are lonely for followers, please don't give in to the sim! Have patience! Yes, there are shills online, Simon and I fear you do not see them. I am not trying to be dramatic. I just think you have your blinders on to something which pollutes the forum: the sheer number of fake friends we have on here.

I am seeing a kind of twisted sense of 'friendship' or 'support' from fake online user names here. Depressing. I mean I understand tolerating their presence - that seems to go with the territory - but their blatant lies and whiny complaints to just be believed, despite lack of proof?

:puke:

Dear Hoi,

All your points are good and well taken. However, I would have to disagree a bit with the picture you draw of the (supposed) looming peril that the various "SC-hijackers" represent. Only time will tell if the RealNewsOnline folks are different /or as bad or worse than the early crew of phony SC-huggers which I will mention hereafter - for the historical record. The only signs of desperation, as far as I can see, are to be found in some of their cheaper/lamer antics - which have invariably and miserably backfired. As you well know, these folks have been around ever since day one - ever since Ace Baker appeared out of the blue, ceremoniously presenting September Clues at Jim Fetzer's 2007 Madison 'Truth Conference", with a rich line-up of gatekeeping clowns in attendance: Rosalee Grable("The Webfairy"), Paula Gloria, Judy Wood, Dave Von Kleist, Morgan Reynolds and, of course, Circus Director Fetzer himself. And of course, half-a-decade later, Fetzer's "relentless quest for 9/11 truth" has now culminated in him embracing Rich Hall's inane hologram-theory (ooh, how their handlers/scriptwriters must LOVE the 'convenient and coincidental' hologram/holocaust assonance...). In between, we've had Ace Baker's faked suicide (live on Jim Fetzer's radio show) then we've had "Michael Zebuhr", Judy's young assistant, 'getting shot point blank', and we've had the 'bitter' and pathetic quarrels/'insider-fighting' between Judy Wood/Fetzer/Ace Baker/Nico Haupt - and the lot of them, in fact. It's just a silly dog-and-pony show - which everyone equipped with a brain can see through for the joke that it is.

Quite frankly, at no stage during all these years have I ever felt that their antics have achieved much more than discredit and ridicule themselves - whereas, I guess, those antics were designed to discredit us - and anyone remotely associated with our research. It has all been quite hilarious to watch; their efforts keep backfiring in our favor, since any truthseeker who bumps into these clowns' many internet channels cannot fail to bump - at some stage - into some link to SC/or Cluesforum. Now, if such a person cannot sense the phoniness of their act, this person is not the sort of human being we can ever hope to 'wake up' anyway! So yes, I prefer - as ever - to look at the brighter side of things and consider their antics as an almost welcome, free publicity promoting our endeavours. I honestly cannot see any 'downfall' in sight of the latter - so why worry? Is it in our power to stop the aforementioned clowns from multiplying? Any magic remedy to stop people misrepresenting our work? No. So let's live with it - and enjoy the spectacle of their inevitable fizzle into utter irrelevance (à propos: Nico Haupt and Paula Gloria - ever heard much from them lately?).

Hoi, don't get me wrong: I fully appreciate your concerns about my own 'slowness' in dealing with the tiresome flow of fake fans and real trolls registering here. But I don't regret to have allowed, for instance, all those Norwegian trolls to make fools of themselves in the Breivik thread. Without them, we wouldn't have been able to measure the extent of the stir our efforts caused amidst the OSLO psyop crew. And no, I'm not lonely for followers - I have more good friends in this life than I could ever have hoped for. The thing is, I believe it is a lesser mistake in life to 'befriend' a false friend than to discard a fine friend. For instance, let's look at the case of Abirato - aka Tim - who runs my currently favourite radio show on this planet. Tim registered here and was a tad too hastily suspected to be a spambot (by our good Brianv - who has now gentlemanly made amends for this unfortunate error). Now, it would not have been very smart of us if we turned our backs on Tim and let him proceed alone with his noble efforts to diffuse the fact that 9/11 was a media-backed hoax, would it? And to corroborate what I wrote concerning the free publicity we get from the SC-hijackers, Tim has stated that he actually came by September Clues after having bumped into Ace Baker's "Psyopera" gatekeeping movie. Heh! We should all thank Ace BFaker for his unwitting help to bring http://radio.abirato.info/ into existence!

All in all, Hoi - I hope you can see a little more clearly why I don't worry too much about these lame gatekeeping operations. And to quote George W. Bush junior (aughh, this hurts!)... "bring'em on!" :P
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6623
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby Alfie on Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:37 pm

To summarise some of my rants, I'd like to clarify why I think something is fishy about Staverly.

A persona was created on facebook on the 25th January 2012, 'Profile Date Time 2012:01:25 03:41:57' (GMT)

This time frame of uploaded images containing pictures of a wedding, umpa lumpas, a yearbook photograph (why grown men need to show images of themselves as children is freaky to me, but hey I'm not Charlie!) And a crashed car.

I understand that one can upload on facebook a group of images or a folder at a time. But this group/folder of images mentioned above does not seem logical.

One may attend a wedding then upload that folder announcing to your fans/friends/lumpas what you have been up too.

Then another time announce you have been in a car crash, explaining your woes and strife and pain with images of a glass bonnet honda civic which would logically be a different time frame.

Then another upload to prove your umpa lumpa status at a mad party.

Then the feminine, look ladies I was a boy once, Ahh lovely yearbook picky Ahh!

It was either the 25th January was one hell of a day or something is very wrong.

I can't see that a real person would do that on one upload to facebook at the same time?
Alfie
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:25 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby brianv on Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:50 pm

Image

Is this what the ELA on a photograph should look like? Please tell me how to take a photograph that produces this type of ELA.

None of the tens of thousands of photographs we have here at home, respond like this under ELA! What am I doing wrong?
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby Alfie on Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:23 pm

Use the Umpa Lumpa Force! use must.
:lol:
Alfie
Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 9:25 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby I, Gestalta on Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:34 pm

brianv wrote:Image

Is this what the ELA on a photograph should look like? Please tell me how to take a photograph that produces this type of ELA.

None of the tens of thousands of photographs we have here at home, respond like this under ELA! What am I doing wrong?


The more you compress the image, the more the alterations will be visible. With a 95%-85% compression, you're still going to end up with a lot of rainbowing that doesn't actually indicate fakery.

Compressed to 75% quality:

http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?i ... c39e.24452

In other words, I, personally, do not see anything wrong with the ELA of that image; but I'm not a professional image analyst.
I, Gestalta
Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby brianv on Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:57 pm

I, Gestalta wrote:
brianv wrote:Image

Is this what the ELA on a photograph should look like? Please tell me how to take a photograph that produces this type of ELA.

None of the tens of thousands of photographs we have here at home, respond like this under ELA! What am I doing wrong?


The more you compress the image, the more the alterations will be visible. With a 95%-85% compression, you're still going to end up with a lot of rainbowing that doesn't actually indicate fakery.

Compressed to 75% quality:

http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?i ... c39e.24452

In other words, I, personally, do not see anything wrong with the ELA of that image; but I'm not a professional image analyst.


Ok. I want you to take a photograph right now! Compress it to fuck, then ELA it so that it produces the same artifacts as above. Then upload it here!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby I, Gestalta on Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:19 am

In my above post, I took the exact same image that you did, then re-saved it once so that it compressed down to 75%, then provided the link. Try it yourself.
I, Gestalta
Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby brianv on Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:24 am

I, Gestalta wrote:In my above post, I took the exact same image that you did, then re-saved it once so that it compressed down to 75%, then provided the link. Try it yourself.


No, I want you to take a photograph right now, then compress it and upload it for analysis!

I missed this fragment.

"The more you compress the image, the more the alterations will be visible."

Which alterations?
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm

Re: Do You Literally Think There Are Shills Online

Postby I, Gestalta on Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:42 am

brianv wrote:
I, Gestalta wrote:In my above post, I took the exact same image that you did, then re-saved it once so that it compressed down to 75%, then provided the link. Try it yourself.


No, I want you to take a photograph right now, then compress it and upload it for analysis!

I missed this fragment.

"The more you compress the image, the more the alterations will be visible."

Which alterations?


Touch-ups, removals, compositing, etc. As Krawetz states in the various tutorials, solid colors compress very well. Also, he demonstrates just how pixels compress at different quality-levels per each re-save, and will show more distinct layers the more an image is compressed. I actually don't have time to do what you ask at the moment, as I am heading out. I will comply with your request tomorrow, if need be.
I, Gestalta
Member
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Truthers and shills

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest