Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

Me again? What does that mean?


I never claimed a neutral position. Sort what exactly?



It is not a derogatory term, it simply describes the act of picking some claims while ignoring others. Judiciouness requires some evidence for the judiciousness, it implies judgement. Where is it?


There you go with the old anything is possible fallacy. Can you present any actual evidence?


How do you know they a clearly real and what exactly are they clearly real images of?


Correct, it is a religious belief for them.


No, if they are happy to present photoshopped images then they have no credibility. Why should I waste my time on them when they present known fakes?


The simple fact that the compiler included known fakes is enough to cast doubt on anything else presented. It is not my job to check every single image, the presenter has done enough to sink their own credibility by including obvious fakes to deter me from investing any further effort identifying the othe fakes

I would find shoving q-tips through my eardrum better than your writing.


No this shows you are willing to suck up any youtube video, and then ask for more.


Once again, I never claimed to be neutral. Do you just make stuff up? Apparently yes.


You make me cringe, with your pseudo science, and your willingness to scatter scientific terms throughout your posts which you plainly do not understand.

If you claim to know what science is or is not, and scientific-mindedness, then you are claiming neutrality. If however, you wish to go by your emotional decisions -- one thing is a fake so the whole compilation must be -- you are not scientific.

Thus, implicitly, you claim to be neutral and are not.

When you say it's "religious" for them, you are being inaccurate. Real religious beliefs are UNTESTABLE.

These beliefs *may* (or may not) hold them in an emotional lock, but they are testable. Hence, their belief may be a scientific belief in which they made an error. (Anyone can be fooled by a fake initially.)

This video is a COMPILATION; what of that concept do you not understand?

If we are to assess it -- or, similarly, arguments -- we must cross-examine its parts (and any argumentation).

In cross-examination, or testing, we may find SOME items that are good supports for a scientific belief. This is your confusion: the word belief can be used in either sense, of "notion", and also of "strong scientific belief" or "truth" (including always radical philosophical doubt in the end, just in case the whole theory we work out turns out to be incomplete or even misleading or wrong).

I love it:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]



*** T-A-R-D ***
*** W-A-R-S *** @ ning

Then let's say the vast majority of CT believers are very emotionally involved in the subject and have massive confirmation bias.

Yup, re. the neutrality implied here: that we must keep our eyes out for errors made by someone who is involved in discovering truths in an issue.

So ... yes. It's human. Even when someone is generally careful. And some humans have a higher quotient of that.

Note: one can understand about *many* conspiracies and do so with great objectivity. Or one can know about many conspiracies but be mostly a fanatic.

The difference is in the person's general *reasons for knowing about the item,* not necessarily the item. If the person has a confirmation bias very often, or a resentful streak, they can become a "believer" and "extremist" (radical) for the wrong reasons.

The implication from the other poster who listed a bunch of conspiracies for me to say if I "subscribe" to them, was that if a person believes in/knows about more than one socially "unacceptable" conspiracies -- one of them being bad enough! :) -- then you must be doing so because you are gullible.

However, we have, SADLY, massive supportive evidence for gov't, old money, new money, and old religion power centres having members doing drug running, slave running, mind control (of various kinds, including shills and trolls to control conscious knowledge), political corruption AND joining confabs to direct world opinion, run economic warfare, etc.

This goes also for media magnates. Heck, in 1917, according to the congressional records of the US, JP Morgan openly bought major media and placed his despoilers of free speech into positions. The CIA has boasted about their infiltration of the media. Rockefeller thanked the media for their silence on certain issues. Media magnates go to Bilderberg and don't report the existence of the conference most years, not to mention reporting the discussions -- except as talking points to promote the ideas discussed, not report ON them.

..................................

For instance, the Germans just banned naked credit default swaps, which are a derivative; the North American-UK media is almost refusing to call them derivatives ... so that the whole issue of the depression we are in, cannot as EASILY become UNDERSTANDABLE as what it is: a bank-sold derivatives crisis, not a mere "stock market" issue.

So, we have another level of conspiring (and again including the media): this time, to save their system, not the health of economy.

Nancy just can't withstand any criticism at all

What were the false rumors i wonder?

ah well......alls fair in the tards war....

ROFLMAO. I am guessing the ning will end badly, just like her blog. It's only been a couple of weeks and the kooks are already infighting. They don't need debunkers to discredit them, they do a fine job all on their own.

I did listen while I was doing some other things and admit I didn't concentrate as I should have. However, my impression is that you have an impressive amount of energy and breadth of interests. Your speech pattern is smoother and less stilted and staccato than your writing. I would agree that English is your primary language. I didn't get to listen to the end and hear your summary . . . I will try if I get a chance.

Aww. 10-Q. :) And I was sick! You should see me when 'm not, ha ha ha.

Anyway, Yup -- it's rather packed, not just with "info" but with thought lines.

I also really recommend Dangerous Dan Marvin's interview of June 93, 2009 ----- totally different; more of a life story. I think he's lying in saying that he "turned down" the assignment to kill Pitzer, but the rest clearly was his experience around the event, and others.

Yes, um, my writing on posts is hurried, un-edited usually and has had to be somewhat defensive -- not the best conditions. But also, I am usually better in person, unless I re-work my writing. I always got top marks in essays, but the ideas were more important to me than the writing -- so I had to work and re-work the pieces for the right order of the thoughts. Lots to say. Plus, the interruption of sentences when I first lay them down is often due to emotional tone shifts, too, but that comes across beter in a voice or in later editing to separate the thoughts out.

Also, I'm not perfect, though. Who is?! ;)

Plus some of the confusion here was the others: their disjointed attacking; it made me have to re-state things. Plus, I was trying to make points about hypothesis, open-mindedness (versus brain mush), and relative viewpoints vs. relative layers of understanding (superposition of forces), which others didn't want to hear, were unfamiliar with the implications of ---- Not to mention not predisposed to read, because they clearly wanted to pick on me undeservedly. It added to the problem.

Oh well.

lol

Anyway, cheers,
and 10-Q.

"The Real Deal" interviews are 4 segments of roughly 20 min's each. The podcasts include the ads and music, which are 5 mins per break.

So slide the slider to rougly 1/2 hour from the end and you should be okay, since my phone card ran out and so we had to break early before the last segment, in order for me to get back on the line. Thus, the last segment is a bit longer than usual.

And re. a wide range of interests (another comment you made about me) it's how I know so many of these conspiracies are real -- PLUS this is only one aspect of me! I am very interested also in "regular" history, art, science and philosophy.

But I find, now that I know about how creeps operate and what the Inquisition was -- the non-religious aspects -- or the Babylonian Empire's methods, etc., there is so much in history which relates to the NWO stuff for real, not dreamy-like "belief" that they relate.

That was a typo.

June 3, 2009 is correct.

(By the way, you said you "would agree" that English is my primary language. Of course I know what you meant, but it is a funny statement, for it is my primary and only language, whether or not you "agree"! -- Hope you get a giggle out of my pointing that out. Just funny, that's all.)

By the way, you think I'm difficult to read ... try Cicero! 5-line-long sentences, masterfully constructed but all intertwined. The problem comes in that he was used to giving talks ... and that is more my medium, too. (Not saying I'm Cicero in other ways, though.) He was beheaded in a conspiracy, by the way, at the END OF THE REPUBLIC.

Anyhow, when a person speaks, pauses and tone shifts contribute to meaning in addition to words. Even if the sentences make sense in construction, they flow as one thought over many conjoined sentences ... Different style.

My Latin teacher was so happy when he found an error in Cicero's grammatical case-endings, not because there was an error in a great man, but because Cicero had been going on and on with complex sentences (e.g., sentences which had multiple interruptions with subordinate clauses), that he forgot what he'd started with and messed up an agreement in case ending.

:P

Rotfl

I have the same problem with C.S. Lewis . . . Screwtape Letters is almost impossible to read and understand every line the first time through. BTW I did finish your audio clip . . . you covered a lot of material in a short period of time. I just started a little over a year ago to review all that is available on the internet etc. or review whait I call the alternative universe. That is, what I have been taught to believe in my life I challenge at almost ever point. I am re-constructing my entire point of view and the process if very painful. I find it very hard to talk to talk to many of my family and friends except in very guarded situations.

My logon timed out . . . the above was from George B.

Last Edited by George B on 05/30/2010 01:59 AM

You're not kidding about the painfulness.

I covered a lot there at the end because the part of "backing it up" was over and I could run with a whole bunch of "conclusions" but I've spent a lot of time on the proofs of the stuff I mentioned.

The ugliness of the situation is really high -- really, if you FEEL it. Some of the stuff is just nightmarish and so many victims. SO sad.

But there is another side: the world is rich, full, and we can bring real awareness better, knowing more.

As you research, be careful to look into everything. In the end, if you really really think as you hear it, you will get used to how the different sides talk, i.e., what prejudices they have ... and yet, what they can bring to the discussion.

Don't get stuck on any "this is the big conspiracy" line of thinking. They are all partly right. :) But as I said earlier in the show, and at the end, it is faction upon faction, dupe upon dupe, different viewpoints and histories and individuals choosing to participate in only one thing and not another ...

So we have to trace people's connections, but not assume that in all cases that's the whole story. Sometimes a good person has bad connections -- or a nasty person decides not to participate in some particular thing.

Then you'll understand history, too. You'll begin not only to see "the big esoteric conspiracy" (which some people allege may be somewhat continuous, though I doubt it), but you will also see the same kinds of problems in other times.

It is more massive now, though, in potential.

Oh, hi George B.

I hadn't noticed your self-identifying note yet, when I replied.

:)

I had to do that a few times in this thread, too. I have a problem with my password, so I type in my user name each time. It provides the right # though. Weird.

Have a good night.

Oh, and re. pain: perhaps in my show, you could tell I've felt that, too. And terror. But also excitement and cautious and even resistant moods, but I kept going to look into whatever is debated. I have not bought all of it, but I have found that a bit of almost all of it is true.

Which, I have to say, is likely anyway: usually, where there's smoke there's at least smoke, if not fire. (Not always: sometimes someone's faking smoke.) LOL

Okay, good night.

George, I, too, have been being careful with people who can't deal with implications.

Many people know SOME of these things but don't integrate them.

I spent some of my time working out for myself, just how each objection angle goes: "It doesn't matter, even if it's true" or "there's nothing I can do" or "why don't you go into politics instead of talking to me" ... etc.

I try to have conversations even though others might be listening: as in, it's OKAY to discuss things. Like, Kissinger, Geithner, or whatever.

And even if I get weird looks, it's also clear that we're spreading the awareness that we're not all atoms on this planet, in a social niche, each one. That's the more important thing: we can think beyond the next Slurpee from a 7/11, and discuss what others are going through, both the perps and the victims, and the witnesses and the activists ... they're real people!

It's a big world out there. I try to let others see that someone smart can talk to people in public about these subjects. If I'm talking of Kissinger as I go into a tea shop, I continue. I and my friend DARE. Not forcing it, but refusing to be cowed by the "unacceptability" of the subject. Gosh! He's a mass murderer! Why not talk. What are we coming to!

But family is different/ and some people's viciousness and anger about even saying the name "JFK" (without any other mention!) is stunning after all this time.

I think really informing yourself is important first. If you want tips of interesting things, you can contact Jim Fetzer and he'll forward my e-mail. I'm not going to post it here.

Oh, and George, if you do want to be in touch, just post here a couple of letters in your e-mail name, in their order, so I can recognize it as you ... if he forwards it to me.

Thanks.

Here is the full drama:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

Alone the comments there show that not a single one of the Planet X believers has a brain.

First of all, in my opinion there's at least as much if not more viciousness and anger coming from the side of the conspiracy theorists.

Secondly, your first two statements are straight out of the handbook and condescendingly annoying.

There are people who can "deal with implications," who are concerned with the larger problems facing the world, who have studied these subjects as much as you but who have come to different conclusions.

As far as your family is concerned, it might be your obsessiveness as much as the subject matter that causes friction. I know because I've been there.

Obsession an obvious danger for all who become excited about a journey . . . sounds like you have discovered a few pitfalls along the way. The danger of discovery is we are unfamiliar with the new countryside and are easily deceived or wounded by new predators. Any wisdom you wish to share is welcome.

Last Edited by George B on 05/30/2010 07:56 AM

Sorry, I don't quite understand, you are a bit too terse for me to catch your meaning. Who is "he?"

When Zetasquawk is up again (soon I hope) then i will use some of my sleeper accounts at the ning to remind them.

Abso-fucking-lutley CLASSIC chemmie-speak! A parody of itself!

I think I agree. Clare is not really Nancy; however, if Clare isn't a troll, she is the most unintentionally effective troll ever.

I called attention to the fact that "Zetas" say the effects of PX are a natural event and not to be interfered with, but 'they' are are interfereing like crazy. Just one more of the many, many contradictions.