THE "CHATBOX"

[Rudy Algera]

.

[Maat]

Rudy! 4 year old 'conspiracy candy' promoted by gatekeeper fear-monger Alex Jones and media mega-shill Jesse Ventura?

[brianv]

Rudy! 4 year old 'conspiracy candy' promoted by gatekeeper fear-monger Alex Jones and media mega-shill Jesse Ventura?

Thats why he's here! Make that at least 8 years Maat!

[fbenario]

Yesterday I said:

For how much longer do we tolerate mass murder [of our time and forum]?

It's banning time again, y'all.

Extra credit to anyone who catches the music allusion in my first 9 words here without googling it.

No one took a guess! I thought Brian v and Simon would recognize it immediately.

From Wiki:

For How Much Longer Do We Tolerate Mass Murder? was released on the Rough Trade label in 1980 by UK post-punk band The Pop Group.

Most folks have never heard anything by The Pop Group. Here is a recent cover of their best song, and in my view is the best performance ever on TV. Enjoy!


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JySQE4axlJY

[reel.deal]

.

[Heiwa]

We know much more about ... space travel in general thanks to the Apollo missions.

So the question what Energy (J) to stop a space craft with mass m (kg) travelling at velocity v (m/s) in space should by now be known to be mv²/2 (kg m²/s² or J or Nm) and if the stopping distance sd (m) is known, it is easy to calculate the stopping Force sF (N) = Energy/sd.
And how to create a stopping Force in space? What does NASA say?

[sentientlinergy]

The chemtrails topic is still blocked!
check this vídeo
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPo6BJYlh_c

[Maat]

The chemtrails topic is still blocked!
check this vídeo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPo6BJYlh_c

It was locked for good reason, as we can see! So what is color-manipulated imagery of weather patterns supposed to be 'evidence' of exactly?

Maybe a little more research might help e.g. http://contrailscience.com/

[fbenario]

[No, I obviously don't need to be reminded that Salon, like all controlled media, is a perp-site.]

After reading this, all new members will understand why even listening to TV/radio news, much less believing a single thing you [think you] learn, is ludicrous, and unworthy of your time:

Here’s what is most interesting to me about all of this. This episode will undoubtedly be used to claim — yet again — that the Internet cannot be trusted, that it is prone to circulating myths and rumors, and that we need traditional journalistic institutions to verify facts and confirm the truth.

I think this proves exactly the opposite. The first known Internet mention anywhere of this well-crafted fake column appeared very late Saturday night. By early Sunday morning — less than 12 hours later — it was exposed as a hoax. That happened by virtue of all of the strengths which the Internet uniquely offers, and which traditional journalism precludes: collective analysis, using one’s readers (tens of thousands of people, if not more) to help with research and investigation, instant and mass collaboration with other journalists and experts, an open and transparent analytical and investigative process.

That’s why errors and frauds have a very short life-span on the Internet. The power to tap into collective knowledge and research is so much more potent than being confined to a single journalistic outlet. The ability to have one’s work take the form of a mass dialogue, rather than a stagnant monologue, is incredibly valuable. It is true that the Internet can be used to disseminate falsehoods quickly, but it just as quickly roots them out and exposes them in a way that the traditional model of journalism and its closed, insular, one-way form of communication could never do.
...
This collaborative model enabled by the Internet strengthens every aspect of journalism and, as today’s episode shows, obliterates errors quickly and definitively.

For anyone who still believes that traditional journalism is inherently more reliable than the Internet, just follow the excellent suggestion this morning from Alexa O’Brien: just compare the duration and seriousness of the frauds and fakes enabled by the model of traditional journalism. Long before the Internet — in 1938 — a dramatized radio broadcast by Orson Wells (“The War of the Worlds”) of Martians landing on Earth spawned mass panic. More recently, consider the fraud of Iraqi WMDs and the Saddam-Al Qaeda alliance propagated by the nation’s leading traditional media outlets, or the fraudulent story they perpetrated of how grateful Iraqis spontaneously pulled down the Saddam statute, or the fraudulent tales they told of Jessica Lynch engaging in a heroic firefight with menacing Iraqis and Pat Tillman standing up to Al Qaeda fighters before they gunned him down. And that’s to say nothing of the Jayson-Blair-type of rouge, outright fabrications.

Those frauds were vastly more harmful than anything the Internet has produced. And they took far longer to expose. That’s because they were disseminated by stagnant, impenetrable media outlets which believe only in talking to themselves and trusting only government sources. Nobody can get away with that on the Internet. The voices are far more diversified, the scrutiny is far more rigorous, the feedback is much more rapid, and the process is much more democratized. Yes, the Internet enabled a fake Bill Keller column to fool some people for a few hours, but — through the work of anonymous, uncredentialed people — it also immediately exposed the hoax, documented how it happened, and drew rapid lessons from it. The prime lesson is not that Internet journalism is more prone to errors; it’s that it is far more adept and agile at detecting and banishing them."

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/29/the_cur ... _internet/

[Maat]

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzrI15uw92k

[whatsgoingon]

a

[fbenario]

the new cover is the "free internet" were many actors and cheap cell phone videos are going to be used to make real the latest fake news.

That is way too narrow a viewpoint. You, of all people, already know the internet gave us the means to reach all of our - and thus all of the forum's - conclusions, and to 'meet' each other. As a result, I would suggest the internet is the necessary tool needed to educate the masses about fakery.

[whatsgoingon]

a

[sentientlinergy]

The chemtrails topic is still blocked!
check this vídeo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPo6BJYlh_c

It was locked for good reason, as we can see! So what is color-manipulated imagery of weather patterns supposed to be 'evidence' of exactly?

Maybe a little more research might help e.g. http://contrailscience.com/

The smaler images are here http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MSG/RGB/EVIEW/ The white is the dry aerosols, and after falling in the air and absorbing the humidity they become yellow. The second image is the "natural color" http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MS ... TURALCOLOR , they are suposed to be natural, and eumetsat claims the cyan are ice particles, but it is now easy to understand that they are dry aerosols.
The background image is the precipitation estimative http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MS ... /index.htm , acording to the images rain is now scientificaly created by planes ! Unfortunately most times the cyan hides extrem aerosol dumps.

If you are still in doubt after reflecting, here you have 10 years of chemtrail operations seen by the two modis satellites. http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/?calendar

[Maat]

The chemtrails topic is still blocked!
check this vídeo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPo6BJYlh_c

It was locked for good reason, as we can see! So what is color-manipulated imagery of weather patterns supposed to be 'evidence' of exactly?

Maybe a little more research might help e.g. http://contrailscience.com/

The smaler images are here http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MSG/RGB/EVIEW/ The white is the dry aerosols, and after falling in the air and absorbing the humidity they become yellow. The second image is the "natural color" http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MS ... TURALCOLOR , they are suposed to be natural, and eumetsat claims the cyan are ice particles, but it is now easy to understand that they are dry aerosols.
The background image is the precipitation estimative http://oiswww.eumetsat.org/IPPS/html/MS ... /index.htm , acording to the images rain is now scientificaly created by planes ! Unfortunately most times the cyan hides extrem aerosol dumps.

If you are still in doubt after reflecting, here you have 10 years of chemtrail operations seen by the two modis satellites. http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/?calendar

Again, how is any of that enhanced imagery supposed to be 'evidence' of "aerosol dumps", of what and according to whom? Did you ever bother to research the origins of the "Chemtrails theory" or even look at that site link I posted?

Who came up with the theory of chemtrails?

The theory grew online around 1997 out of concerns regarding pollution from jet fuel additives. It’s not clear if one person started it, but some of the early names mentioned are Larry Wayne Harris, Richard Finke, John Grace, and Bill Brumbaugh. It has been greatly promoted by William Thomas, Art Bell and Jeff Rense.

(The fact that MSM has hyped it with misinformation to keep it alive should be a clue too)

See also, "Flight Lines: Why contrails hang around" Air & Space magazine, July 2007