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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.