THE DERAILING ROOM

[Observer]

Yes Simon, my mistake, it was NOT Ab who was caught using voice-altering-software, it was his "trusted" member Psyopticon/EvilEdna (who Simon rightly banned from CluesForum a long time before that.) So Ab wasn't caught doing voice-morphing, my apologies for having made an incorrect accusation. Still, Ab did lose "trust points" in my mind, for brushing off Psyopticon/EvilEdna's strange voice-morphing AND for not immediately banning Psyopticon/EvilEdna when the voice-morphing was caught. My post directly above has been duly corrected (although the "strikeout" feature seems to be broken.)

About Kham's witnessing of a double-murder triple-injury shooting, I have been privately notified by PM that Kham has discussed this in a CluesForum podcast. So I guess I (and Simon) can be scolded for having not yet listened to all the CluesForum podcasts, haha, sorry Hoi.

But still, Kham, it would be much appreciated if you could please post details here, in written form, so that we can do our due-diligence of checking to confirm this was indeed an ultra-rare case of an ACTUAL shooting. If we don't do a little checking, it would appear to readers that we are "playing favorites / getting loose" about terror/attack claims.

And fellow vigilant members, let's actually give Kham the benefit of the doubt, since she is a met-face-to-face friend and partner of Simon & Hoi. Meaning, let's not label anyone a shill without actual proof of lying. And let's ask Kham questions politely. I think the questions asked in my post about this are polite enough:

Having been in a bar shooting where 2 people died and 3 people were injured from gunfire...

There where exactly 3 people who needed emergency medical assistance so only 3 people stayed behind.

Since I was in a pile of people with my daughter up by the stage who hadn’t been able to escape, I was able to witness the entire event.

Wow Kham.

You witnessed a stranger shoot 2 people dead, and shoot 3 other people too?

Was your daughter one of the three people injured from gunfire?

I notice you mentioned, "Even though the first shooter stopped after he emptied his clip..." and "at the time of the shooting, as I recall, no one knew how many shooters were in the vicinity." So, does that mean you only witnessed one shooter?

Does this mean you witnessed one guy walk into a bar and empty a clip (16 rounds?) into a bunch of strangers?

Who was he trying to kill?

Was this a crime of passion, like a husband trying to kill a specific person who had slept with his wife or something, or was this a crazy person just trying kill a bunch of strangers?

Have you ever mentioned this to Simon or Hoi face to face?

Have you ever mentioned this here at CluesForum before?

Have you ever mentioned this on the CluesForum podcast?

Have you ever posted about this anywhere online before?

See, I was already in disbelief about your previous surprising report back in February of this year, when you wrote:

A good friend, Nancy, says she attended high school with the father of one of the victims of the Florida high school shooting.
Teenage diseased victim: Luke Hoyer
Father of victim: Tom Hoyer
Facebook post from my friend Nancy who knows father of victim

I didn't want to grill you publicly, since you have a met-face-to-face relationship with Simon, so I sent Simon the following letter, in which I basically tell Simon that you (Kham) should tell us if your "good friend" who "says she attended high school with the father of one of the victims of the Florida high school shooting" was a met-face-to-face-and-physically-hung-out-together-many-times-over-many-years ACTUAL-good-friend, or just a VIRTUAL-online-penpal?

...

Anyway, here is the letter I e-mailed to Simon:

E-mail Title: Kham's "friend"
Date: 2018 February 24 at 02:19
--------------
Letter Start
--------------
If someone had the balls to ask the female Kham,
"How many hours have you actually spent physically sitting with that character which you label 'your friend'?"
the honest answer would probably be:
"Well, zero hours physically actually, but I've exchanged typed sentences with this person for YEARS!"
So this is actually merely a virtual online-typist-character,
whom Kham incorrectly tells herself,
"This is my friend, I know her well, through the sentences she has typed, and the images she has shown me."
Women nowadays often incorrectly label such never-physically-met virtual online-typist-characters "my friend."
Meanwhile, men are too scared to even ask Kham for clarification, since we want to be nice to women.
Plus, men make the mistake of thinking, "Hanging out physically for a few weeks (e.g. Kopi) somehow magically proves that person is not on the military payroll."
The fact is, even a physical-friend-roommate could easily be a military-payroll well-trained actor/spy/mole/liar.
Typed words prove nothing.
Images and videos prove nothing.
Even meeting a person proves nothing.
Even living together for decades proves nothing.
Even a lifetime family member can not be uncritically "trusted".
What matters is: regardless of source, every sentence must be critically checked for logic.
We humans want to run away from this troublesome task of critically thinking about each claim.
Thus, we humans continually make the mistake of labeling certain sources/people "trustable from now on."
"This person has stated enough logical sentences in the past, so now I no longer need to critically check him/her."
Wrong. The troublesome task of critically thinking about and requiring proof for every claim, must continue daily.
--------------
Letter End
--------------

...

Shouldn't you have mentioned [the shooting you witnessed] when you first introduced yourself to CluesForum viewtopic.php?p=2395889#p2395889 ?

You do realize, dear Kham, that CluesForum members would currently be "calling shenanigans on" (i.e. not believing) this random-shooting witness-story, which you are suddenly casually mentioning now: if it weren't for your close friendship with Simon & Hoi, right?

This is very shocking, because in general I don't believe people attempt to kill people without a reason. I don't believe in random murders. But you witnessed a random reason-less murder of multiple people?

I think THIS deserves its own thread. The FIRST actual shooting-witness report ever to be taken seriously at CluesForum. You are the first person ever whose account of witnessing a shooting we CluesForum members are going to feel pressure to suspend our disbelief about, since you have a close face-to-face relationship with Simon.

Please Kham, start a thread and tell us all the details so that we can as politely as possible (politely please, everyone, seriously) do our due-diligence of investigating the time and place and details about this no-doubt publicly-known publicly-reported-about shooting incident, right?

As for Kham witnessing a shooting (I don't put this beyond the realm of possibility) it certainly is a bit odd that she has never shared such a dramatic firsthand experience with me. I'll be looking forward to read any available media reports about this shooting event.

[Mansur]

Sorry to interfere in, but Kham did not say "random" or "terror" at all. In her place I would in no way feel challenged, considering that she said very reasonable things; -- even in the case of a small scrimmage people will “get the heck out”…

[Shooting affair occurs I believe sometimes even in my absolute (or comparatively) no-guns-zone-country. (E.g. out of jealousy, as it was mentioned above; this feeling can grow to such a theatrical/pathetic emotion as to search for its outburst crowded places such as bars – maybe just the one that’s been its birthplace.) -- ”Bar-shooting” btw is a curious term; it implies regular occurring (as in Hollywood movies). I mean the term makes so to speak “reality”. – Maybe shootings in some places are really regular and so they get their regular, four-line, media coverage.]

[Observer]

BTW - my personal feeling is that in life: all new laws/rules should be NON-retroactive, for fairness.
IMO - my new strict rule idea shouldn't be suddenly retroactively applied to Kham or to anyone else.

I'm simply suggesting it be considered as a non-retroactive new rule for all NEW prospective members,
from NOW moving forward into the future - to preemptively prevent any and all FUTURE time-wasting
(and sometimes heart-breaking) debates filled with real internal conflicts about what to do each time.

"Any attack-claims must be made in 1st post, with evidence: authentic video of attack and claimant."

The punishment for breaking this strong-concrete-pylon could be one of three options, up to Simon:

Style A. The rule-breaker gets banned,
-----------and their evidence-less-claim remains hosted at CF forever,
-----------and their trust-building other-posts remains hosted at CF forever,
-----------and those posts might sow bad seeds in the minds of a few readers,
-----------but at least everything is nicely kept for posterity and properly ridiculed.

Style B. The rule-breaker gets banned,
-----------and their evidence-less-claim gets deleted,
-----------so they don't receive that big 'claim-still-hosted-at-CF' bonus from their boss.

Style C. The rule-breaker gets banned,
-----------and their evidence-less-claim gets deleted,
-----------plus ALL-their-posts-from-first-to-last get deleted,
-----------so they don't even receive that tiny 'other-posts-still-hosted-at-CF' bonus from their boss.

The pretty-good-post I wrote yesterday was OK, but my masterpiece post I wrote today is BETTER.

My masterpiece post wisely DOES NOT require matching any beliefs/dogma, allow me to explain:

When I walked off on my journey into the Concave Earth idea over at WildHeretic, I found a problem.
The problem was folks over there would post a bunch of trust-building-posts, and then, make a claim.
One kind of claim was the indirect, "Maybe SOME folks died in 9/11, since my dad knew Sumaya" type.
The other type was the more direct, "My dad was hit by shrapnel in the San Bernardino shooting" type.

I campaigned strongly to have those shills banned and to have a new rule created: a rule about belief.
So - WildHeretic required intros state whether one believes people are killed/injured in attack-events.
But that was a mistake of mine, because: it doesn't matter what folks believe, it's about their CLAIMS.

People can stupidly believe 3,000 died in 9/11 - sure - just don't claim "My daddy knew a 9/11 victim."
People can stupidly believe 14 died in San Bernardino - okay - just don't claim "My daddy was injured."
I had to quit that forum: in protest of WildHeretic not requiring claimants to FILM their attack-claims.

As you can see, my pretty-good-post which I wrote yesterday still mistakenly contained belief/dogma.
I was still suggesting mere belief in 9/11 victims, or humans in space, should be used to prevent entry.

But my masterpiece of today is perfect because it only demands the 1st post state any attack-CLAIMS.
It doesn't legislate belief, it simply says: if you have an attack-CLAIM, you must state in your 1st post.
& if you state in your 1st post an attack-CLAIM, you must attach authentic attack-video + face-video.
& if you hide your claim until later or attach forged-video or acting-video, then you get auto-banned.

From now on nobody can type 100s of trust-building-posts, then break our hearts with a LATER CLAIM.
From now on nobody can make an attack-claim without providing authentic attack-video + face-video.
And yes attack-claims lead to actual war deaths, so you must show the CF court authentic face-video.

No more later claims, no more claims without evidence, and no more labeling typed-words evidence.
The CF court hereby demands you show your face, as you make your deadly claim of "I saw a murder."
CluesForum broadcasts your war-initiating claim to millions, so you must appear in the witness stand.
Hundreds of thousands of humans are killed based on attack-claims, 9/11 is killing in Iraq even today.
Billions of people might lose human rights due in part to your testimony, so no hidden-face claimants.

Include in your 1st post authentic face-video of you discussing your claim, or never type such a claim.
Attack-claims start wars, but you're "too embarrassed" to share a video of your face? STFU and GTFO.
Simply typing "I saw an Iranian shoot some Jews" could lead to WW3, so showing your face is required.

Wow, I'm really spitting hot fire now. I'd better quit while I'm ahead, before I somehow trip and fall.
Pride cometh before a fall and all that. So anyway, I stand 100% by this masterpiece & this summary .
And yes I have the honesty to admit I'm having delusions of grandeur, and SCS's sentence is sufficient:

Also, if you claim to know a victim (or a friend or family member of a victim) significantly connected to a news event that has been discussed on this forum, let us know that up front.

When potential new members follow the instructions in the "How to Register at CluesForum" thread,
they then reach that "Initial Introduction By New Registrants" thread (visible only to new potentials)
(where that vital "significant connection with any news story covered on the forum" check happens)
then, after the admins ask such questions, such potentials arrive to the "Introduce Yourself" thread,
where current members should ask each potential, "Any attack-claims? If so, present evidence now."

All that is fine, yet I still think Simon can also add a sentence to the "How to Register" instructions:

If you or someone you know has witnessed or been the victim of any terror/shooting/bombing/attack,
we require any claims of such an unlikely experience to be included in the very first introductory post,
and we require extraordinary evidence for such extraordinary claims in the first introductory post too.

Such a visible warning will reduce the number of time-wasters (behind-the-scenes/posted-on-forum)
since potential new members will know, even before trying to sign-up: we require upfront evidence.
Less attack-story attempts will be sent to the admins & less attack-story attempts will appear here,
when the would-be-infiltrators realize: they have to present evidence of their claims in the 1st post.

An analogy: I sometimes watch "Stop a Douchebag" videos (which seem unscripted - but, who knows)
in which folks-tired-of-drivers-driving-on-sidewalks take a moral stand by forcing the cars to back up.
One technique is standing in the way until the car illegally tries to push them, then pressing charges.
The other often concurrent way is threatening to place a sticker, which they should do immediately.
But the activists waste time, debating with drivers who lie/cry/yell/beg/debate for sidewalk driving.

The effective solution would be: stand in one place - not move an inch - and silently point to reverse.
Moving to the drivers' window and debating with the jerks is an ineffective (dramatic) waste of time.
Trying to get drivers to admit the error of their ways is like trying to get shills to admit they're shills.
If the goal is truly to prevent the next car from entering the sidewalk: stand in the middle and point.
Don't debate with the perps, that just emboldens them by showing them they can waste your energy.
By not moving towards their window, by not debating, bad drivers would quickly give up and back up.
Don't allow them to push you backwards even 1 cm, stand firm, hold a concrete pylon near your feet.
See the concrete pylon is all one needs, to block cars from entering a sidewalk, so here's the analogy:

The visible concrete pylon of "claims must be made in intro, with proof" prevents the entry attempts.
No more "I like the other things this person types - maybe their attack-story is true" internal conflict.

If the intro post has an attack-story without evidence to back it up, mere typed words prove nothing.
Authentic attack footage, or at the very least authentic footage of your non-acting face describing it.
It becomes simple: "You physically cannot enter this space without authentic non-acting real footage."
So attach that to post #1, we'll analyze your video for evidence of acting or fakery, or don't even try.

This totally avoids typed-words debates, "I trust potential X's words vs. I distrust potential X's words."
Psyop agents have trouble creating authentic attack footage & creating authentic non-acting videos.
I know, folks like to say, "I can tell from just typing" but we can tell much BETTER from seeing faces.
Any attack-claim helps lead to wars & right-loss, so show us (the CF court) your footage & your face.

Currently Simon there is no concrete "claims must be made in intro, with proof" pylon visible upfront.
Thus currently cars are able to slide past initial questioning and then 100 posts later: Surprise Claim!

But who knows - maybe the concrete-pylon-less sidewalk-activists actually PREFER dramatic debates?
In one "Stop a Douchebag" video, an observer wisely said, "Cut the chit-chat, just put on the sticker!"
I'm basically suggesting taking it a step further, "Cut the chit-chat, put up the visible concrete pylon!"

[patrix]

When I walked off on my journey into the Concave Earth idea over at WildHeretic.

Say what? Talk about "drop". May I inform you that over here at CF we find the globe theory VERY appealing since it's been around since the birth of astronomy and has NEVER been disproven.

[fbenario]

About Kham's witnessing of a double-murder triple-injury shooting, I have been privately notified by PM that Kham has discussed this in a CluesForum podcast. So I guess I (and Simon) can be scolded for having not yet listened to all the CluesForum podcasts, haha, sorry Hoi.

But still, Kham, it would be much appreciated if you could please post details here, in written form, so that we can do our due-diligence of checking to confirm this was indeed an ultra-rare case of an ACTUAL shooting. If we don't do a little checking, it would appear to readers that we are "playing favorites / getting loose" about terror/attack claims.

At this time we still haven't been given any details about this shooting story. Discussing it on a podcast doesn't give it greater legitimacy or veracity.

Why aren't the mods pressuring her publicly to provide evidence of the event here on the forum? The vast majority of readers will never hear that podcast episode, and yet now apparently are expected to assume the event happened? No other member would ever be allowed to get away with such a drive-by claim.

[Kham]

Observer,

RE:Tom Hoyer

I never made a statement about the truth or falsity of the scenario concerning the death of Luke, Son of Tom Hoyer. It is interesting how many of these hoaxed events are tied to real people, whether it be by coercion such as blackmail or compliance as in CIA asset. I am sure there are many other ways of which we are unaware as we are stumbling in the dark here.

The people who objected to that post inserted their own conclusions to my words. I made no conclusions myself, just observations. Nice try observer. Keep ranting.


RE: Eyewitness to a bar shooting

I believe first hand experiences are an important part of reminding ourselves that the behavior of hoaxers is not based in reality. So it’s ok to relate info other people said but not our own experience? That doesn’t make any sense. It wouldn’t matter what facts I gave you about the night of the event where I witnessed 2 people die and 3 get injured from gun fire in a bar. There is just no way to prove it to you. Sounds like you are just trying to shut me up.

You even linked my name to those who make claims about witnessing the twin towers fall. What’s your deal man?

There is something else going on here. Observer, what is the real reason behind your vitriol concerning my post? How is my eye witness account even a big deal? In reality, shootings happen all the time and people die that never make it into the news. See inner city violence.

[Observer]

Observer,

RE:Tom Hoyer

I never made a statement about the truth or falsity of the scenario concerning the death of Luke, Son of Tom Hoyer. It is interesting how many of these hoaxed events are tied to real people...

First problem Kham: when folks at CluesForum were contemplating whether or not there were any real victims in that Florida shooting, why did you type newspaper-style, "A possible victim?" (a phrasing which usually points towards "Yes, a possible victim") followed immediately by a typed-sentence piece of "evidence" which made you wonder if there was a possible victim: "My good friend Nancy says she attended high school with the father of Tom Hoyer."

A Possible Real Victim?

A good friend, Nancy, says she attended high school with the father of one of the victims of the Florida high school shooting. Wanted to document this to get a fuller picture of how news media works.

Teenage diseased victim: Luke Hoyer
Father of victim: Tom Hoyer
Facebook post from my friend Nancy who knows father of victim

If a respected member of CluesForum types "A Possible Real Victim? My good friend Nancy says she attended high school with the father of one of the victims of the Florida high school shooting" it is liable to lead a few readers into thinking, "Wow, I trust Kham since she's a real-life flesh-and-blood partner and friend of Hoi & Simon, and Kham is calling Nancy her 'good friend', so I guess that implies Nancy is a real life flesh-and-blood friend of Kham, so if Nancy told Kham that Nancy knows the father of Tom Hoyer, then maybe Tom Hoyer happens to be, as written in Kham's title, a Possible Victim."

Please read that paragraph twice in a neutral manner, because I'm not being rude, I'm simply summarizing the implications of your February post.

So, Question #1 Kham: what did you mean by "My good friend Nancy"?

Did you mean "a real-life flesh-and-blood good friend whom I have hung out together with many times over many years, listening for honest voice timbre, watching for honest facial expressions and honest body language and honest eye movements when speaking" or did you mean "a facebook penpal who has written me various typed sentences and shown me various family images?"

We need to know (and you should have stated this clearly back in February when you made that first surprising claim) if you are vouching for your "good friend" Nancy as being: a real-life flesh-and-blood good friend whom you have hung out together with or not. That's question #1, and it's not rude, it's simple and important.

RE: Eyewitness to a bar shooting

I believe first hand experiences are an important part of reminding ourselves that the behavior of hoaxers is not based in reality. So it’s ok to relate info other people said but not our own experience? That doesn’t make any sense. It wouldn’t matter what facts I gave you about the night of the event where I witnessed 2 people die and 3 get injured from gun fire in a bar. There is just no way to prove it to you. Sounds like you are just trying to shut me up.

Nobody is trying to shut you up Kham. Au contraire, Simon is waiting for you to post some media reports about the shooting you witnessed, so we can do our due diligence of examining the clues for evidence of footage-forgery and bad-acting.

How is my eye witness account even a big deal? In reality, shootings happen all the time and people die that never make it into the news. See inner city violence.

Actually, no. Inner city violence is logical, in that when someone has actually killed your real-life flesh-and-blood friend over drug territory, you actually want to kill the person who killed your friend, so gangland shootings make sense to me.

But someone walking into a bar and just trying to spray 16 bullets into a crowd, randomly killing random people, that never makes sense to us. Which is why we always assume such "random acts of terror" are fake, and which is why we investigate the "footage" for evidence of forgery and bad acting.

Please link us to the "footage" about your shooting claim so that we can do our due diligence, thank you Kham.

There is no need to get emotional over this. Simply calmly rationally post some links about the when and where so that we can do a little investigating. If your claim is true (and it probably is) then we will end up concluding, "OK, no evidence of forgery or bad acting here, Kham actually witnessed an ultra-rare act of random spraying of bullets into a crowd. Rare, but some crazy killers exist." OK?

As for Kham witnessing a shooting (I don't put this beyond the realm of possibility) it certainly is a bit odd that she has never shared such a dramatic firsthand experience with me. I'll be looking forward to read any available media reports about this shooting event.

And to take it one step further, since typed-words are easy to type, I'll be looking forward to watch any available videos about this shooting event, broadcast by the media or at the very least a short video of a witness testifying about the shooting witnessed: videos are much better than typed-words, because videos show us facial clues of bad-acting or authenticity.

As my most recent post on this subject rightly reminds us, typed-words prove nothing, we need to see videos:

Authentic attack footage, or at the very least authentic footage of your non-acting face describing it.
So attach that to post #1, we'll analyze your video for evidence of acting or fakery, or don't even try.

This totally avoids typed-words debates, "I trust potential X's words vs. I distrust potential X's words."
Psyop agents have trouble creating authentic attack footage & creating authentic non-acting videos.
I know, folks like to say, "I can tell from just typing" but we can tell much BETTER from seeing faces.
Any attack-claim helps lead to wars & right-loss, so show us (the CF court) your footage & your face.

People can stupidly believe 3,000 died in 9/11 - sure - just don't claim "My daddy knew a 9/11 victim."
People can stupidly believe 14 died in San Bernardino - okay - just don't claim "My daddy was injured."

It doesn't legislate belief, it simply says: if you have an attack-CLAIM, you must state in your 1st post.
& if you state in your 1st post an attack-CLAIM, you must attach authentic attack-video + face-video.

From now on nobody can make an attack-claim without providing authentic attack-video + face-video.
And yes attack-claims lead to actual war deaths, so you must show the CF court authentic face-video.

CluesForum broadcasts your war-initiating claim to millions, so you must appear in the witness stand.
Hundreds of thousands of humans are killed based on attack-claims, 9/11 is killing in Iraq even today.
Billions of people might lose human rights due in part to your testimony, so no hidden-face claimants.

Include in your 1st post authentic face-video of you discussing your claim, or never type such a claim.
Attack-claims start wars, but you're "too embarrassed" to share a video of your face? STFU and GTFO.
Simply typing "I saw an Iranian shoot some Jews" could lead to WW3, so showing your face is required.

Those solid sentences are not specifically about Kham, they are about ANY & ALL typed attack-claims.
I'm not picking on Kham at all, it's actually the opposite, we're being extra patient with Simon's friend:

We are just asking Kham if she ever met her good-friend Nancy who says she knew "Tom Hoyer's" dad.
And I'm asking Kham if she can film a 5-minute video talking about her rare motive-less-crowd-shooting.

PS - to my yet-unmet virtual-penpal-friend SCS: I feel all my video-requesting-posts are Chatbox, not Derailing.

[Kham]

Observer,

Random? Who said in the shooting I witnessed the gunman fired at random? Not me. You are making things up now. You don’t even know details yet you as making assumptions. Again I must ask what is your true motive?

[Observer]

Random? Who said in the shooting I witnessed the gunman fired at random?

What are we readers supposed to imagine, when you wrote that shooter "emptied his clip" (a clip is usually 15 rounds, sometimes 16 if the shooter prepares 'one in the chamber' beforehand) so that means you saw and heard "pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop" in a crowded bar hitting five different people, killing 2 dead and injuring 3?

Emptying a clip into a crowd, not caring about the many innocent unrelated strangers being killed, is different from walking up to one person and shooting that one person. It seems like you witnessed a motive-less shooting-attack in which the killer purposely sprayed his entire clip at strangers he didn't know. So since you are saying I'm bad for calling that a random-shooting action, then please enlighten us beyond the tiny amount you have told us so far:

Thing is, at the time of the shooting, as I recall, no one knew how many shooters were in the vicinity. Even though the first shooter stopped after he emptied his clip how does one know for sure if he is the only shooter? The natural instinct was to err on the side of caution and leave before any other shooters opened fire. Since I was in a pile of people with my daughter up by the stage who hadn’t been able to escape, I was able to witness the entire event.

As I asked you in my very first post about this subject:

Having been in a bar shooting where 2 people died and 3 people were injured from gunfire...

There where exactly 3 people who needed emergency medical assistance so only 3 people stayed behind.

Since I was in a pile of people with my daughter up by the stage who hadn’t been able to escape, I was able to witness the entire event.

Wow Kham.
You witnessed a stranger shoot 2 people dead, and shoot 3 other people too?

Was your daughter one of the three people injured from gunfire?

I notice you mentioned, "Even though the first shooter stopped after he emptied his clip..." and "at the time of the shooting, as I recall, no one knew how many shooters were in the vicinity." So, does that mean you only witnessed one shooter?

Does this mean you witnessed one guy walk into a bar and empty a clip (16 rounds?) into a bunch of strangers?

Who was he trying to kill?

Was this a crime of passion, like a husband trying to kill a specific person who had slept with his wife or something, or was this a crazy person just trying kill a bunch of strangers?

Have you ever mentioned this to Simon or Hoi face to face?

Have you ever mentioned this here at CluesForum before?

Have you ever mentioned this on the CluesForum podcast?

Have you ever posted about this anywhere online before?

Please Kham, start a thread and tell us all the details so that we can as politely as possible (politely please, everyone, seriously) do our due-diligence of investigating the time and place and details about this no-doubt publicly-known publicly-reported-about shooting incident, right?

And as I'm asking in the post directly above, which you also ignored:

Observer,

RE:Tom Hoyer

I never made a statement about the truth or falsity of the scenario concerning the death of Luke, Son of Tom Hoyer. It is interesting how many of these hoaxed events are tied to real people...

First problem Kham: when folks at CluesForum were contemplating whether or not there were any real victims in that Florida shooting, why did you type newspaper-style, "A possible victim?" (a phrasing which usually points towards "Yes, a possible victim") followed immediately by a typed-sentence piece of "evidence" which made you wonder if there was a possible victim: "My good friend Nancy says she attended high school with the father of Tom Hoyer."

A Possible Real Victim?

A good friend, Nancy, says she attended high school with the father of one of the victims of the Florida high school shooting. Wanted to document this to get a fuller picture of how news media works.

Teenage diseased victim: Luke Hoyer
Father of victim: Tom Hoyer
Facebook post from my friend Nancy who knows father of victim

If a respected member of CluesForum types "A Possible Real Victim? My good friend Nancy says she attended high school with the father of one of the victims of the Florida high school shooting" it is liable to lead a few readers into thinking, "Wow, I trust Kham since she's a real-life flesh-and-blood partner and friend of Hoi & Simon, and Kham is calling Nancy her 'good friend', so I guess that implies Nancy is a real life flesh-and-blood friend of Kham, so if Nancy told Kham that Nancy knows the father of Tom Hoyer, then maybe Tom Hoyer happens to be, as written in Kham's title, a Possible Victim."

Please read that paragraph twice in a neutral manner, because I'm not being rude, I'm simply summarizing the implications of your February post.

So, Question #1 Kham: what did you mean by "My good friend Nancy"?

Did you mean "a real-life flesh-and-blood good friend whom I have hung out together with many times over many years, listening for honest voice timbre, watching for honest facial expressions and honest body language and honest eye movements when speaking" or did you mean "a facebook penpal who has written me various typed sentences and shown me various family images?"

We need to know (and you should have stated this clearly back in February when you made that first surprising claim) if you are vouching for your "good friend" Nancy as being: a real-life flesh-and-blood good friend whom you have hung out together with or not. That's question #1, and it's not rude, it's simple and important.

RE: Eyewitness to a bar shooting

...It wouldn’t matter what facts I gave you about the night of the event where I witnessed 2 people die and 3 get injured from gun fire in a bar. There is just no way to prove it to you. Sounds like you are just trying to shut me up.

Nobody is trying to shut you up Kham. Au contraire, Simon is waiting for you to post some media reports about the shooting you witnessed, so we can do our due diligence of examining the clues for evidence of footage-forgery and bad-acting.

Inner city violence is logical, in that when someone has actually killed your real-life flesh-and-blood friend over drug territory, you actually want to kill the person who killed your friend, so gangland shootings make sense to me.

But someone walking into a bar and just trying to spray 16 bullets into a crowd, randomly killing random people, that never makes sense to us. Which is why we always assume such "random acts of terror" are fake, and which is why we investigate the "footage" for evidence of forgery and bad acting.

Please link us to the "footage" about your shooting claim so that we can do our due diligence, thank you Kham.

There is no need to get emotional over this. Simply calmly rationally post some links about the when and where so that we can do a little investigating. If your claim is true (and it probably is) then we will end up concluding, "OK, no evidence of forgery or bad acting here, Kham actually witnessed an ultra-rare act of random spraying of bullets into a crowd. Rare, but some crazy killers exist." OK?

As for Kham witnessing a shooting (I don't put this beyond the realm of possibility) it certainly is a bit odd that she has never shared such a dramatic firsthand experience with me. I'll be looking forward to read any available media reports about this shooting event.

And to take it one step further, since typed-words are easy to type, I'll be looking forward to watch any available videos about this shooting event, broadcast by the media or at the very least a short video of a witness testifying about the shooting witnessed: videos are much better than typed-words, because videos show us facial clues of bad-acting or authenticity.

As my most recent post on this subject rightly reminds us, typed-words prove nothing, we need to see videos:

Authentic attack footage, or at the very least authentic footage of your non-acting face describing it.
So attach that to post #1, we'll analyze your video for evidence of acting or fakery, or don't even try.

This totally avoids typed-words debates, "I trust potential X's words vs. I distrust potential X's words."
Psyop agents have trouble creating authentic attack footage & creating authentic non-acting videos.
I know, folks like to say, "I can tell from just typing" but we can tell much BETTER from seeing faces.
Any attack-claim helps lead to wars & right-loss, so show us (the CF court) your footage & your face.

People can stupidly believe 3,000 died in 9/11 - sure - just don't claim "My daddy knew a 9/11 victim."
People can stupidly believe 14 died in San Bernardino - okay - just don't claim "My daddy was injured."

It doesn't legislate belief, it simply says: if you have an attack-CLAIM, you must state in your 1st post.
& if you state in your 1st post an attack-CLAIM, you must attach authentic attack-video + face-video.

From now on nobody can make an attack-claim without providing authentic attack-video + face-video.
And yes attack-claims lead to actual war deaths, so you must show the CF court authentic face-video.

CluesForum broadcasts your war-initiating claim to millions, so you must appear in the witness stand.
Hundreds of thousands of humans are killed based on attack-claims, 9/11 is killing in Iraq even today.
Billions of people might lose human rights due in part to your testimony, so no hidden-face claimants.

Include in your 1st post authentic face-video of you discussing your claim, or never type such a claim.
Attack-claims start wars, but you're "too embarrassed" to share a video of your face? STFU and GTFO.
Simply typing "I saw an Iranian shoot some Jews" could lead to WW3, so showing your face is required.

Those solid sentences are not specifically about Kham, they are about ANY & ALL typed attack-claims.
I'm not picking on Kham at all, it's actually the opposite, we're being extra patient with Simon's friend:

We are just asking Kham if she ever met her good-friend Nancy who says she knew "Tom Hoyer's" dad.
And I'm asking Kham if she can film a 5-minute video talking about her rare motive-less-crowd-shooting.

Can you please answer the questions? We should make such requests to ANY typed attack-claimant, right?

Again,

There is no need to get emotional over this. Simply calmly rationally post some links about the when and where so that we can do a little investigating. If your claim is true (and it probably is) then we will end up concluding, "OK, no evidence of forgery or bad acting here, Kham actually witnessed an ultra-rare act of random spraying of bullets into a crowd. Rare, but some crazy killers exist." OK?

And Kham, and everyone, how about this idea: it is possible that Kham honestly witnessed a guy walk in to the bar where Kham and her daughter were relaxing, and then Kham honestly witnessed a guy completely empty his clip ("pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop") ...of BLANKS (meaning not real bullets) ... and then 2 blood-packet-actors pretended to die, and then 3 blood-packet-actors pretended to be injured, and thus Kham can be telling the truth about what she saw WHILE this could also be a psyop we want to investigate the media videos about.

That is quite an olive branch idea which I am extending. Can we investigate together the media "footage" (for example the bar CCTV "footage" which the news channels probably played clips of) together AND still continue to respect Kham as a friend and partner of Simon & Hoi? I'm saying right here, right now: it's possible.

So c'mon Kham, please simply answer the rational questions in this post, and even better, instead of typing, since we are always suspicious of typed-sentences, how about answer the questions speaking in a video? We really would rather see the honest eye movements and hear the honest voice timbre and feel the honest emotion of this event which for those scary minutes placed you and your daughter in danger, I'm sure that a video of you describing the events will put all our suspicions to rest. Instead of typing, please just show us the honest emotions you feel about what you saw. And show us the anger you are naturally feeling about having your typed sentences questioned!

And at the very absolute bare-minimum, if you are "too shy to make a 5 minute video", then please do go ahead and type the answers to the rational questions asked in this post. Please Kham, it's breaking my heart that Simon's and Hoi's (and Patrix's) friend and partner is refusing to answer these rational questions in this post, questions which fbenario and Simon and SCS and many other readers here are genuinely curious to learn the answers, so that we can respect ourselves as being researchers who do due diligence on every attack-claim posted here. We can't be seen as suddenly letting a claimant have a free pass to refuse to answer simple questions about this ultra-rare "emptied-his-clip-into-the-crowd pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop" shooting witnessed.

I'll close by repeating my most impotant point:

Simply calmly rationally post some links about the when and where so that we can do a little investigating. If your claim is true (and it probably is) then we will end up concluding, "OK, no evidence of forgery or bad acting here, Kham actually witnessed an ultra-rare act of random spraying of bullets into a crowd. Rare, but some crazy killers exist." OK?

[simonshack]

Dear Observer,

I'm getting rather weary of reading your wordy / long-winded posts (and the many re-quoted ones) - so please consider embracing "the art of brevity". Also, let me say that I'm not going to support your "demands" for Kham to elaborate about her experience (although she's of course free to do so at will) for the simple reason that Kham, a friend of mine whom I've met personally and who has very positively contributed to diffusing our forum's work over the years - especially as a (quite brilliant) host of the Clues Chronicle podcasts - deserves no such "public scrutiny". Nothing could possibly cast a shadow over - or much less "nullify" - her longstanding contributions to our collective efforts.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd welcome if Kham decided to share more details about that experience - but its' up to her to do so at will.

************************************************************

Now, to "lighten up the mood" here, let me share a most freakish experience of mine... which very nearly ended my days! I must have been in my early twenties at the time and I had travelled with two dear friends (Tore & Nora) to a tranquil small lake located high up in the hills in southern Norway (surrounded by spectacular scenery / snowy mountain tops, etc - a deserted yet majestic place far away from any signs of "civilization"). Years earlier, Nora's father had built a small log cabin by the lake where we took shelter for a couple of nights. One evening we went fishing in a small rowing boat. It was a windless day, the lake was flat as a mirror - and the silence was almost eerie: we really felt like we were the only / last inhabitants on planet Earth.

All of a sudden, a "bang" echoes in the air - and almost instantly, I see some tiny object splashing in the water right next to me - no more than a couple of meters away from the boat. In fact, I simultaneously heard a faint "whoosh" next to me - that is, pretty damn close to my ear! The three of us kind of freezed - and after a few seconds staring at each other, we all said - almost in unison - "whaat the HECK was THAT?!" I told my friends about the splash and the whoosh - and we concluded to our horror that it must have been a bullet. My first thought was that perhaps some duck hunters had mistakenly shot at us. The problem was that...there was not a single duck in sight! As we looked around us - someone caught a glimpse of something moving in the tall grass on a little mound by the lakeside. So we started rowing towards that spot (don't ask me why were such fearless daredevils!) and as we landed there, we walked up the small "grassy knoll". There we almost stumbled over two old drunkards sitting in the grass, surrounded by empty beer cans. One of them was still holding a revolver (I'm no gun expert, but it had that typical barrel) - and smiling meekly, like a child caught stealing cookies... End of story: we saw them off as they staggered down the hill and out of sight - having somehow obtained their excuses and promises not to play with that gun ever again (I still wonder how the three of us were satisfied that it was safe to just let them walk back home...).

So yeah, folks, I have witnessed a shooting - and at VERY CLOSE range too! And it was never reported in the news media.

[Flabbergasted]

What are we readers supposed to imagine...?

So, dear Goggler, are we having fun trying to put the entire forum into a straitjacket and drawing unsympathetic caricatures of valuable contributors? Who is next on your pop-pop-pop-pop-pop-pop list? CluedIn? Bongostaple? anonjedi2? Farcevalue? SCS? Maat? Apache?

Too much bragging, too much effusive praise for our forum, too much gilding our lily. Seemed to be trying to convince us of something, such as her bona fides and trustworthiness.

Not my style either, fbenario, but don´t let jealousy get the better of you.

[PianoRacer]

Over here at CF we find the globe theory VERY appealing since it's been around since the birth of astronomy

I certainly hope this is not what you rest your seemingly unshakable belief in spinning-ball theory upon, because as I'm sure you realize, this is a classic example of the "appeal to tradition" logical fallacy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

I don't know about you, but when I'm told something must be true because that's what people have always believed, I immediately become even more skeptical of the proposition. This practice has served me quite well over the years.

and has NEVER been disproven.

Except, of course, by the Tamarack mine shaft experiment, and arguably, the Rectilineator.

http://www.phy.mtu.edu/alumni/history/DMGPlumbLines.pdf

The Tamarack experiment in particular would be very cheap and easy to reproduce.

With all of these supposed Flat Earth enthusiasts, I would think there would be plenty of interest in recreating this experiment, which should put the issue to rest once and for all. That nobody has done so - in over a century! - speaks volumes.

Your turn, Patrix - has the concave Earth theory been - by logic or experiment - disproven in your eyes? If so, please cure Observer and myself of our silly delusions that maybe, just maybe, we live inside the womb of Mother Earth, instead of spinning around on her outside surface.

I asked Simon to do the same in our initial email exchange, after he cautioned me that he had "little patience" for the theory, but sadly he never responded. Like many, I think he and you may be rejecting out of hand a quite elegant and comforting theory about the shape of our Heart Earth without much in the way of logic or evidence to refute it - which to me is very sad, because I find the theory enchanting and the process of re-orienting myself to being inside a womb (instead of outside a spinning ball hurtling through an infinite expanse of empty nothingness) to be quite comforting and, in some ways, healing.

That being said, I'd hate to be wrong about such an important topic, so by all means, "hit me with your best shot". Like pretty much anyone else who finds themselves here, I think I've sufficiently proven my ability to change my stance when new evidence comes to light.

All the best,
-PR

P.S. Completing the "3d Tychosium" that you've been working on would go a long way towards casting doubts on my silly beliefs, even if it only included the Earth and the Sun. How's that coming along? I'm genuinely curious. For example, I'd love to see the Analemma recreated using a 3d model.

P.P.S. As another poster pointed out previously, the "strikethrough" tag is not working correctly. When the button is pressed in the editor window, you get this:

Code: Select all

[/clyp]Test[st]

Which is... wrong. Simply using the proper tags works, but that the wrong tags are inserted when the button is pressed is very odd. Here is the proper way to add a strikethrough:

Code: Select all

[st]Test[/st]

I am not sure how to fix this issue, but I will investigate and see what I can do.

[patrix]

Your turn, Patrix - has the concave Earth theory been - by logic or experiment - disproven in your eyes?

Don't know. But neither has the Moon is made of cheese theory. Thing is that it's important to form an hypothesis/theory out of some reasonable logic and then try to refute it by observations and experiments. We can conclude that the Moon and other planets are spherical and thus it is reasonable to hypothesize that the Earth is the same and that theory has not been disproven.

I fail to see the point of hypothesize about some other shape (flat, concave, donut etc) since that is not based on a reasonable assumption and also since a more reasonable hypothesis has already been laid forward (the bally one) a long time ago and it still stands.

Edit:
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/alumni/history/DMGPlumbLines.pdf

Are you seriously suggesting that this paper disproves a spherical Earth?

[SacredCowSlayer]

Thank you PianoRacer for that information about the “strike through” feature. If I’m not mistaken, that has been “buggy” in the past as well. And I never use it anyway, so it hasn’t really occurred to me.

In any event, if you’re able to fix it without going through too much trouble, that would be terrific.

And Patrix, thank you for your assistance to Simon working on the various aspects of the very important TYCHOS research. I’m excited to see how that develops.

Now, if it’s okay with you kind gentlemen, let’s please not get wrapped up in any side-show Derailing Room “debates” over earth shapes. PianoRacer properly characterized his own view as a belief. And he posted it here in the Derailing Room- NOT as a topic. So let’s just leave it that way.

I’m sure if I expressed my own beliefs about certain things here I would find instant challenges. But that isn’t what we are about.

There has been quite enough drama here the last few days.

I think I am all “full up” on it for now.

Again, thank you both. The collaborative work needs to continue, and we simply can’t afford unnecessary distractions with any kind of “infighting.” I trust you will both appreciate where I’m coming from.

My Warmest Regards to You Both,