THE "CHATBOX"

[Critical Mass]

What we are dealing with...

I thought you guys might like to read this thread (started &, I think, closed yesterday... unsure on that last part though the 'thread' appears to have been archived).

The whole thread is a horror to read but perhaps the worst post is this...


I'm curious, OP. How do you explain nuclear shadows?




Shocking really... we, on Cluesforum, have a long way to go... hope you're all up for the challenge!

[Critical Mass]

I've decided to try & do a bit of 'smj' style research into the people allegedly behind these 'achievements' of our ancestors.

As will, I suspect, become increasingly common from me from now on I must give a hat tip to Alex Wellerstein's (aka 'The Nuclear Historian') twitter account.

His most recent post about a 1959 advert... "It's a Pushbutton World...the touch of authority in the hand of man"



...led me to here.

There I saw this...



... which immediately begs the question "wtf is a Dr. john Barnes?"

Here's the answer along with one of those 'infectious traits'' anyone familiar with the vicsims will notice...

His enthusiasm about his acquisitions was infectious and delightful. His inquiring and analytical mind made the reports of his and Mabel's journeys both intriguing and exciting to his faculty club luncheon peers, whether they were lawyers, physicists, chemists, engineers, or medical doctors.

Further use of my google-fu netted this...

"Before a large manned spaceship tries to land on the moon, said Dr. John Barnes of UCLA, it might be a good idea to test the treacherous surface from a safe distance. A nuclear bomb exploded on the moon would tell a good deal, but its radioactivity would contaminate the virgin surface..." TIME, "How Far the Moon?", May 12, 1958

I'm still unsure what all this means (I'm no smj) but I suspect it maybe a useful lead for other Cluesforum contributors to help chase up.

[bostonterrierowner]

The most suitable place for this absurd story is "theatre of absurd" thread but it has been recently engaged by Sidney psyop so I decided to put in "Chatbox".

The perps are pushing the limits of how much outright idiocy can be embedded into "the news" without the sheeple getting suspicious. If the latest "North Korean hacking" bullshit didn't ring some bells in the masses' heads I don't know what will.

North Korean hackers attacked SONY pictures to stop it from publishing its latest motion picture about killing the country's dictator

from zerohedge:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-1 ... -statement

I wonder if the hidden agenda behind all this is to prepare the avereage "Joe" for some hacking incident in the future having something to do with eg. personal finances ...

[MrSinclair]

A new story to keep the masses angry, confused and totally distracted. This time a gang member in Baltimore shot his gf, got to NYC by some means and murdered two cops before he headed to a subway station where he shot himself. Sure...just another fugazi...

http://nypost.com/2014/12/20/2-nypd-cop ... -brooklyn/

[Seneca]

Yes we van see it very well!

Did you mean, "Yes, we can see it very well!" ? Or are you trying to dilute the discovery with sloppy posts? This moth thing is kind of a big deal, you know!

Yes I meant that. Sorry for the typo. I watched it a few dozen times and I agree it looks like an insect.

[Seneca]

I am curious as to how they manage the "space walks" outside a vehicle moving at such a high speed. The fact that these amazing astroNOTs are able to perform such tasks while tethered to a moving vehicle boggles my mind.

Regards,

Steve O.

What part of it boggles your mind? What would be the difficulty?

moved brianv

[icarusinbound]

Here we see a rare example of the media outing one of their own as being something of a fantasist. Or perhaps the story itself is a backstop fantasy.

And again we can all sleep easier over breakfast as a result of the vigilance of citizen journalists. Those faceless angels of truth who help defend and define the new(s) paradigm.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/showbiz/5 ... -terrorist

Katie Hopkins: I was the target of Sydney terrorist as well as 9/11 and 7/7 attackers

Columnist Katie Hopkins has come out with her most controversial statement to date.
Published: 13:48, Fri, Dec 19, 2014 By: ANNIE PRICE

Katie Hopkins has said terrorists are out to get her
According to her, she was the target of the terrorists who have attacked Sydney, London and New York.

She claimed in her latest Sun newspaper column that attackers were out to get her.

"I was working in New York on 9/11, in London on 7/7 and so it comes as no surprise to find myself working in Sydney during the siege of 12/12," she wrote.

"No doubt they will get me in the end. If so they are going to need to improve their aim."

Some have called for her Sun column to be axed
Despite having admitted to receiving death threats in the past, Katie's latest claim has got to be her most ridiculous to date.

The outspoken TV personality joked that her life was a bit like "80s Spectrum Space Invaders" – that she is a moving target while they have a wobbling joystick.

However, she did counter her ridiculous statement by giving a heartfelt message to the citizens of Sydney, who are still coming to terms with the shock of the Lindt Cafe siege.

On Monday, lone gunman Haron Monis took a number of hostages captive at the café and three people were killed, including Monis, cafe manager Tori Johnson and Katrina Dawson.

The outspoken columnist also gave a heartfelt message to the citizens of Sydney
She spoke of how the manager sacrificed his life so others could run free and went on to say Australians have an island mentality which she admires.

Katie added that New York, London and Sydney do not come out of their tragedies weakened or lessened.

However, her message of hope wasn't enough for some angered readers, who took to Twitter to vent their frustration.

One user wrote: "@KTHopkins @TheSunNewspaper I think the paper should do us all a favour and ditch your waste of a column #crap".

Another added: "@TheSunNewspaper really should do the decent thing and drop Katie Hopkins from her Column and she should have a media black out".

[hoi.polloi]

Just noticed a "synergetic67" character on DavidIcke (not sure how to read this character, who seems to pose as a fan of PsyOp research, even while almost everyone on the DavidIcke forum seems to back off of, ignore or shun them) mentioning something weird and worthwhile; I'll just quote it here to save time since I think it's pretty interesting (their/its apparent distaste for some user of this forum named "hoi.polloi" notwithstanding) and may have escaped our attention.

Hyman Brown (Jew, yet another in a long friggin' line) was on national TV on 9/11/2001, and introduced first as the "architect" of the WTC towers and then as the "project engineer" of the WTC towers. On this nationally telecast interview hosted by Tom Brokaw, Hymie made a series of demonstrably false statements (in an attempt to convince people that "fire" brought down the buildings). Why would [Hymie] do this? In case you don't understand, Hymie didn't have anything to do with the construction of the WTC. He's not even an architect nor was he the project engineer at the time the buildings were built. He was still in college and now he's hiding under a rock (probably in Israel), but this liar misrepresenting himself and NBC news representing him as the WTC architect and/or project engineer misled millions who watched that broadcast.

From their PsyOp thread: http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthre ... 78&page=57

Apologies in advance for linking to such a forum, but the point made about "Hyman Brown" is good. Everyone knows the architect of WTC is officially Minoru Yamasaki, so what is this mysterious "Hyman" character doing claiming otherwise on the day? Could it have been a red herring for those who doubted the official story right away from quickly tracking down construction information about the WTC on the Internet? Would early researchers have been side tracked by 'Hyman Brown' searches while officials quickly removed/diluted the WTC towers' official construction information?

Brown_head.jpg (2.53 KiB) Viewed 10493 times

hyman-brown.jpg (10.07 KiB) Viewed 10493 times

Is this Hyman character now, like tags Marvin Bush and WTC7, used as "conspiracy bait" and researched on non-TV fakery "9/11 conspiracy" sites for a reason? Is it something we can still use to help wake people up?

[Critical Mass]

I did a little digging around this Hyman Brown character myself... I didn't verify much to be honest.

I tried after it was questioned here...

Why is there not a single mention of the busted actor Hyman Brown on all of Clues Forum?

I suspect it's conspiracy bait.

[Sophia Perennis]

There's not much to say so I will try to keep this short: I think it's a shame that your understanding of Metaphysics has been tainted to such a degree that you find it necessary to denounce it - it's reminiscent of the effects religious zealots have upon atheists and agnostics. I would only like to say that Metaphysics is not a simple subject let alone one in which anyone may discuss and understand it. In truth, Metaphysics far exceeds the mental capacity of the masses; it is a deep and profound intellectual pursuit and it is only perceptible to those who possess a profound intellect themselves. It was for this reason that I brought the discussion of pure Metaphysics to this forum, or atleast tried to anyway. It was my hope to share pure Metaphysics with a niche group of individuals who I thought would be generally perceptible to the subject. Your hostility to Metaphysics was unexpected and perplexing; instead of confronting the claims and arguments I had made, on a topic that had minimal Metaphysical content no less, you focused the entirety of your contentions on a statement I made in passing regarding Alchemy. You resorted to egalitarian and populist arguments - as if the masses were for some reason meant to understand these subjects. My thread was inevitably locked for no other reason than because you disliked my explanation of Alchemy, despite the very fact that my thread had close to nothing to do with Alchemy. As someone I had previously thought was intelligent, I was stunned that instead of actually contending the legitimate content of my thread, you resorted to red herrings and straw man arguments and ended up acting partial and irrational by locking my thread and permanently banning me for what was a very minor and unimportant disagreement - one that wasn't even relevant to the topic you supposedly disagreed with. So I don't know where your preconceived notions of Metaphysics originate from, perhaps you listen to Lord Steven Christ or some other charlatan a bit too much, but it is without a doubt severely flawed and irredeemably incorrect.

If you care at all about the Truth, which itself is synonymous to Metaphysics, your mind must be free of fallacious thought and be in absolute alignment with reality. It is for this reason alone that it is imperative that an intricate knowledge of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric is established within the individual. Likewise, the three laws of proper thought which were enumerated by Aristotle should be emphatically employed by the individual so as to keep his mind in as much agreement with reality and proper thought as possible. If ever you take this advice and become mentally fit for Metaphysical discourse, reading Rene Guenon's The Reign of Quantity & the Signs of the Times is the only logical step in entering the Metaphysical domain.

All the best,

Sophia Perennis

P.S. You'll have to forgive me for the informality of this post, this was merely the simplest way to address you and as I have no interest in further participating on this forum, it seems like an acceptable way to relinquish my account.

edited url brianv

[fbenario]

^Gibberish much? Nice sanctimonious and unwarranted air of superiority. Do you purposely (fail to) communicate with sentences so generalized they are unlikely to be understood by the listener/reader?

[smj]

Critical Mass,

I'm a fan of Wellerstein as well. He's a Berkeley guy after all. A historian of science that is proud of the absurd narrative that he is paid to regurgitate can be an invaluable tool. I have viewed all of David Mindell's STS history of MIT lectures on youtube... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfmVSPS7EFI ... It helped me find my bearings. He'll teach you all about Draper, Bush, Terman, Weiner and the industries they hustled into existence. For example, if it wasn't for Mindell I wouldn't have known that September 11, 1956 was such an important day in Chomsky's cognitive science hustle... http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/w07/ ... istory.pdf

My favorite historian of science is John Heilbron. John's an arrogant bastard, so sometimes he'll just lay it all out there. He must assume that the uninitiated are too stupid to pay attention. Here he is telling us how he and his colleagues build "big bridges", like any good pontifax should ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skMvy2iJC1E ... and here's a Berkeley hustler using the Bohr model of the atom as a "bridge" from the planetary model to the statistical quantum model... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-EeeREoheg

Historians of science can be valuable; but beware of philosophers of science. They are generally a waste of time. Tom Kuhn, the guy who taught us to say "paradigm shift" and Heilbron's doctoral advisor, taught a first year philosophy course with Carl Hempel for years at Princeton... http://philosophy.princeton.edu/about/p ... l-g-hempel ... turns out the go-to expert on any nonsense that Hempel did is Jim Fetzer... http://www.amazon.com/The-Philosophy-Ca ... 019514158X ... as Bernard Vonnegut's little brother used to say- so it goes...

[hoi.polloi]

There's not much to say so I will try to keep this short: I think it's a shame that your understanding of Metaphysics has been tainted to such a degree that you find it necessary to denounce it - it's reminiscent of the effects religious zealots have upon atheists and agnostics.

I haven't denounced metaphysics. I just think your definition of Alchemy — the transformation of the soul from lead to gold — is a poor and uninspired idea. And I don't think it's the ultimate thing people are battling for. You can have metaphysics, and please do start a blog about it. CluesForum is just not the place to start a debate about the ultimate idea. If you were to start a thread about "the truth of Masonic" or "the truth of Gnostic" beliefs and went into the ways those ideas can and have been corrupted, that would be one thing. But asking everyone to accept a metaphysical description as holding objective significance to fakery, without offering proof and saying we've already provided it, is a bit much for an agnostic forum like ours.

My thread was inevitably locked for no other reason than because you disliked my explanation of Alchemy, despite the very fact that my thread had close to nothing to do with Alchemy.

I agree with the first part but not the second. If you say it had close to nothing to do with Alchemy, then we had a severe misunderstanding, because to me you clearly said Alchemy and Tradition were the two prime ideas that the forces of good and bad were fighting over. This to me represented your metaphysical belief that Alchemy is connected to the soul, something that is akin to asking people to accept Jesus is the son of God or something. I just don't accept that is one of two prime belief systems for the most relevant good and bad forces (within the study of TV fakery) to be fighting. Why not God versus Satan, or attachment versus detachment, or Batman vs. Superman? I am not saying unicorns and pink elephants; I am genuinely asking where it ends.

Lord Steven Christ is pretty far out, but he has his own service to deliver his stuff. He doesn't use CluesForum as a platform for his beliefs. I think you might be trying to accuse people here of expressing too much personal belief here and there, and that may be true. But that doesn't mean you doing more of it will fix the issue.

To be as short and brief as you were with us, you are more than welcome to help us uncover methods of deception. But as for proving how or why or why how or why, it's not fair of you to ask everyone to accept your unproven assumptions as some shared basis or shared motivation for why each of us has chosen each of our own personal reasons for being on this forum.

[ShaneG]

I think what she/he was trying to say is that Alchemy is a spiritual way of life, gold and lead being a symbolic metaphor as lead represents the unnatural and modernist end of the spectrum while gold represents the natural and godly divine end of it.

[hoi.polloi]

I think what she/he was trying to say is that Alchemy is a spiritual way of life, gold and lead being a symbolic metaphor as lead represents the unnatural and modernist end of the spectrum while gold represents the natural and godly divine end of it.

Okay, maybe. I want to believe you're right. But not only is what you just said far more cogent and to the point than anything they just blathered in the last dozen paragraphs they've written on the forum — but if you are right, then it isn't much different from saying what we've all said (more or less) in equally concise and different ways:

There are seemingly some well-behaved people and badly behaved people. Badly behaved people are making the PsyOps. Maybe some good people are involved, but we don't know.

Basta. Finito.

Why do those three concepts have to be dragged out into an exegesis of our personal spirituality? Are they trying to turn the research into a cult with weird, inaccessible language?