REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

How to register at Cluesforum / General administrative topics / and things that every member must read
hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu May 26, 2016 6:14 pm

Larkness wrote:I can only take a camera into the shipyard with the command's permission, so there is no way I can obtain photos of an open submarine core. I don't risk execution, :) but I would certainly lose my security clearance and my job. There will be photos taken of the open core I'm sure, but they will be classified secret or above due to the nature of core design. I can probably answer some questions you may have in the appropriate thread.
Woah, woah, hotshot. Welcome, but I think we need to ask some questions about the nature of your visit before you start posting all around our forum. You most certainly understand that if people working for the military are coming here to "correct" our thinking, we have the right to ask them to appreciate that they have a career taking and following orders rather than always strictly using their own mind for their own thoughts. I mean no offense and I don't want to disparage that (hopefully consensual) relationship but if it weren't I expect you would not even be allowed to say it wasn't consensual.

Therefore, excuse me, but if you hope to basically comment on all the threads with stuff you claim to believe and yet you won't answer questions because it's not "following orders" to do so, what use do you have on our forum which strictly asks people to present scientific reasonings rather than simply trust in authority? If by the very nature of your civilian or conscripted role you must lie or refuse to answer questions, inquiries, etc. in order to protect military secrets, then our best hope of having you as a contact would be to ask you to send messages to your superiors rather than talk with you. If that's what you are offering, then we would ask you to send them questions about why they faked so many images of bombs and space adventures and terrorist-type folks.

Have you ever asked yourself who promotes your boss? And above them, who promotes them? And so on? Do you know where it stops? I mean, do you really know? Of course not.

For example, if we asked you if you came here under some kind of suggestion or order or implied service to your "country" (or whomever is claiming it's for America's best interests that you do so), and you were under order to not budge on various topics ... I know that you do not expect us to believe you would ignore that directive.

Seeing how you trust your authority with your very life (and even, as you say, put it in their hands) I am not so sure you have the mental capacity or frame of mind (again, not disparaging, just pointing out a difference you may have and share with many other colleagues and/or even what you may call your "superior" officers) — nor does it seem like a good idea at all — for you to come to the forum and specifically rephrase your training manuals to us.

This does not put us in a very good position with you from the start. I would also be greatly concerned for your well being, since we are people who demand that people answer things for themselves rather than drop links claiming to be authoritative. This would conflict with your orders to support the official narrative, and therefore it is best that we either renegotiate the relationship here in the 'Introduce Yourself' thread or you leave.

Larkness
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 3:54 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Larkness » Thu May 26, 2016 8:52 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Woah, woah, hotshot. Welcome, but I think we need to ask some questions about the nature of your visit before you start posting all around our forum.
I can do that.
hoi.polloi wrote:You most certainly understand that if people working for the military are coming here to "correct" our thinking,....
I'm not trying to correct anyone's thinking. I do however hope I'm allowed to disagree with anything anyone says on this forum as long as I do it in a respectful manner and in accordance with the rules.
hoi.polloi wrote:....we have the right to ask them to appreciate that they have a career taking and following orders rather than always strictly using their own mind for their own thoughts.
I'm not sure what kind of military experience you have, but here is how I was trained. I was trained to follow and give orders. Some of the orders I've given on duty were given to these who outranked me; they were still expected to follow them.

I have never been allowed to excuse improper actions by claiming "He ordered me to do it." This is especially frowned upon in the "Nuclear Navy". I was duty bound while in the Navy to disobey illegal orders and any other order which would put the ship or crew in peril. I was a technician and propulsion plant operator not a soldier. Forget whatever you have seen in the movies like Crimson Tide (worst sub movie ever) or anything involving the Army or Marines, life on a submarine is different.
hoi.polloi wrote: I mean no offense and I don't want to disparage that (hopefully consensual) relationship....

No offense taken.
hoi.polloi wrote:....but if it weren't I expect you would not even be allowed to say it wasn't consensual.
I was allowed to say anything to anyone other than what was revealed at classified briefings and the content of classified material. Trust me that whether or not anything I did was consensual was absolutely not classified. My relationship with the Navy was entirely consensual; I signed a contract and the Navy expected me to live up to the terms just as they lived up to every word on the contract they were required to.
hoi.polloi wrote: Therefore, excuse me, but if you hope to basically comment on all the threads with stuff you claim to believe
You can count on me doing that.
hoi.polloi wrote:.... and yet you won't answer questions because it's not "following orders" to do so,
My presence on this forum is not the result of following anyone's orders.
hoi.polloi wrote:what use do you have on our forum which strictly asks people to present scientific reasonings rather than simply trust in authority?
I will not ask you to trust my authority. There are certain things I will say that I've witnessed or done, surely this would be acceptable? Whether or not you believe me is up to you.
hoi.polloi wrote: If by the very nature of your civilian or conscripted role
I volunteered, conscription in the US military went out in the 1970's.
hoi.polloi wrote: you must lie
I will never lie on this forum.
hoi.polloi wrote:or refuse to answer questions, inquiries, etc. in order to protect military secrets,
Surely you would not have me divulge the classified specifications of a submarine such as speed, depth and weapons capabilities would you?
hoi.polloi wrote: then our best hope of having you as a contact would be to ask you to send messages to your superiors rather than talk with you.
I will not be sending messages to my superiors about what I can post on this forum as they will not tell me anything. I (and you) would have better luck contacting a public affairs officer instead.
hoi.polloi wrote:If that's what you are offering, then we would ask you to send them questions about why they faked so many images of bombs and space adventures and terrorist-type folks.
And what would that accomplish? I'm not naive enough to think that if they did indeed fake anything that they would tell me, a lowly retired Sailor who works at a shipyard with one of the lowest clearances available.
hoi.polloi wrote:Have you ever asked yourself who promotes your boss? And above them, who promotes them? And so on? Do you know where it stops? I mean, do you really know? Of course not.
I know who promoted everyone between myself and my division head. Other than that, I don't know.

Do you really know? Are you going to give me a name?
hoi.polloi wrote:For example, if we asked you if you came here under some kind of suggestion or order or implied service to your "country" (or whomever is claiming it's for America's best interests that you do so), and you were under order to not budge on various topics ...
I know you won't like my answer, but I have to laugh. My service to my country ended in 2003 when I retired from the Navy. But I do continue to be an American and will act in what I feel is America's best interests according to my own beliefs. I owe nothing to anyone other than my immediate family. If anyone tells me I have to do something contrary to my beliefs, then they will be told go F themselves
hoi.polloi wrote: I know that you do not expect us to believe you would ignore that directive.
I'm not subject to any more directives than you are. You are subject to zero directives yes?
hoi.polloi wrote:Seeing how you trust your authority with your very life (and even, as you say, put it in their hands)
Not so. I rarely trust anyone in the shipyard or US government with my life. I do however occasionally trust some of my co-workers with my life under certain circumstances. If you are familiar with working in an industrial environment then you will understand what I mean.
hoi.polloi wrote:I am not so sure you have the mental capacity or frame of mind (again, not disparaging,....
Very disparaging. Can I expect to be insulted by you in the future just because I claim to be a veteran?
hoi.polloi wrote: just pointing out a difference you may have and share with many other colleagues and/or even what you may call your "superior" officers)....
I'm a civilian, I have no superior officers.
hoi.polloi wrote: nor does it seem like a good idea at all — for you to come to the forum and specifically rephrase your training manuals to us.
I agree.
hoi.polloi wrote:This does not put us in a very good position with you from the start.
This would be entirely your doing right now as you bring much prejudice to the table right of the bat merely because I served in the military over a decade ago.
hoi.polloi wrote: I would also be greatly concerned for your well being,....
I'm entirely unconvinced that you are.
hoi.polloi wrote: since we are people who demand that people answer things for themselves rather than drop links claiming to be authoritative.
So what. I've yet to do that. Just because I supplied a few details of my background doesn't mean I'm using my past as an appeal to authority.
hoi.polloi wrote:This would conflict with your orders to support the official narrative,....
What orders do you imagine I have anyway? You are getting increasingly insulting.
hoi.polloi wrote: and therefore it is best that we either renegotiate the relationship here in the 'Introduce Yourself' thread or you leave.
I would prefer to be allowed to post as a member of this forum in accordance with the rules just like anyone else. You seem to have a problem with me already even though I've only posted in a few threads.

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6776
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by simonshack » Thu May 26, 2016 10:38 pm

Larkness wrote:I can only take a camera into the shipyard with the command's permission, so there is no way I can obtain photos of an open submarine core. I don't risk execution, :) but I would certainly lose my security clearance and my job. There will be photos taken of the open core I'm sure, but they will be classified secret or above due to the nature of core design. I can probably answer some questions you may have in the appropriate thread.
Dear Larkness, I'm honestly trying my best to believe in your honesty. Hope that doesn't sound too weird to you.

However, when I read sentences like this ...

"There will be photos taken of the open core I'm sure, but they will be classified secret or above due to the nature of core design."

...I just have to wonder: do you really believe in the stuff that you write? Are you honestly trying to make anyone in this world believe that some old 'technology' concocted [propagandized] back in the 40's / 50's would still be - in 2016 - some "classified secret"? You know, like something that "enemy powers / spy agencies" would be drooling to lay their hands upon, TODAY? Are the Russian / Chinese / Iranian / Korean scientists just too damn stoopid to be able to reproduce / copy /emulate that "super-secret" American, nooklear technology" - more than half-a-century later? Really??? Come on, now.

Do you live in some sort of "James Bond movie world", dear Larkness? If so, it is high time for you to grow up. I don't care if this sounds 'insulting' to you.

**********


THIS looks like a diesel engine, as far as I can tell - not any sort of "nuclear submarine plant" :
Image


And this, notwithstanding the military indoctrination which you've probably been submitted to - such as this laughable tripe we can read in this article :

"If you are concerned about radiation exposure, there are certain areas of the boat that limit the amount of time you can be in them, but the reality is, while on a nuclear submarine, because of all of the shielding and the water around you, radiation exposure is actually less than if you were standing on the beach watching the ocean."
http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones ... o-ssn-769/

So wait a minute, sailor: "nuclear radiation" is REAL and horribly lethal - yet a submarine can host a nuclear engine with a crew of 100 - without anyone getting sick? Duh.

Larkness
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 3:54 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Larkness » Thu May 26, 2016 11:21 pm

simonshack wrote:Dear Larkness, I'm honestly trying my best to believe in your honesty. Hope that doesn't sound too weird to you.
Why would you not believe me? Have you ever toured a nuclear power ship? Ever had a chance to learn how it is built and operated?
simonshack wrote:...I just have to wonder: do you really believe in the stuff that you write?
Yes I do. I'm not always right, but I only post what I believe to be the truth.
simonshack wrote: Are you honestly trying to make anyone in this world believe that some old 'technology' concocted [propagandized] back in the 40's / 50's would still be - in 2016 - some "classified secret"?
Ship reactor design has dramatically improved since the early 1950's when the S1W prototype was built out at the INEL in Idaho. We are able to build them lighter, stronger and with a higher fuel load for increased operations between refuelings. If the military sees no value in declassifying something, they will not do so.
simonshack wrote:You know, like something that "enemy powers / spy agencies" would be drooling to lay their hands upon?
I doubt anyone wants to get their hands on an S6G core layout, maybe they would like to have the S9G though.
simonshack wrote:Do you live in some sort of "James Bond movie world", dear Larkness? If so, it is high time for you to grow up.
You know James Bond is a fictional character created by Ian Fleming right? I am a rather down to Earth guy and have no delusions of grandeur. If you were honestly trying to believe me, then I don't think you would accuse me of living in a James Bond world
simonshack wrote:THIS is a diesel engine, as far as I can tell - not any sort of "nuclear submarine plant" :
Yes it is a diesel engine.
simonshack wrote:And this, notwithstanding the military indoctrination which you've probably been submitted to - such as this laughable tripe we can read in that article:
Call it what you want but I've been trained to supervise the operation of a nuclear propulsion plant on a submarine and know that the paragraph you quoted is accurate.
simonshack wrote:"If you are concerned about radiation exposure, there are certain areas of the boat that limit the amount of time you can be in them, but the reality is, while on a nuclear submarine, because of all of the shielding and the water around you, radiation exposure is actually less than if you were standing on the beach watching the ocean."
This is true based upon my own experiences. Certain parts of the ship near the secondary shield surrounding the reactor compartment have higher radiation levels which limit the amount of time a person can be in the area. The rest of the spaces including all of the forward compartment and most of the engine room can be occupied 24 hours a day without exceeding 500 millli-rem a year.

One of the radiacs we use on the submarine is a beta counting system. It is a Geiger-Mueller type of detector which is more sensitive to beta radiation but also readily detects gamma radiation. When I was stationed on my last three submarines we performed daily background checks to set up the system for the daily sample of the reactor coolant. When the reactor was operating at full power and submerged the background radiation level was significantly lower than when the reactor was shutdown and on the surface. This was due to the increased cosmic radiation present on the surface and the well shielded reactor compartment while it was critical operating submerged.

You don't have to take my word for it. There are ways to verify this independently of my say so.
simonshack wrote:So wait a minute: "nuclear radiation" is REAL and horribly lethal -
No it is not, provided the dose is not excessive. There are ways to shield and measure radiation, you just have to know how to do it.
simonshack wrote:yet a submarine can host a nuclear engine with a crew of 100 - without anyone getting sick?
Correct. A combination of water and diesel fuel (in tanks), lead, steel and poly is what is used to shield the crew. This is standard on most reactors in the West.

Why is this so hard to understand?

simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 6776
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by simonshack » Thu May 26, 2016 11:36 pm

Larkness wrote:
simonshack wrote:THIS is a diesel engine, as far as I can tell - not any sort of "nuclear submarine plant" :
Yes it is a diesel engine.
Well, in that case you should write to the author/photographer of that article and tell him not to write totally misleading captions underneath his pictures:

Here's a screencap from his article:

Image
http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones ... o-ssn-769/

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

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu May 26, 2016 11:56 pm

Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:You most certainly understand that if people working for the military are coming here to "correct" our thinking,....
I'm not trying to correct anyone's thinking. I do however hope I'm allowed to disagree with anything anyone says on this forum as long as I do it in a respectful manner and in accordance with the rules.
It would be nice if it seemed as though you were respectful, but our definitions of that may be different. I will try to read your words as though you are mustering respect for us. I would ask you to bear in mind that text is a pretty ineffectual way of both full human communication (compared with in person communication) or authenticating your story.

So this site focuses on deconstructing things. I hope you have understood that. How did you find out about us? What was the context of the discovery? Was it somebody saying, "Go to this site and look at these crazy people. Rattle them up." Or was it your own Internet search? What made you come to http://www.cluesforum.info? Do you have an "inbound link" for us?
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:....we have the right to ask them to appreciate that they have a career taking and following orders rather than always strictly using their own mind for their own thoughts.
I'm not sure what kind of military experience you have, but here is how I was trained. I was trained to follow and give orders. Some of the orders I've given on duty were given to these who outranked me; they were still expected to follow them.

I have never been allowed to excuse improper actions by claiming "He ordered me to do it." This is especially frowned upon in the "Nuclear Navy". I was duty bound while in the Navy to disobey illegal orders and any other order which would put the ship or crew in peril. I was a technician and propulsion plant operator not a soldier. Forget whatever you have seen in the movies like Crimson Tide (worst sub movie ever) or anything involving the Army or Marines, life on a submarine is different.
How would you define "improper actions"? Would it involve, for example, lying to the public and the world about the capabilities of technology, in order to do a number of things but explicitly, as a way to instill fear in the hearts of the world? Would it be wrong, for example, to lie about what took place on 9/11 which ended up being impetus for sending service members to kill people abroad, and/or sending them to their death to do so? Or would you consider that reasonable sacrifice for some greater purpose?

Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:....but if it weren't I expect you would not even be allowed to say it wasn't consensual.
I was allowed to say anything to anyone other than what was revealed at classified briefings and the content of classified material. Trust me that whether or not anything I did was consensual was absolutely not classified. My relationship with the Navy was entirely consensual; I signed a contract and the Navy expected me to live up to the terms just as they lived up to every word on the contract they were required to.


Are you allowed to discuss the nature of your treatment of classified materials? In other words, what extents you would be permitted/encouraged to go to protect classified information? Surely, it's common sense to assume lying is part of covering up information. What is the threshold, precisely, that splits your "open" personality from your "closed" one? Is it okay to explore that?
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:what use do you have on our forum which strictly asks people to present scientific reasonings rather than simply trust in authority?
I will not ask you to trust my authority. There are certain things I will say that I've witnessed or done, surely this would be acceptable? Whether or not you believe me is up to you.


Well, the problem is that our forum generally does not accept, and actively discourages people from accepting, a great deal of words that would be taken as "anecdotal evidence". So it's not so much about our comfort level with believing or disbelieving you; it's about your comfort level with your stories being thoroughly doubted, questioned, challenged and/or yourself being considered a victim of brainwashing. The reason we don't expect the same treatment from you is because pretty much everywhere else on the Internet, the dialogue is very much controlled — either by over eager moderators or trolls. But also often by agents, agitators or what we might presume is service personnel for some kind of agency or order or group. Are you familiar or unfamiliar with groups of military persons whose job it is to disrupt online dialogue?
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote: If by the very nature of your civilian or conscripted role
I volunteered, conscription in the US military went out in the 1970's.


But the nature of a military secret is that you cannot or should not talk about it in public. Pretty much ever. Until that secret is declassified, correct?
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote: you must lie
I will never lie on this forum.


Since we don't know if you already have, and hopefully you are understanding the depth of skepticism on this forum, we will just have to let that statement stand, however it is read by the membership.
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:or refuse to answer questions, inquiries, etc. in order to protect military secrets,
Surely you would not have me divulge the classified specifications of a submarine such as speed, depth and weapons capabilities would you?


If something is classified, you would probably be expected to lie about it all or avoid answering the question whenever possible. The questions I am sure on the minds of most readers is not what your enemies would really want: specifications and so forth. Those you have to keep secret. The more pertinent question to the forum would be what exactly "classified" even means in relation to the lies the television spews at the public on a daily basis.

Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote: then our best hope of having you as a contact would be to ask you to send messages to your superiors rather than talk with you.
I will not be sending messages to my superiors about what I can post on this forum as they will not tell me anything. I (and you) would have better luck contacting a public affairs officer instead.
That is, in fact, what we may have to do indeed. Can you elaborate on the role of the public affairs officer? Are they a sort of "public relations" manager? Is it someone we could send a complaint or question to about possible traitors within the U.S. military, who are lying to the American public? Is it a place we could express concern about military actions done on civilians?
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:If that's what you are offering, then we would ask you to send them questions about why they faked so many images of bombs and space adventures and terrorist-type folks.
And what would that accomplish? I'm not naive enough to think that if they did indeed fake anything that they would tell me, a lowly retired Sailor who works at a shipyard with one of the lowest clearances available.
"If" they faked something? Are you saying you believe that the U.S. military simply was fooled to broadcast computer generated propaganda without their knowledge until after the fact?
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:Have you ever asked yourself who promotes your boss? And above them, who promotes them? And so on? Do you know where it stops? I mean, do you really know? Of course not.
I know who promoted everyone between myself and my division head. Other than that, I don't know.

Do you really know? Are you going to give me a name?
The concern is that nobody knows. That's kind of a big problem if you suspect those people of immense levels of treachery against freedom and democracy.
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:For example, if we asked you if you came here under some kind of suggestion or order or implied service to your "country" (or whomever is claiming it's for America's best interests that you do so), and you were under order to not budge on various topics ...
I know you won't like my answer, but I have to laugh. My service to my country ended in 2003 when I retired from the Navy. But I do continue to be an American and will act in what I feel is America's best interests according to my own beliefs. I owe nothing to anyone other than my immediate family. If anyone tells me I have to do something contrary to my beliefs, then they will be told go F themselves
An honorable position, for sure.
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote: I know that you do not expect us to believe you would ignore that directive.
I'm not subject to any more directives than you are. You are subject to zero directives yes?
I am subject to zero directives, except those of the various females around me and even those I ignore when it goes against my character, for better or worse. In all seriousness, I have never received any kind of order or directive from any kind of military body and I am not part of any fraternal group or order or anything. I am proudly interdependent with my community of honest, good, hard-working, innocent people who would not propagandize their sisters, brothers and/or fellow countrywomen and countrymen.

You are subject to the military "classified" orders (retired as you may be) that I am not subject to because I actually don't know anything "classified", nor have I ever, as far as I know. So we are different in that respect, and it may be an important one.
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:Seeing how you trust your authority with your very life (and even, as you say, put it in their hands)
Not so. I rarely trust anyone in the shipyard or US government with my life. I do however occasionally trust some of my co-workers with my life under certain circumstances. If you are familiar with working in an industrial environment then you will understand what I mean.
Well, fearing court martial because of the papers you signed, or execution or some other punishment for treachery, I would understand your situation to be a little different from mine. I never signed any contract that gave me permission to take the life of another person, nor any document that permits someone else to take my life because of something I said.
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:I am not so sure you have the mental capacity or frame of mind (again, not disparaging,....
Very disparaging. Can I expect to be insulted by you in the future just because I claim to be a veteran?
Please understand that I really really mean no harm or insult. As much as you stand by your statement that you will not lie — and actually more, if you can consider that possible — I stand by my statement that I respect and cherish life, in all its variety, and human life in particular because I love the human race. No insult is meant when I say that it's important for you to bear in mind that our way of thinking about things may be extremely different from yours, even if we both love life and wish to protect it from harm.

I don't know what the word "veteran" means to you, so I cannot claim it has to do with signing a contract that gives you permission to harm and kill others, to save lives, which you accepted as a legitimate contract. But we are all propagandized, we all have mental weaknesses, we all have been lied to. The extent to which the lies or disinformation you truly strongly believe conflicts with our own cannot be helped by anyone — especially not those of us in the discussions. I have a conviction and belief, call it crazy, that most intelligent people can see there is truth to the facts of TV fakery. There is just a spectrum of how much people are willing to accept it takes place. We are here in this established little cyber hub to inform people as much as they want to know about it. Hopefully you can help us uncover more. If you wish to fight the entire purpose of the forum, however, you will not be compatible with the forum. We have banned many people, for smaller reasons, and it's not fun to do so because we always have to suffer the risk that they take it personally.
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote: just pointing out a difference you may have and share with many other colleagues and/or even what you may call your "superior" officers)....
I'm a civilian, I have no superior officers.
How can you say that if you have ever learned "classified" information? Explain, please, better language we can use to describe the problem that a free civilian man cannot speak freely about any subject.

Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:This does not put us in a very good position with you from the start.
This would be entirely your doing right now as you bring much prejudice to the table right of the bat merely because I served in the military over a decade ago.
Please try to understand that this is not about any sort of personal prejudice against you (how could we have that, since we don't even know you and this forum is not a place to gushingly elaborate anecdotes without subject to analysis or questioning?) but about the purpose of the forum. If you are banned, it is not a personal attack against you. And it's not against anything you care about, unless you hate free speech or some aspect about it you are not at liberty to explain, in which case — again — you should really understand we are peace loving folks here that just wish to talk openly about the world we live in and how it works. The hope is that we might create a world where the traitors and brainwashers are safely, peacefully removed from power without bloodshed.

Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote: I would also be greatly concerned for your well being,....
I'm entirely unconvinced that you are.
It's not my job to convince you I am a caring person, so you would just have to take my word for it. Presently, you may be in the frame of mind that I have an unfair prejudice against you. It's my understanding that I do not, but I am using informed, experienced discrimination to vet new members.
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote: since we are people who demand that people answer things for themselves rather than drop links claiming to be authoritative.
So what. I've yet to do that. Just because I supplied a few details of my background doesn't mean I'm using my past as an appeal to authority.
I was referring to you dropping links to NASA, which seemed to be your attempt at serving as your explanation for a phenomenon rather than specifically addressing and answering in your own words the questions we have posed about said phenomena (or lack thereof in the case of unproven principles NASA claims to use to support their bogus launch videos).
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:This would conflict with your orders to support the official narrative,....
What orders do you imagine I have anyway? You are getting increasingly insulting.
I don't mean any insult at all. I am asking someone apparently older than myself to observe respect you normally reserve for perhaps someone older than you. Hear me, because I have been looking at the problem of people — not just any people but officials and keepers of the public's greatest trust supposedly serving us — lying to our faces. I have been looking at this and the plain evidence for it, for almost 10 years now.

If you have come away from intense experiences which have set in your mind the way things are because a court martial is over your head, and you don't realize it, or because you trusted people that gave you faulty information, you are still holding that faulty information in your head after decades of being "out" of that service.
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote: and therefore it is best that we either renegotiate the relationship here in the 'Introduce Yourself' thread or you leave.
I would prefer to be allowed to post as a member of this forum in accordance with the rules just like anyone else. You seem to have a problem with me already even though I've only posted in a few threads.
Well, yes. But it's not really "you" — remember. The problem we have is the manner in which your arguments may be formed (or pre-formed) by the training you received.

Let us be patient with each other, especially those with different views, and let us try to avoid inflammatory language, but also let us be mature and reasonable about this situation if any party occasionally tries to use honest, earnest humor to make a point.

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

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri May 27, 2016 12:15 am

Also, since you did mention the rules of the forum, I do assume you also read this portion:
Lastly, let this be clear: if you decide to join this forum, please make sure that you have a firm grasp of your topics of interest, that you read what has already been posted on the topic ...
- http://cluesforum.info/ucp.php?mode=register

This means that we expect you to show understanding rather than demanding people immediately take your position once you say that you've explained it adequately.

When you write things like, "Why is [new information] so hard to understand?!" it comes across as slightly derogatory language, after we've suffered the abuse of such propagandists as NASA and the "news" stations seen in our top banner.

Larkness
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 3:54 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Larkness » Fri May 27, 2016 4:07 am

hoi.polloi wrote:It would be nice if it seemed as though you were respectful, but our definitions of that may be different. I will try to read your words as though you are mustering respect for us. I would ask you to bear in mind that text is a pretty ineffectual way of both full human communication (compared with in person communication) or authenticating your story.

A rational person should just assume that the person they're exchanging text messages with on a forum is respectful enough, until they have it very plain they are not. So far it obvious to the most casual observer that I'm not getting any from you.

I'm not getting it from simonshack either. He (she?) acts like everything he says is correct (no evidence needed) and those who question him are just plain wrong.
hoi.polloi wrote:So this site focuses on deconstructing things. I hope you have understood that.
So far it seems that the site assumes everything is a hoax, then looks for evidence to support their conclusion instead of the other way around.
hoi.polloi wrote:How did you find out about us? What was the context of the discovery? Was it somebody saying, "Go to this site and look at these crazy people.

That's it
hoi.polloi wrote:Rattle them up.
I never received any encouragement to post here, rather it was to avoid the forum as "they were too happy to use the ban hammer on anyone who did not toe their line"; or so I was told.

Several minutes of looking at the membership page tells me that the top four posters make more than half the posts on the forum and 90% of the posts are from the top 12 contributors. This place appears to be somewhat lonely. Of course it is a thriving community compared to the Loose Change Forum. They've have only a few posts per month there now. They banned nearly everyone who wasn't shouting "9/11 was an inside job. Now the couple of mods left was the only ones willing to talk to each other. :)
hoi.polloi wrote:Or was it your own Internet search? What made you come to http://www.cluesforum.info? Do you have an "inbound link" for us?
Nope.
hoi.polloi wrote:How would you define "improper actions"? Would it involve, for example, lying to the public and the world about the capabilities of technology, in order to do a number of things but explicitly, as a way to instill fear in the hearts of the world?
That would be wrong. However I've never been asked to lie about the capabilities of the technology I've used. I do keep quiet about many of the capabilities of the Naval fleet of course.
hoi.polloi wrote: Would it be wrong, for example, to lie about what took place on 9/11 which ended up being impetus for sending service members to kill people abroad, and/or sending them to their death to do so? Or would you consider that reasonable sacrifice for some greater purpose?
Yes it would be wrong to lie about that.
hoi.polloi wrote:Are you allowed to discuss the nature of your treatment of classified materials? In other words, what extents you would be permitted/encouraged to go to protect classified information?
I merely avoid talking about classified information. For example I would never confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons on any of the ships I was stationed on.
hoi.polloi wrote: Surely, it's common sense to assume lying is part of covering up information.
If that works for you, fine.
hoi.polloi wrote: What is the threshold, precisely, that splits your "open" personality from your "closed" one? Is it okay to explore that?
You need to be more specific. Don't go looking for any details on classified information from me.
hoi.polloi wrote:Well, the problem is that our forum generally does not accept, and actively discourages people from accepting, a great deal of words that would be taken as "anecdotal evidence".
That's about all I'm seeing from simonshack. I answer his questions, he has yet to directly answer any of mine. All of his stuff on rocketry is overly simplistic explanations without a shred of evidence or experimentation to back them up.
hoi.polloi wrote:So it's not so much about our comfort level with believing or disbelieving you; it's about your comfort level with your stories being thoroughly doubted, questioned, challenged and/or yourself being considered a victim of brainwashing.
Now you're jut being insulting again. You really think I was brainwashed?
hoi.polloi wrote:The reason we don't expect the same treatment from you is because pretty much everywhere else on the Internet, the dialogue is very much controlled — either by over eager moderators or trolls.
It remains to be seen if I'll be allowed to keep posting here.
hoi.polloi wrote: But also often by agents, agitators or what we might presume is service personnel for some kind of agency or order or group. Are you familiar or unfamiliar with groups of military persons whose job it is to disrupt online dialogue?
I've yet to meet a single one. Where are you seeing them?

Of course I've been accused of being a shill for many reasons. For being an atheist, a christian, promoting gun control, promoting gun ownership, for being a jew lover, for being racist, for not promoting the white race and other bizarre reasons. It's a big internet out there.
hoi.polloi wrote:But the nature of a military secret is that you cannot or should not talk about it in public. Pretty much ever. Until that secret is declassified, correct?
Correct.
hoi.polloi wrote:Since we don't know if you already have, and hopefully you are understanding the depth of skepticism on this forum, we will just have to let that statement stand, however it is read by the membership.
That goes for you also?
hoi.polloi wrote:If something is classified, you would probably be expected to lie about it all or avoid answering the question whenever possible.
I've never been ordered to lie about anything. I'm not an agent or a spy or other crap like that. I was just a technician on a submarine who had a secret clearance so I could know the operating schedule of the boat. Most of the stuff I handled was confidential or official use only.
hoi.polloi wrote:The more pertinent question to the forum would be what exactly "classified" even means in relation to the lies the television spews at the public on a daily basis.
Then I'm definitely not the guy to go to just because I'm former military. Just what information do you think I was privy to in the Navy that would give me special insight on whether or not the media was lying? Since it was so rare to see anything about the Navy in the mass media, I don't ever recall having to decide if they were lying or not.
hoi.polloi wrote:That is, in fact, what we may have to do indeed. Can you elaborate on the role of the public affairs officer? Are they a sort of "public relations" manager? Is it someone we could send a complaint or question to about possible traitors within the U.S. military, who are lying to the American public? Is it a place we could express concern about military actions done on civilians?
You can ask them anything you want. They probably will say they don't know, tell you what they're authorized to say, or refer you to someone else. http://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrnw/ ... ctory.html The phone number is (360) 627-4046/4031/4030 How is it that you do not know to simply call a military public affairs officer?
hoi.polloi wrote:"If" they faked something? Are you saying you believe that the U.S. military simply was fooled to broadcast computer generated propaganda without their knowledge until after the fact?
Such as?
hoi.polloi wrote:The concern is that nobody knows. That's kind of a big problem if you suspect those people of immense levels of treachery against freedom and democracy.
Then what are you doing to find out?
hoi.polloi wrote: I am proudly interdependent with my community of honest, good, hard-working, innocent people who would not propagandize their sisters, brothers and/or fellow countrywomen and countrymen.
What kind of education do you have? Ever left the city/town you were born in? Where do you live?
hoi.polloi wrote:You are subject to the military "classified" orders (retired as you may be) that I am not subject to because I actually don't know anything "classified", nor have I ever, as far as I know. So we are different in that respect, and it may be an important one.
Were, not anymore.
hoi.polloi wrote:Well, fearing court martial because of the papers you signed, or execution or some other punishment for treachery, I would understand your situation to be a little different from mine.
Now you're fantasizing. I've never ever had to fear a court martial while in the military. I think you've watched too much TV.
hoi.polloi wrote:I never signed any contract that gave me permission to take the life of another person,
Neither have I.
hoi.polloi wrote:nor any document that permits someone else to take my life because of something I said.
Depending on where you live, you don't need to sign a document to be subject to the death penalty. I was no more liable to be executed just because I was in the military. The Navy doesn't work that way; they haven't executed anyone for over 150 years. The military on death row now are all convicted rapists and murders.
hoi.polloi wrote: Please understand that I really really mean no harm or insult.
Looked like a blatant insult to me. I don't see an apology anywhere in your post.
hoi.polloi wrote:How can you say that if you have ever learned "classified" information? Explain, please, better language we can use to describe the problem that a free civilian man cannot speak freely about any subject.
I presently have no superior officer appointed over me as I did in the military. I've not been subject to military orders for over 13 years. I merely have a civilian supervisor now. I speak about anything I damn well please. I choose not to speak of secrets I learned in the military.
hoi.polloi wrote:I was referring to you dropping links to NASA, which seemed to be your attempt at serving as your explanation for a phenomenon rather than specifically addressing and answering in your own words the questions we have posed about said phenomena (or lack thereof in the case of unproven principles NASA claims to use to support their bogus launch videos).
So when simonshack says that NASA makes a bogus claim, I'm supposed to use some other source of information to show that he is wrong? That sounds like a very strange thing to request of me.
hoi.polloi wrote:I don't mean any insult at all. I am asking someone apparently older than myself to observe respect you normally reserve for perhaps someone older than you. Hear me, because I have been looking at the problem of people — not just any people but officials and keepers of the public's greatest trust supposedly serving us — lying to our faces. I have been looking at this and the plain evidence for it, for almost 10 years now.
How old are you? Do you have any education past high school?
hoi.polloi wrote:If you have come away from intense experiences which have set in your mind the way things are because a court martial is over your head, and you don't realize it, or because you trusted people that gave you faulty information, you are still holding that faulty information in your head after decades of being "out" of that service.
Really?! A court martial over my head? I don't realize it? Where is this crap coming from? I'm certain you don't want me treating you like crap, why am I continuing to get it from you? Where are you getting your information on the US Navy from? I'd like to know so I can meet this person and tell them to stop trying to make other people look like chumps.

Exactly what faulty information do you think I got from the Navy. Please be precise.
hoi.polloi wrote:Well, yes. But it's not really "you" — remember. The problem we have is the manner in which your arguments may be formed (or pre-formed) by the training you received.
I prefer that you judge my arguments by the content of the argument. Sounds fair and simple right?
hoi.polloi wrote:let us try to avoid inflammatory language,
Good advice, I hope you decide to follow it the next time a new member arrives at the forum who doesn't think exactly the same way you do.

Seneca
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Seneca » Fri May 27, 2016 6:43 am

Larkness wrote: Several minutes of looking at the membership page tells me that the top four posters make more than half the posts on the forum and 90% of the posts are from the top 12 contributors. This place appears to be somewhat lonely. Of course it is a thriving community compared to the Loose Change Forum. They've have only a few posts per month there now. They banned nearly everyone who wasn't shouting "9/11 was an inside job. Now the couple of mods left was the only ones willing to talk to each other. :)
This seemed to be the only verifiable claim he is making. So I checked it out using the same information. His numbers are all wrong.

Based on my calculations:
more than half the posts are from the top 14 contributors (not top 4!)
90% from the posts are from the top 155 contributors (not top 12!)

624 members posted more than once.
350 members posted at least 10 times

I didn't read everything he wrote. I find him very disrespectful.


Edit:
These numbers still give a bit of a misleading picture of the diversity of the participation on this forum. They don't take in account the fact that a newer member can participate more frequently than an older member. So I divided the number of posts by the amount of days that an account is active on the forum. Then the numbers (14 and 155) get even bigger.

@Prescient
Your post reminded me that some of the reasons why a lot of members are not posting more often is because so much has already been posted and because of the high standards.
Last edited by Seneca on Fri May 27, 2016 9:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

Prescient
Member
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2016 11:45 am

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Prescient » Fri May 27, 2016 7:49 am

Larkness

As one new member to another could I ask

a) How much time have you read/lurked here before joining?

There are thousands upon thousands of hours of research here covering many different topics.
I lurked for many years before joining, after researching, validating and satisfying things for myself.

b) Is there any parts of the research here you actually agree on?

This might help with establishing a rapport with other members who have spent thousands of hours working through the maze of lies that are presented as facts. They have also had to waste time with numerous trolls too who have only come here to disrupt and distract.

So - again - what do you actually agree with here?

Larkness
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 3:54 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Larkness » Fri May 27, 2016 1:19 pm

Seneca wrote:This seemed to be the only verifiable claim he is making. So I checked it out using the same information. His numbers are all wrong.

Based on my calculations:
more than half the posts are from the top 14 contributors (not top 4!)
90% from the posts are from the top 155 contributors (not top 12!)

624 members posted more than once.
350 members posted at least 10 times

I didn't read everything he wrote. I find him very disrespectful.


Edit:
These numbers still give a bit of a misleading picture of the diversity of the participation on this forum. They don't take in account the fact that a newer member can participate more frequently than an older member. So I divided the number of posts by the amount of days that an account is active on the forum. Then the numbers (14 and 155) get even bigger.

@Prescient
Your post reminded me that some of the reasons why a lot of members are not posting more often is because so much has already been posted and because of the high standards.
Here are my numbers. I got them from http://www.cluesforum.info/memberlist.php the board's own list and data.

1508 members.
726 members with no posts
simonshack 6144 posts
Administratorhoi.polloi 4344 posts
Memberbrianv 3639 posts
Administratornonhocapito 2289 posts
For a total of 16416 posts out of a total of 28294 posts as of yesterday. I copied and pasted the numbers to a spread sheet to make them easier to add up.

So which numbers do you disagree with? Show me your calculations?

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by brianv » Fri May 27, 2016 1:21 pm

Larkness wrote:I can only take a camera into the shipyard with the command's permission, so there is no way I can obtain photos of an open submarine core. I don't risk execution, :) but I would certainly lose my security clearance and my job. There will be photos taken of the open core I'm sure, but they will be classified secret or above due to the nature of core design. I can probably answer some questions you may have in the appropriate thread.
Haven't you compromised yourself and your work colleagues by joining "Cluesforum" in that case? Seriously, how many ex-military/civilian contractors are decommissioning old nuclear subs at Puget? Unless of course...

Larkness
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 3:54 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Larkness » Fri May 27, 2016 1:23 pm

Prescient wrote:Larkness

As one new member to another could I ask

a) How much time have you read/lurked here before joining?

There are thousands upon thousands of hours of research here covering many different topics.
I lurked for many years before joining, after researching, validating and satisfying things for myself.

b) Is there any parts of the research here you actually agree on?

This might help with establishing a rapport with other members who have spent thousands of hours working through the maze of lies that are presented as facts. They have also had to waste time with numerous trolls too who have only come here to disrupt and distract.

So - again - what do you actually agree with here?
I stopped by from time to time over the years. I've yet to see anything I agree with here except that sometimes people do bad things. No one, especially simonshack has saw fit to address the questions I've had. It was suggested that I was brainwashed only after making a few posts and zero claims. This claim was not made by a newbie but a main contributor who seems to be setting the tone for the board. That tone would be that anyone who is out of step with their conclusions is worthless.

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

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri May 27, 2016 1:23 pm

Larkness wrote:
Prescient wrote:Larkness

As one new member to another could I ask

a) How much time have you read/lurked here before joining?

There are thousands upon thousands of hours of research here covering many different topics.
I lurked for many years before joining, after researching, validating and satisfying things for myself.

b) Is there any parts of the research here you actually agree on?

This might help with establishing a rapport with other members who have spent thousands of hours working through the maze of lies that are presented as facts. They have also had to waste time with numerous trolls too who have only come here to disrupt and distract.

So - again - what do you actually agree with here?
I stopped by from time to time over the years. I've yet to see anything I agree with here except that sometimes people do bad things. No one, especially simonshack has saw fit to address the questions I've had. It was suggested that I was brainwashed only after making a few posts and zero claims. This claim was not made by a newbie but a main contributor who seems to be setting the tone for the board. That tone would be that anyone who is out of step with their conclusions is worthless.
So that is really your story about what's going on, after all I have written asking you to not take insult with my words and to try to call for understanding between us?

Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote: How did you find out about us? What was the context of the discovery? Was it somebody saying, "Go to this site and look at these crazy people.
That's it
If that's the nature of your coming here, I think you should consider the fact that someone may have biased you against the forum before you even came here.
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:What is the threshold, precisely, that splits your "open" personality from your "closed" one? Is it okay to explore that?
You need to be more specific. Don't go looking for any details on classified information from me.
I don't have interest in trying to pry military secrets out of you. I just want readers to recognize the difficult position you seem to framing for us.

You seem to be calling the site an amusing sideshow of self-congratulating people but claim to want a mutually respectful relationship. Yet, if you read the forum rules, you should realize that the points being made in any given thread, even if they were all made by a single person, are relevant to the topic you are posting about. So how many members contribute to an interesting subject is not an excuse to ignore that subject. There is a lot of material here, which we largely have to moderate because of people coming here with an attitude like: "I am about to go to a crazy town and I have to show them how they are wrong," often before actually familiarizing themselves with the material. That's not the attitude of an open-minded individual. The "ban hammer" indeed can fall heavy on those folks. It is sad how many people in this world can be so willing to swallow propaganda, but this behavior somewhat explains it.
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote:Well, the problem is that our forum generally does not accept, and actively discourages people from accepting, a great deal of words that would be taken as "anecdotal evidence".
That's about all I'm seeing from simonshack. I answer his questions, he has yet to directly answer any of mine. All of his stuff on rocketry is overly simplistic explanations without a shred of evidence or experimentation to back them up.
If I say I disagree but respect your opinion, is that "disrespectful" to you? If I ask you to try to read his words more carefully and with good humor, and to try to see what he's doing, more specifically, could you do that? Could you show me a couple posts in a row that demonstrate he doesn't ever present evidence?

As for being asked to experiment, that's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Saying you simply trust experiments others have done only works when there is no challenge to the claimed result. Denying the challenges does not make them go away.
Larkness wrote:
hoi.polloi wrote: So it's not so much about our comfort level with believing or disbelieving you; it's about your comfort level with your stories being thoroughly doubted, questioned, challenged and/or yourself being considered a victim of brainwashing.
Now you're jut being insulting again. You really think I was brainwashed?
I have not "returned" to being insulting. You are still reading my words as some kind of evil figure you are pre-set to dislike.

My point, whether you like it or not, is that we have all been brainwashed by various things in our lives: errant education, television, and yes sometimes even training. We try to encourage people to be independent critical thinkers.

Larkness
Banned
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 24, 2016 3:54 pm

Re: REQUIRED: Introduce Yourself

Unread post by Larkness » Fri May 27, 2016 1:25 pm

brianv wrote:Haven't you compromised yourself and your work colleagues by joining "Cluesforum" in that case? Seriously, how many ex-military/civilian contractors are decommissioning old nuclear subs at Puget? Unless of course...
Not at all, why would you even suggest that? There are lots of ex-Navy working at Puget recycling and overhauling subs and carriers. Several thousand I was guess, the rest are mostly non veterans from the local area.

Unless of course what? Getting answers here is like pulling teeth, why is this?

Post Reply