The Garbage Bin

Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Observer »

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

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

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

And fellow vigilant members, let's actually give Kham the benefit of the doubt, since she is a met-face-to-face friend and partner of Simon & Hoi. Meaning, let's not label anyone a shill without actual proof of lying. And let's ask Kham questions politely. I think the questions asked in my post about this are polite enough:
Observer wrote:
Kham wrote:Having been in a bar shooting where 2 people died and 3 people were injured from gunfire...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who was he trying to kill?

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

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

Have you ever mentioned this here at CluesForum before?

Have you ever mentioned this on the CluesForum podcast?

Have you ever posted about this anywhere online before?

See, I was already in disbelief about your previous surprising report back in February of this year, when you wrote:
Kham wrote: A good friend, Nancy, says she attended high school with the father of one of the victims of the Florida high school shooting.
Teenage diseased victim: Luke Hoyer
Father of victim: Tom Hoyer
Facebook post from my friend Nancy who knows father of victim
I didn't want to grill you publicly, since you have a met-face-to-face relationship with Simon, so I sent Simon the following letter, in which I basically tell Simon that you (Kham) should tell us if your "good friend" who "says she attended high school with the father of one of the victims of the Florida high school shooting" was a met-face-to-face-and-physically-hung-out-together-many-times-over-many-years ACTUAL-good-friend, or just a VIRTUAL-online-penpal?

...

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

Please Kham, start a thread and tell us all the details so that we can as politely as possible (politely please, everyone, seriously) do our due-diligence of investigating the time and place and details about this no-doubt publicly-known publicly-reported-about shooting incident, right?
simonshack wrote:As for Kham witnessing a shooting (I don't put this beyond the realm of possibility) it certainly is a bit odd that she has never shared such a dramatic firsthand experience with me. I'll be looking forward to read any available media reports about this shooting event.
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Preemptively Preventing Entry Attempts

Unread post by Observer »

By the way, Simon, and SCS, and all the other Admins here, here's an idea (no pressure) to consider:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But who knows - maybe the concrete-pylon-less sidewalk-activists actually PREFER dramatic debates?
In one "Stop a Douchebag" video, an observer wisely said, "Cut the chit-chat, just put on the sticker!"
I'm basically suggesting taking it a step further, "Cut the chit-chat, put up the visible concrete pylon!" B)
Observer wrote:BTW - my personal feeling is that in life: all new laws/rules should be NON-retroactive, for fairness.
IMO - my new strict rule idea shouldn't be suddenly retroactively applied to Kham or to anyone else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, I'm really spitting hot fire now. I'd better quit while I'm ahead, before I somehow trip and fall. :P
Pride cometh before a fall and all that. So anyway, I stand 100% by this masterpiece & this summary .
And yes I have the honesty to admit I'm having delusions of grandeur, and SCS's sentence is sufficient:
SacredCowSlayer wrote: Also, if you claim to know a victim (or a friend or family member of a victim) significantly connected to a news event that has been discussed on this forum, let us know that up front.
Last edited by Observer on Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: SUGGESTION BOX (for Admin action)

Unread post by Observer »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow, I'm really spitting hot fire now. I'd better quit while I'm ahead, before I somehow trip and fall. :P
Pride cometh before a fall and all that. So anyway, I stand 100% by this masterpiece & this summary .
And yes I have the honesty to admit I'm having delusions of grandeur, and SCS's sentence is sufficient:
SacredCowSlayer wrote: Also, if you claim to know a victim (or a friend or family member of a victim) significantly connected to a news event that has been discussed on this forum, let us know that up front.
Observer wrote:When potential new members follow the instructions in the "How to Register at CluesForum" thread,
they then reach that "Initial Introduction By New Registrants" thread (visible only to new potentials)
(where that vital "significant connection with any news story covered on the forum" check happens)
then, after the admins ask such questions, such potentials arrive to the "Introduce Yourself" thread,
where current members should ask each potential, "Any attack-claims? If so, present evidence now."

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But who knows - maybe the concrete-pylon-less sidewalk-activists actually PREFER dramatic debates?
In one "Stop a Douchebag" video, an observer wisely said, "Cut the chit-chat, just put on the sticker!"
I'm basically suggesting taking it a step further, "Cut the chit-chat, put up the visible concrete pylon!" B)
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Observer »

Kham » November 14th, 2018, 12:41 pm wrote:Observer,

RE:Tom Hoyer

I never made a statement about the truth or falsity of the scenario concerning the death of Luke, Son of Tom Hoyer. It is interesting how many of these hoaxed events are tied to real people...
First problem Kham: when folks at CluesForum were contemplating whether or not there were any real victims in that Florida shooting, why did you type newspaper-style, "A possible victim?" (a phrasing which usually points towards "Yes, a possible victim") followed immediately by a typed-sentence piece of "evidence" which made you wonder if there was a possible victim: "My good friend Nancy says she attended high school with the father of Tom Hoyer."
Kham » February 20th, 2018, 12:53 pm wrote:A Possible Real Victim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe first hand experiences are an important part of reminding ourselves that the behavior of hoaxers is not based in reality. So it’s ok to relate info other people said but not our own experience? That doesn’t make any sense. It wouldn’t matter what facts I gave you about the night of the event where I witnessed 2 people die and 3 get injured from gun fire in a bar. There is just no way to prove it to you. Sounds like you are just trying to shut me up.
Nobody is trying to shut you up Kham. Au contraire, Simon is waiting for you to post some media reports about the shooting you witnessed, so we can do our due diligence of examining the clues for evidence of footage-forgery and bad-acting.

Kham wrote: How is my eye witness account even a big deal? In reality, shootings happen all the time and people die that never make it into the news. See inner city violence.
Actually, no. Inner city violence is logical, in that when someone has actually killed your real-life flesh-and-blood friend over drug territory, you actually want to kill the person who killed your friend, so gangland shootings make sense to me.

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

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

There is no need to get emotional over this. Simply calmly rationally post some links about the when and where so that we can do a little investigating. If your claim is true (and it probably is) then we will end up concluding, "OK, no evidence of forgery or bad acting here, Kham actually witnessed an ultra-rare act of random spraying of bullets into a crowd. Rare, but some crazy killers exist." OK?
simonshack wrote:As for Kham witnessing a shooting (I don't put this beyond the realm of possibility) it certainly is a bit odd that she has never shared such a dramatic firsthand experience with me. I'll be looking forward to read any available media reports about this shooting event.
And to take it one step further, since typed-words are easy to type, I'll be looking forward to watch any available videos about this shooting event, broadcast by the media or at the very least a short video of a witness testifying about the shooting witnessed: videos are much better than typed-words, because videos show us facial clues of bad-acting or authenticity.

As my most recent post on this subject rightly reminds us, typed-words prove nothing, we need to see videos:
Observer wrote: Authentic attack footage, or at the very least authentic footage of your non-acting face describing it.
So attach that to post #1, we'll analyze your video for evidence of acting or fakery, or don't even try.

This totally avoids typed-words debates, "I trust potential X's words vs. I distrust potential X's words."
Psyop agents have trouble creating authentic attack footage & creating authentic non-acting videos.
I know, folks like to say, "I can tell from just typing" but we can tell much BETTER from seeing faces.
Any attack-claim helps lead to wars & right-loss, so show us (the CF court) your footage & your face.
Observer wrote: People can stupidly believe 3,000 died in 9/11 - sure - just don't claim "My daddy knew a 9/11 victim."
People can stupidly believe 14 died in San Bernardino - okay - just don't claim "My daddy was injured."

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

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

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

Include in your 1st post authentic face-video of you discussing your claim, or never type such a claim.
Attack-claims start wars, but you're "too embarrassed" to share a video of your face? STFU and GTFO.
Simply typing "I saw an Iranian shoot some Jews" could lead to WW3, so showing your face is required.
Those solid sentences are not specifically about Kham, they are about ANY & ALL typed attack-claims.
I'm not picking on Kham at all, it's actually the opposite, we're being extra patient with Simon's friend:

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

PS - to my yet-unmet virtual-penpal-friend SCS: I feel all my video-requesting-posts are Chatbox, not Derailing. :)
Last edited by Observer on Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: Premptively Preventing Entry Attempts

Unread post by Observer »

It seems this reply to Kham somehow got accidentally placed into this Suggestions thread.

I think SCS would prefer for it to be placed into the Derailing thread, so I'm moving it there:

viewtopic.php?p=2407759#p2407759

Feel free to delete this left-over, this post was never really meant for the Suggestion thread.
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Observer »

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

Emptying a clip into a crowd, not caring about the many innocent unrelated strangers being killed, is different from walking up to one person and shooting that one person. It seems like you witnessed a motive-less shooting-attack in which the killer purposely sprayed his entire clip at strangers he didn't know. So since you are saying I'm bad for calling that a random-shooting action, then please enlighten us beyond the tiny amount you have told us so far:
Kham wrote:Thing is, at the time of the shooting, as I recall, no one knew how many shooters were in the vicinity. Even though the first shooter stopped after he emptied his clip how does one know for sure if he is the only shooter? The natural instinct was to err on the side of caution and leave before any other shooters opened fire. Since I was in a pile of people with my daughter up by the stage who hadn’t been able to escape, I was able to witness the entire event.
As I asked you in my very first post about this subject:
Observer wrote:
Kham wrote:Having been in a bar shooting where 2 people died and 3 people were injured from gunfire...

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

Since I was in a pile of people with my daughter up by the stage who hadn’t been able to escape, I was able to witness the entire event.
Wow Kham.
You witnessed a stranger shoot 2 people dead, and shoot 3 other people too?

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

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

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

Who was he trying to kill?

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

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

Have you ever mentioned this here at CluesForum before?

Have you ever mentioned this on the CluesForum podcast?

Have you ever posted about this anywhere online before?


Please Kham, start a thread and tell us all the details so that we can as politely as possible (politely please, everyone, seriously) do our due-diligence of investigating the time and place and details about this no-doubt publicly-known publicly-reported-about shooting incident, right?
And as I'm asking in the post directly above, which you also ignored:
Observer wrote:
Kham » November 14th, 2018, 12:41 pm wrote:Observer,

RE:Tom Hoyer

I never made a statement about the truth or falsity of the scenario concerning the death of Luke, Son of Tom Hoyer. It is interesting how many of these hoaxed events are tied to real people...
First problem Kham: when folks at CluesForum were contemplating whether or not there were any real victims in that Florida shooting, why did you type newspaper-style, "A possible victim?" (a phrasing which usually points towards "Yes, a possible victim") followed immediately by a typed-sentence piece of "evidence" which made you wonder if there was a possible victim: "My good friend Nancy says she attended high school with the father of Tom Hoyer."
Kham » February 20th, 2018, 12:53 pm wrote:A Possible Real Victim?

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

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

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

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

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

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

...It wouldn’t matter what facts I gave you about the night of the event where I witnessed 2 people die and 3 get injured from gun fire in a bar. There is just no way to prove it to you. Sounds like you are just trying to shut me up.
Nobody is trying to shut you up Kham. Au contraire, Simon is waiting for you to post some media reports about the shooting you witnessed, so we can do our due diligence of examining the clues for evidence of footage-forgery and bad-acting.

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

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

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

There is no need to get emotional over this. Simply calmly rationally post some links about the when and where so that we can do a little investigating. If your claim is true (and it probably is) then we will end up concluding, "OK, no evidence of forgery or bad acting here, Kham actually witnessed an ultra-rare act of random spraying of bullets into a crowd. Rare, but some crazy killers exist." OK?
simonshack wrote:As for Kham witnessing a shooting (I don't put this beyond the realm of possibility) it certainly is a bit odd that she has never shared such a dramatic firsthand experience with me. I'll be looking forward to read any available media reports about this shooting event.
And to take it one step further, since typed-words are easy to type, I'll be looking forward to watch any available videos about this shooting event, broadcast by the media or at the very least a short video of a witness testifying about the shooting witnessed: videos are much better than typed-words, because videos show us facial clues of bad-acting or authenticity.

As my most recent post on this subject rightly reminds us, typed-words prove nothing, we need to see videos:
Observer wrote: Authentic attack footage, or at the very least authentic footage of your non-acting face describing it.
So attach that to post #1, we'll analyze your video for evidence of acting or fakery, or don't even try.

This totally avoids typed-words debates, "I trust potential X's words vs. I distrust potential X's words."
Psyop agents have trouble creating authentic attack footage & creating authentic non-acting videos.
I know, folks like to say, "I can tell from just typing" but we can tell much BETTER from seeing faces.
Any attack-claim helps lead to wars & right-loss, so show us (the CF court) your footage & your face.
Observer wrote: People can stupidly believe 3,000 died in 9/11 - sure - just don't claim "My daddy knew a 9/11 victim."
People can stupidly believe 14 died in San Bernardino - okay - just don't claim "My daddy was injured."

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

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

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

Include in your 1st post authentic face-video of you discussing your claim, or never type such a claim.
Attack-claims start wars, but you're "too embarrassed" to share a video of your face? STFU and GTFO.
Simply typing "I saw an Iranian shoot some Jews" could lead to WW3, so showing your face is required.
Those solid sentences are not specifically about Kham, they are about ANY & ALL typed attack-claims.
I'm not picking on Kham at all, it's actually the opposite, we're being extra patient with Simon's friend:

We are just asking Kham if she ever met her good-friend Nancy who says she knew "Tom Hoyer's" dad.
And I'm asking Kham if she can film a 5-minute video talking about her rare motive-less-crowd-shooting.
Can you please answer the questions? We should make such requests to ANY typed attack-claimant, right?

Again,

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

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

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

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

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

I'll close by repeating my most impotant point:

Simply calmly rationally post some links about the when and where so that we can do a little investigating. If your claim is true (and it probably is) then we will end up concluding, "OK, no evidence of forgery or bad acting here, Kham actually witnessed an ultra-rare act of random spraying of bullets into a crowd. Rare, but some crazy killers exist." OK?
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Observer »

OK, as briefly as possible, this is my final post about this subject:

viewtopic.php?p=2407717#p2407717
Kham revealed she saw someone empty-a-clip into a crowd.

viewtopic.php?p=2407734#p2407734
In my first post I asked 15 undeniably rational questions:
1 Wow, did you see the shooter kill those two people dead?
2 Was the shooter trying to kill one person specifically?
3 Or was the shooter just randomly shooting at the crowd?
4 Was your daughter one of those three people injured?
5 Did it turn out to be one shooter or multiple shooters?
6 Does emptied-his-clip mean the shooter shot 16 bullets?
7 Have you ever mentioned this to Simon or Hoi face-to-face?
8 Have you ever mentioned this here at CluesForum before?
9 Have you ever mentioned this on the CluesForum podcast?
10 Have you ever posted about this anywhere online before?
11 Shouldn't you have mentioned this in your "intro" post?
12 Do you realize we wouldn't believe unless Simon's friend?
13 You should tell us all the details for us to check, right?
14 We should do due-diligence as politely as possible, right?
15 And have you ever actually MET your "good-friend" Nancy?

viewtopic.php?p=2407735#p2407735
Fbenario agreed we want details, but brought up intro style.

viewtopic.php?p=2407740#p2407740
I suggested a stricter rule for future (not Kham) newcomers.

viewtopic.php?p=2407742#p2407742
Simon wrote, "As for Kham witnessing a shooting
(I don't put this beyond the realm of possibility)
it certainly is a bit odd that she has never
shared such a dramatic firsthand experience
with me. I'll be looking forward to read any
available media reports about this shooting event."

viewtopic.php?p=2407743#p2407743
I wrote let's actually give Kham the benefit of the doubt, since
Kham is a met-face-to-face friend and partner of Simon & Hoi.
I wrote let's NOT label anyone a shill without actual proof.
Let's ask questions politely, & I re-posted the 15 questions.

viewtopic.php?p=2407744#p2407744
Mansur wrote I shouldn't label crowd-shooting random-terror.

viewtopic.php?p=2407746#p2407746
My masterpiece suggestion for future (not Kham) newcomers.
This suggestion is separate from the current Kham debate.
This suggestion is a great idea, please kindly consider it.

viewtopic.php?p=2407747#p2407747
SCS righteously openly shares his New Registrants Letter.

viewtopic.php?p=2407749#p2407749
I answered SCS's question about my masterpiece suggestion.
I explained my suggestion is about future folks, not Kham.
I suggested requiring video for future typed-attack-claims.
I wrote why I left another forum: over NOT requiring video.
I reminded folks video is more analyzable than typed-words.

viewtopic.php?p=2407750#p2407750
Patrix chose to divert the shooting subject off to astronomy.

viewtopic.php?p=2407751#p2407751
Fbenario rationally asked for more details about the shooting.
(BTW, perhaps the "mentioned on podcast" report was mistaken.)

viewtopic.php?p=2407753#p2407753
Kham wrote "It wouldn’t matter what facts I gave you..."
Kham wrote "How is my eye witness account even a big deal?"
Kham didn't yet answer ANY of those 15 rational questions.
But I get it, Kham is angry about being questioned so hard.
I just wish she would have simply answered my first post.

viewtopic.php?p=2407755#p2407755
I restate the importance of those 15 rational questions.
I restate why even better than typed words is visual video.
I explain we'll probably conclude Kham saw a real shooting.

viewtopic.php?p=2407756#p2407756
Kham suspects my motives for thinking shots fired randomly.

viewtopic.php?p=2407758#p2407758
SCS rightly asks we don't rudely push Kham, or newcomers.

viewtopic.php?p=2407759#p2407759
I reply to Kham emptying-a-clip-into-crowd infers randomly,
& I restate the importance of: those 15 rational questions.
I restate we'll probably conclude Kham saw a real shooting.
I also offer a possibility Kham honestly saw a hoaxed event.

viewtopic.php?p=2407760#p2407760
Simon rightly tells me to be briefer. OK, I'm trying now.
Simon reminds us all Kham is perfectly free to not answer.
"Kham, a friend of mine whom I've met personally
and who has very positively contributed to diffusing
our forum's work over the years - especially as a
(quite brilliant) host of the Clues Chronicle
podcasts - deserves no such "public scrutiny".
Nothing could possibly cast a shadow over - or
much less 'nullify' - her longstanding contributions
to our collective efforts." And that all makes sense.
And Simon reminded us surprising rare events do happen.

viewtopic.php?p=2407761#p2407761
Flabbergasted infers my 15 questions have some bad motive.

viewtopic.php?p=2407762#p2407762
PianoRacer succumbs to Patrix's shape-of-Earth diversion,
and accidentally assumes I still hold the Concave belief,
so now I have to state: I already let go of that belief.
viewtopic.php?p=2405817#p2405817
I now recommend not pushing that idea which Simon feels
is equivalent to supporting the old false flat-earth belief.

So, back to the actual topic: the 15 shooting questions.
It seems we will never know, oh well, I can accept that.
I did my best to encourage Kham to give 15 short answers.
I also did my best to encourage a 5 minute video. Oh well.
I am actually glad this happened, because it motivated me
to write that suggestion for future prospective members:
a well-written suggestion to require video from all typed
claims that arrive in the future from unknown mere typists.
viewtopic.php?p=2407746#p2407746

Actually, I think Kham is honest and maybe she was fooled.
I think perhaps Kham honestly witnessed a hoaxed shooting.
Wouldn't that be a clever operation: fool Kham, divide CF.
"We need to do our monthly shooting, where shall we do it?"
"Oh, I know, let's do it where Simon's friend Kham will be."
"Great idea! She'll honestly report it, and then CluesForum
members will wrongly assume she's lying about what she saw."
"Yep, Simon will protect his good friend, Kham will rightly
be reluctant to give details since CF never trusts shootings,
strict CF members will demand details, arguments will ensue,
and then everyone will accuse everyone else of being shills!
We can limit the media coverage to zero or we can even make
some fake CCTV and bad-actor interviews, so that eventually,
when CF finds the easter eggs we plant, Kham will look like
she was lying, when actually she was just honestly reporting
the shooting we put in the bar (blanks & blood-pack actors).
As long as we scare Kham, she'll honestly believe folks died.
So we just sit back and wait for Kham to share her experience,
and watch all the CluesForum members fight about the validity."

So that's a possibility. And the other possibility is simpler,
Kham just happened to witness a real non-staged rare shooting.

OK, I feel all of the sentences I wrote about this make sense.
I pride myself in writing logical unassailable true sentences.
My statements are solid, & that's all I have to say about that.

This post is a clear summary of the 48 hours since Kham's post.
I hope nobody tries to pull me back in with rude unrelated jabs.
I stayed on-topic, I'm confident my 15 questions were rational.
& I'm proud of my "Preemptively Preventing Entry Attempts" post.
viewtopic.php?p=2407746#p2407746

So, I will accept the fact that Kham may never answer "the 15".
And I'm fine with that, since I duly did the right thing by asking.
I risked my relationship with Simon (!) in pursuit of real honesty.

Kham I hope you can respect the fact I treat you with equality,
& I respect all the altruistic help you are giving Simon and Hoi.
You hope folks know your pure intent as I hope folks know mine.
I still maintain my fantasy: of all CF members partying in Rome. :wub:

And yes, as Simon said I need to be more brief: I'm trying now.
I stopped posting about health & I hereby stop posting about this.
Hopefully peace is restored and CF can get back to hoax-destroying. :)
PianoRacer
____
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:13 am

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by PianoRacer »

[Admin Notice (SCS): please see the post I made
here, and the one following it. Note: I placed this post here after seeing the larger picture of a clear attempt to cast a ridiculous cloud of suspicion over me, Simon, and ultimately the entire Forum.]


Observer,

I fully agree with your line of reasoning / questioning and share your dismay/dissatisfaction that both of us must "cease and desist" our respective concerns and disagreements, without any kind of satisfactory resolution.

Like you, I resign myself to the clearly-stated wishes of our gracious hosts, Simon and SCS (the latter of which is, by the way, now the sole financial backer of this forum's existence. I think it should be known that donations to Simon, while perhaps still perfectly appropriate given his previous work, will not in any way contribute to the continued existence of Clues Forum).

Let it be known, however, that no satisfactory answers were even attempted to be given to either of our (in my opinion) quite reasonable lines of questioning regarding our respective topics of interest, both of which seem quite relevant to the purported purpose of this forum.

This fact should be clear to all, and the implications of such are left to the interpretation of the reader.

All the best,
-PR

P.S. I have notified SCS of my wish to be removed as a "sysadmin" for the forum, as I intensely dislike the "politics" that have very quickly emerged as a large factor in the upkeep of this site. I'd still very much like to stay on as a regular member, but time will tell if that will be feasible. If not, I doubt I'd be sorely missed.
PianoRacer
____
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 1:13 am

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by PianoRacer »

For the record - though the topic has been deemed VERBOTTEN:
http://www.phy.mtu.edu/alumni/history/DMGPlumbLines.pdf
Are you seriously suggesting that this paper disproves a spherical Earth?
No, I am suggesting that the experiment being referenced is a legitimate way to test the curvature of the Earth, whether it be concave (the plumb lines would diverge, as was reportedly the case), flat (the plumb lines would be parallel), or convex (the plumb lines would converge). Do you disagree with this?

Look, I don't know if the paper referenced is accurate. It was reported by the media (over a century ago), which we all know is prone to error (i.e. egregious lies). That's why I am emphatically for a reconduction of the experiment in question, because I think that regardless of the reported results, the experiment is brilliant in it's ability to conclusively prove the center of gravity and thus, the shape of the Earth.

Let me ask you this, "dear Patrix" - is the experiment conceptually valid? Regardless of the results, would you not agree that the experiment, if conducted "scientifically" and publicly and repeatedly, would definitively ascertain the curvature of the Earth? If not, why not?

I don't expect you to answer, and I don't expect that I will be able to continue to ask this question. Here it is nonetheless.

All the best,
-PR
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Observer »

Hi Piano Racer,

I highly respect the intelligence + courage + honesty, shown in all your posts.

Here's a note I was going to send to you by PM but I decided to make it visible:

About Simon, he unfortunately still doesn't realize his beautiful Tychos model:
could CONCURRENTLY exist inside (and not conflict with) the Concave model.
He simply refuses to imagine for a moment - all the planets and stars as tiny.
He incorrectly assumes the Concave model is an attack on the Tychos model.
The curvature which his model requires is indeed found in the Concave model.
It's quite possible the Tychos model explains the workings within the Concave.
Tychos model could be explaining the movements of the tiny internal objects.
And Patrix doesn't realize Concave IS perfectly spherical ball of internal space.

And yes, PianoRacer, I now realize: plumb-lines would indeed be the best test.
But since I can't ever do such an experiment myself, I will never know for sure.
And because I will never know for sure I can't push Simon to consider that idea.
I'm convinced of curvature but lack proof about which way the curvature goes.
I'm basically saying, "PianoRacer, your belief might be right, but it lacks proof."
"I can't make two 2-kilometer holes in the ground, so I can't check plumb-lines."
So I've resigned myself to no longer pushing for Concave since I have no proof.

Simon's site is the only place, where people realize, the proven Vicsim reality.
I want to continue to be able to post here, regardless of curvature-direction.
So please, let's be satisfied with this rare oasis where Vicsim reality is known.
Thus, let's not push the Concave idea here, which admittedly we can't prove.
So let's allow your fine plumb-lines point to be the FINAL mention of Concave.
I have found absolutely no problems with Simon's Tychos model, and I love it.
It matches the planet movements better than any other model, so I choose it.
I simply think he should focus more on the evidence visible to all, not parallax.

So again as I said in my most recent post let's just get back to hoax-destroying.
viewtopic.php?p=2407766#p2407766

I prefer the focus on undeniable VISUAL proof of hoaxes (CGI, bad-acting, etc.)
I look forward to future posts concentrating on visuals, much more than words.
viewtopic.php?p=2407746#p2407746
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Observer »

Fbenario, maybe your point was "Could we please get an updated expenses/donations chart like Hoi made before?"

Image

As shown in the chart above, the total monthly average money cost of running this site is just $13.92.
The fact that $13.92 monthly is hard for Simon to pay illustrates how financially-not-wealthy Simon is.
The fact that $4.48 monthly is the only 2017 donation illustrates how SELFISH we readers/posters are.
The amount of money in question here is extremely tiny. Seriously: Simon is poor, & we are all selfish.

The real question is why us 100,000 annual readers aren't grateful enough to donate for Simon's time.

I have listened to, and often enjoy listening to, Simon's music, which took a lot of his time to create.
I've contemplated & often enjoy contemplating Simon's writings which took lots of his time to create.
I keep telling myself "Next month, next month I'll finally do the right thing: to make a $100 donation."

But then when my salary arrives I consistently always choose the purely selfish path of donating zero.
I create excuses in my mind, such as "Well, if I made a donation, it could be seen as 'buying' leniency."
"I don't want Simon to feel financial pressure, to go easy on me, if and when I say something illogical."
And so I continue typing meaningless words of thanks which Simon can't buy food with: & donating $0.

I have lectured folks about how the "Release freely, receive donations" style of business is the highest!
"Yes this is truly the highest form of business/exchange/life: give freely and trust folks will give back."

"Folks should, like Radiohead, release their creations directly to the people free, & accept donations."
"I'm not into that band, but they released a basically-free ($0.01 minimum) album called In Rainbows."
"About 1 million folks downloaded it from the official release site & guess what they chose to donate?"
"They could have all donated merely $0.01 each (the hosting-fees bare-minimum) but they gave more."

"Of course some folks downloaded it from 'TPB' for free, & some folks gave the official site just $0.01."
"But amazingly their 'choose your donation amount' official release site received $6 average donation."
"So 1 million folks voluntarily fairly donated $6 average each for music that they get enjoyment from."
"And since the band did that without being under label contract, all $6 million (pretax) went to them."

"We no longer need to work for CEOs (who create nothing) who parasitically take 90% of sales results."
"And we no longer need the 'pay me what I demand, or I won't give you the product' sales style at all."

"Like when my Dad and I did street caricatures, our sign said, 'Free! (Donations gratefully accepted)'."
"And the beautiful thing is... nobody chose to selfishly walk away with the creation without donating."
"When a music performer shares his creation freely, all who received enjoyment donate into the hat."

"Altruistically releasing your creation freely, & trusting all who received enjoyment will fairly donate."
"Everyone, go direct: release on your own site your creations freely, and receive voluntary donations!"

The problem is, people are becoming so poor, and so selfish, that: we enjoy the art, yet don't donate.
We feel joy & happiness from the creations we choose to imbibe, yet we're ignoring the donation hat.
For example I'm so stingy and selfish that instead of donating to Simon I simply type my useless words.
I write this "Let's fairly donate" post here and my previous "Let's fairly donate" post yet I don't donate.

I tell myself "It's fine, I don't need to send a fair donation to Simon, instead I inspire others to donate."
"It's troublesome for me to add $10 to charge up my family's debit-card which acts as our credit-card."
"I don't feel like letting Paypal be in the middle since that company often freezes legitimate transfers."
"I don't wanna' buy a post office money order since I get into a fight with them about showing my I.D."
"I don't wanna' buy Euros from the bank and send that in a letter since a postal worker might steal it."
As you can see these are all just lame excuses. I'm simply too selfish to send a voluntary fair donation.

100,000+ of us CF readers/posters receive pleasure from the info/art/music/writings Simon created.
100,000+ of us here annually enjoy Simon's altruistic creations without fairly donating back to Simon.

I feel that we 100,000 readers/posters should be ashamed of ourselves for not even covering hosting.
The $100 yearly hosting divided between us would be $0.001 each and yet almost none of us gave it.

The more rational question I would like to bring up is "Why do we feel Simon deserves $0 for his time?"
Why have we CF readers all not sent even "$1 for pasta" as a token of gratitude for Simon's creations?

Simon is too proud to beg so I will go ahead and say it: Simon can't even afford the taxes on his home.
Yes, Simon recently shyly admitted in e-mail he might not even be able to continue living in his house.

Imagine that, about to be homeless, yet still too proud to tell that to his (supposedly) supportive fans.
And yet 99.99% of us "fans of Simon's work" absolutely have failed so far to place even $1 into his hat.

Am I trying to make us feel ashamed of receiving Simon's creations without fairly donating back? Yeah.
Do I hope that over the next few days a few readers (like myself) man up & send Simon $1? Definitely.


Are my posts overly-lengthy (and usually compulsively equal-length artistic-layout)? Yes, I admit that.
But do my points usually (in my past 154 posts here, and in this 155th) make logical sense? I hope so... :)

[Edit: So now I see SCS has quickly openly directly answered Fbenario's question in a different thread.]

So I guess really Fbenario was saying, "Whenever a big hosting donation comes in, tell us immediately."

Well, this means the next little $14 hosting donation will be applied to cover one month - after 2021.

Still, my main point still stands: nevermind hosting, let's now donate $1 for Simon's time & creations! :)
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by Observer »

Yes, I am being overly harsh on folks, including myself. Thanks for the friendly reminder to lighten up. :P

On that note, perhaps these two posts are Derailing (I'm not really sure), feel free to move them if so:

viewtopic.php?p=2407792#p2407792
viewtopic.php?p=2407797#p2407797

Thanks! :)

PS - I've done enough harsh correcting of sentences for awhile, I'm gonna' take a self-imposed vacation.
See you! Stay real y'all! B)
Observer
Banned
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am
Location: Interwebs

Re: SUGGESTION BOX (for Admin action)

Unread post by Observer »

Observer wrote: If you or someone you know has witnessed or been the victim of any terror/shooting/bombing/attack,
we require any claims of such an unlikely experience to be included in the very first introductory post,
and we require extraordinary evidence for such extraordinary claims in the first introductory post too.
SacredCowSlayer wrote:Also, if you claim to know a victim (or a friend or family member of a victim) significantly connected to a news event that has been discussed on this forum, let us know that up front.
pov603 wrote:Dear SCS without wishing to sound picky, isn’t It better to have people mention “any” newsworthy event whether discussed on CF or not (the latter being most pertinent)?
I think pov603 is suggesting (about your current "Introductory Request for newly-vetted-registrants" draft) that maybe the "has been discussed on this forum" limiting-qualifier should be cut?

Pov603 makes a good point there, since the "has been discussed on this forum" limiting-qualifier would allow future newly-vetted-registrants to later type in their 100th post: "The following story hadn't yet been discussed on this forum when I joined, so I didn't feel compelled to mention it up front in my intro, but now that we've become friends over the past year of posting: I now want to reveal that I DID witness..."

And following up on Pov603's good point there, the "significantly connected" limiting-qualifier would also allow future newly-vetted-registrants to later type in their 100th post: "I wouldn't call myself significantly connected, so I didn't feel compelled to mention it up front in my intro when I joined, but now that we've become friends over the past year of posting: I now want to reveal that I DID witness..."

Cutting those two unneeded limited-qualifiers thus preemptively prevents the possibility of highly-probable divisional-dramas caused by future-claimants writing a year from now, "But, my sudden witness-experience-reveal in my 100th post didn't break the 'Introductory Request', I simply didn't feel compelled to mention upfront in my intro this witness-experience (of me or someone I know) since hey: the 'Introductory Request' contained those limiting-qualifiers of significantly connected to a news event and has been discussed on this forum."

Thus that important sentence in your "Introductory Request for newly-vetted-registrants" letter could probably be improved by saying:
Also, if you or someone you know has witnessed or been the victim of any terror/shooting/bombing/space/nuclear/attack event (or any media-mentioned event whatsoever) let us know up front in your intro.
That's just a suggestion for consideration.

That suggestion is actually quite loose, compared to the tight "prophylactic" idea of asking future prospective members to type their claims up front in their intro AND provide a little visual evidence:
Also, if you or someone you know has witnessed or experienced any terror/shooting/bombing/space/nuclear/attack event (or any media-mentioned event whatsoever) let us know up front in your intro.

AND please provide up front in your intro some visual evidence for your typed witness claim, such as a video of the event which you (or the person whom you know) witnessed or experienced. At the very least a 5-minute video of you (or the person whom you know) looking us in the eye and telling us about the event witnessed or experienced.

There is a very good reason why juries in courts need to see the facial movements and hear the voice of the claimants making claims about any event witnessed or experienced: typed words simply lack the visually analyzable evidence which we humans need, to make a fair decision about the probability of a claim being true or false.

We can't allow our rare oasis of truth to publish typed claims to millions of readers without the Admins first analyzing your visual evidence: at the very least a 5-minute video of testimony from the 1st-hand event-witness, or the 1st-hand injured-person, or the 1st-hand killed-person's-surviving-family-member.

Simply visually testify for 5 minutes about the terror/shooting/bombing/space/nuclear/attack event (or any media-mentioned event whatsoever) which has been witnessed or experienced, or: if too shy to visually testify then you agree to never type (and never even indirectly imply) such a claim on this forum. From the moment of these updated Terms Of Service being posted, any future new-registrants who type such claims without visual testimony may be banned and possibly even have their posts deleted at the discretion of the site Admins. Thanks for understanding. :)
Perhaps I'm crazy for suggesting such claims in the intro should provide visual testimony evidence.

OK, if I seem crazy for suggesting that, then alright, back to this relatively quite tame suggestion:
Also, if you or someone you know has witnessed or been the victim of any terror/shooting/bombing/space/nuclear/attack event (or any media-mentioned event whatsoever) let us know up front in your intro.
OK, that's my final suggestion on that subject, promise.
TheWalruss
Vetted and Denied
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:48 pm

Re: Introduce Yourself to the Administrators

Unread post by TheWalruss »

I'll make sure to use more paragraph breaks to help with reading. You can turn down the snark about 23 notches, I don't deserve that.

Of course I'm unsure about the fire department individual or individuals - I've only just been confronted with those images and have done literally no investigation in the matter, so I can only conjecture.

I assume you've contacted the NYFD and asked for a list of registered firefighters from the years 1999 through 2002 to cross-check? What did that turn up?

I can't give a clear answer to the issue of the mercury-redstone launches. The first clip is from an unmanned launch (says so in the video, I have no reason to doubt that point), and the overlay text of the last clip is from the first manned flight, so it's not strange that these are different.

One of the flights was probably recorded through a mirror, a common strategy to keep expensive cameras out of harm's way in case of disaster. Or both were, and the footage wasn't flipped accordingly in one.

I can't seem to access the second youtube link, so I can't say which flight it was, but I assume it was from a different flight than the other two.

What's your analysis?
TheWalruss
Vetted and Denied
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:48 pm

Re: Introduce Yourself to the Administrators

Unread post by TheWalruss »

Oh oops I hadn't refreshed. I guess I'm not surprised.
Locked