Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > General Chat

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 18-09-2010, 09:01 PM   #61
whatistruth
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Britain
Posts: 2,601
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scootleroyale View Post
The 'Skeptics' are massive hypocrites. They apply selective skepticism.

They pride themselves in pointing out logical fallacies etc., but they make them more than anyone.

For example a common 9/11 debunking argument is "How could the government have smuggled explosives into WTC7 without getting caught?" ... Basically what they are saying is "I can't possibly imagine HOW building 7 was covertly demolished, therefore I'm going to deny the forensic evidence that PROVES that it WAS covertly demolished!" - which is an argument of personal incredulity. If they were true skeptics they would see that.

Their key arguments are mainly appeals to authority. eg. "9/11 truthers say ___, but NIST says ___" or "So what if birth defects in Iraq have increased since the war, the WHO says Depleted Uranium is harmless", aswell as appeals to majority, eg. "The scientific consensus is that global warming is caused by man / vaccines are good for you" or "The majority of the engineering community believes the official story of 9/11" ... Yeh coz that's what they've been taught, and most have never questioned it coz they're not even aware there is another side, duh!

Then when a scientific study is published that supports our side, they immediately try to discredit either the scientist, the journal or the peer-review process. Like when Steven Jones and Niels Harrits nanothermite paper was published. The debunkers response was dub the journal a "vanity publication", make up shit about the peer-review and dismiss it. Wikipedia won't reference it because they say it isn't a "reliable source" ... But all the "reliable sources" are edited by people who are controlled one way or another by the establishment. So of course you're not gonna see 9/11 truth in a "reliable source". They've never challenged Steven Jones' findings in any serious scientific way, they've just ignored it because it's "not credible". And it's the same story with other things - like vaccine criticism, man-made global warming skepticism and Intelligent Design.

Really it's just blind, religious faith in - and orwellian respect for - academic authorities, prestige, "consensus science", the "peer-review" process and the impartiality of journal editors.

And of course they use ad-hominems alot. Terms like "conspiracy theorist" and "denier" are their favourite, aswell as specific ones like "truther" or "anti-vaxer" or "ID-ist".

Really it's just some pathetic schoolyard bully type fishsticks mentality (the South Park episode 'fishsticks') where they become invested in a belief system that they won't let go of. They act all tough but when the tables are turned on them - like when Ben Stein made the movie Expelled - they get really whiny and complain "We were misled!" etc. ... So what? Now you know how we feel!

And deep down I think they know they've got nothing to stand on so they use ridicule and employ ad-hominems as a defence mechanism. It's kind of sad really. They're the ones who are really suffering from "denialism".

I don't know if Shermer or Randi or Dawkins etc. work for the NWO but I think either way they genuinely believe what they are saying.

Although I disagree with you about ID, you make good posts and should post more.

Good day to you sir.
whatistruth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-09-2010, 11:41 PM   #62
beldazar
Senior Member
 
beldazar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall UK
Posts: 19,423
Likes: 21 (18 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver View Post
Why do people keep citing that video as David inflicting pwnage on that guy?

David made an UTTER PRAT of himself in that video. I appreciate that he shouted louder than the other guy, but that kind of bar-room bluster only impresses the thick.
I also cringed when I first saw it, very badly planned. Surely a nice, comfortable setting would have created a more relaxed discussion. I can see Davids point, of course, it was pretty dumb of Chris not to have read any of Davids work. However David didn't handle it too well at all and got completely on the defensive. I can't say I blame him really but he didn't do too well there.
__________________
The most beautiful piece of music I have ever heard.
George Carlin and Bill Hicks at their very finest!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sipD...layer_embedded
beldazar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-09-2010, 11:57 PM   #63
deca
Senior Member
 
deca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 18,926
Likes: 947 (632 Posts)
Default

I think most times the scientific explanation is not always reflective of the experiences .....think about the biological explanation to sex...and actually have a good shag ....what is going to be the most stimulating and memorable ?
__________________
It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction...Thus, it may be possible to 'talk' to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them."
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power For The 21st Century
find out more website ==> https://decasfoxhole.wordpress.com/

Last edited by deca; 18-09-2010 at 11:59 PM.
deca is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 18-09-2010, 11:58 PM   #64
bodge
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 91
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

It is very difficult for someone to be told the opposite of what they think or believe in no uncertain terms. It is natural to want to walk away from the stupidity and the futility of debating a point that you know to be true when a "paid" or professional skeptic is there simply to put you down. James Randi annoys the hell out of me. Everyone is entitled to their belief sometimes you feel a need to prove it but not against someone whose "job" it is to put you down.
bodge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2010, 12:36 AM   #65
pound
Senior Member
 
pound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 6,466
Likes: 471 (257 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwu777 View Post
I was thinking the other day about the professional media skeptics who call themselves "skeptics", but who in reality attack and try to discredit anything related to the paranormal or conspiracies, such as James Randi, Michael Shermer, CSICOP (now CSI), etc.

Their movement seems way too calculated to be due to sheer human ignorance and closed mindedness. Plus they've hijacked words like "skepticism", "rationality" and "critical thinking" to mean their opposite. Instead of open minded inquiry and the questioning of things and possibilities, they have been twisted to mean the suppression of anything that challenges establishment orthodoxy. That's not skepticism at all.

So could some of them knowingly be part of a disinfo campaign. Hijacking terms to mean their opposite does not seem accidental at all. It seems like a calculated disinfo strategy.

What do you think?

Yet there are so many pseudoskeptics around. James Randi's forum for example, is populated with thousands of them. And my SCEPCOP forum has a regular group of pseudoskeptics too, who repeat the same old arguments that I've debunked many times.

Are some of them disinfo agents and the rest just brainwashed followers?

What motivates such people to religiously reject 100 percent of the metaphysical and conspiratorial? Do these people believe in what they say, or just pretending? They seem so fake, as if they are playing some kind of game, yet there are so many of them and they never admit that they are wrong. Instead they religiously cling to their beliefs.

I've just created a new page on my SCEPCOP site about them possibly being disinfo agents. I'll paste it below. I got an inspiration one morning, like Icke does, to write it. Hope you all like it.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/hijackingterms.php

How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite:
Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression


Pseudoskeptics are not just wrong and fallacious in their reasoning and approach to investigating the paranormal with outright rejection of anything that doesn't fit into a materialist orthodox paradigm. They've also, knowingly or unknowingly, engaged in deceptive mind control by hijacking critical terms to mean their OPPOSITE, including the very term "skeptic" itself. And they've hid what they truly are (suppressors of new ideas) by pretending to the opposite of what they are. Let me explain.

As mentioned earlier, a skeptic doubts, inquires, questions, ponders, etc. But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. They attack, ridicule, discredit and suppress anything and everything that challenges the materialist reductionist paradigm. But don't take my word for it. Just look at any article by James Randi, Michael Shermer, or Skeptical Inquirer, for example, and you will see that there is no questioning of what they are told, doubt or pondering of possibilities at all. All they do is ridicule and attack anything related to paranormal and psychic phenomena, holistic medicine, and conspiracies. That's not what skepticism is. The founder of the term itself meant this:



And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:



Now, take Michael Shermer for example. He is a professional skeptic who runs a Skeptic magazine, which makes him a prominent skeptic in the movement. But does he do any of the above? Does he doubt or question authority or orthodoxy? Does he ponder possibilities and the mysteries and wonders of life? Does he engage in a nonjudgmental open search for truth? No. All he does is try to debunk and discredit anything related to the paranormal. Just look at EVERY article he writes and you will see that. Yet he is one of the "big name skeptics!" What does that tell you?!

So you see, these pseudoskeptics hijack the term "skeptic" so that it can't be used against them. By calling themselves "skeptics", they cast themselves as THE "skeptics" who question everything with critical thinking and doubt. And if you are a skeptic or critical thinker, then you will agree with them, so they hope.

Similarly, they've done the same with the terms "reason, rationality, logic, critical thinking, scientific" as well by hijacking them to fit their agenda, so that they support their agenda of discrediting anything related to paranormal, holistic or conspiratorial evidence.

In essence, what they've done is put themselves in a position of "ultimate authority" on reason, rationality, logic, critical thinking, etc. so that if you call yourself those things, then you must agree with them and their position. As such, being "reasonable and rational" means to AGREE with them. And "critical thinking" can only be used to reject what they reject, never to critique the pseudoskeptics themselves, according to their paradigm, for they are "the critiquers".

Thus, they've made it so that "critical thinking" and "skepticism" can't be used against them, because they are THE "critical thinkers and skeptics". It's a very sly form of mind control that obfuscates the terms and attempts to shield them from "criticism" by putting them in the highest position of criticism.

As such, the term "skeptic" now refers to the one who suppresses, rather than the one who "doubts or questions". It refers to the "ridiculer, debunker and discreditor" of the "questioner" (who is the true skeptic) rather than to the questioner himself. In other words, the new "skeptic" is someone who debunks a "skeptic" by wearing the hat of the person they are out to debunk, in effect impersonating them! It's a highly deceptive form of role reversal that is sneaky and devious, no doubt.

Fortunately though, the true skeptics, critical thinkers and freethinkers see through this BS and call them on it. And that's the purpose of this page, to expose this mind control and hijacking of terms to mean their opposite.

Now, I may be speculating here, but this whole movement of hijacking important words to mean their opposite, and militant suppression of new ideas, seems way too calculated and organized to be due to simple sheer human ignorance and narrow mindedness alone. Instead, it's more indicative of an agenda, such as a disinformation or mind control campaign. This isn't to say that all pseudoskeptics are disinfo agents. But some might be, either knowingly or unknowingly. You have to remember that we are all mind controlled to some degree, one way or another. Even if these pseudoskeptics are not knowingly involved in a disinfo campaign, they are likely to be mind controlled themselves by a disinfo/thought suppression campaign.

It's a definite possibility, since after all, this world has more dark secrets than one can imagine, and most things are not what they appear to be. I don't want to jump to any far out conspiratorial conclusions here. I'm just asserting the possibilities, like a true skeptic does. Either way, there is no question that they have hijacked terms and pretended to be the opposite of what they are.

By hiding behind the mask of critical rational thinkers and skeptics, they've hidden the fact that they are suppressors of new ideas that challenge old paradigms, thus making themselves look forward and progressive, rather than backwards and suppressive.

Now, this form of hiding what you are by pretending to be the opposite of what you are is nothing new. It's a classic form of mind control. MIT professor of linguistics and media critic Noam Chomsky talks here in this video about how the mainstream media in America hides its conservativism for big business interests (which own them) by pretending to be a "liberal voice" for the people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic

This forum poster hit the nail on the head about how and why the mainstream media trick us into thinking it is the opposite of what it is:



Now this is not surprising given the state of affairs in this world, which this quote eloquently sums up:



The lesson here is that we all need to wake up and stop believing what people SAY, and start judging them by their ACTIONS. After all, actions speak louder than words, and talk is cheap. We've been lied to and deceived too often in the past. It's time we stop believing everything we are told, even by those in established positions of authority, and start thinking for ourselves. Seek the truth, and you will be closer to finding it.

It is my hope that many more will join us in this journey of truth and liberation from fear mongering, mind control, thought suppression, and limited thinking. Not only is it more liberating, but it is far more exciting and interesting as well. If you are accustomed to living in fear and conformity, then try the opposite for once. Try living in truth, and you will see that it is much more exciting and soul fulfilling. Once you've tasted that, you will never want to go back. Once you go up in consciousness, you will not want to come down.

It is my hope, therefore, that someday you will look back on this article and say "Hey you know, what I read there was right all along!"
Brilliant article, you have a wonderful way with words and I love you're informed articulate approach. You're website is a must read for anyone wanting to know more about the pyschology of Pseudo skeptics and Bogus skepticism. Two thumbs way up!
__________________
"Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes." -- Carl Jung
"The educated person is one who knows how to find out what he does not know" -- George Simmel
pound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2010, 01:03 AM   #66
deca
Senior Member
 
deca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 18,926
Likes: 947 (632 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pound View Post
Brilliant article, you have a wonderful way with words and I love you're informed articulate approach. You're website is a must read for anyone wanting to know more about the pyschology of Pseudo skeptics and Bogus skepticism. Two thumbs way up!

ask yourself why is there is skepticism?

there certinly is Pseudo skeptics and Bogus skepticism but also Pseudo scienence and Bogus belief

so don`t try a tar every skeptic with the same brush
__________________
It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction...Thus, it may be possible to 'talk' to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them."
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power For The 21st Century
find out more website ==> https://decasfoxhole.wordpress.com/

Last edited by deca; 19-09-2010 at 01:05 AM.
deca is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-09-2010, 01:23 AM   #67
deca
Senior Member
 
deca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 18,926
Likes: 947 (632 Posts)
Default

belief and subjective experience is not knowledge

if it was it would be easily proved and demostrated or at least have sound sciencie behind it to why it was not




Optical Illusions and Visual Phenomena
http://langabi.name/blog/2005/09/26/...sual-phenomena
__________________
It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction...Thus, it may be possible to 'talk' to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them."
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power For The 21st Century
find out more website ==> https://decasfoxhole.wordpress.com/

Last edited by deca; 19-09-2010 at 01:42 AM.
deca is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 09:45 PM   #68
wwu777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 800
Likes: 6 (2 Posts)
Default

Check out Victor Zammit's new video "The James Randi Challenge Exposed: A Lawyer Explains":


Also check out Darryl Sloan's great video about why faith in the JREF Challenge is irrational:

wwu777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 09:53 PM   #69
orderoutofchaos
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 2,046
Likes: 53 (16 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwu777 View Post
I was thinking the other day about the professional media skeptics who call themselves "skeptics", but who in reality attack and try to discredit anything related to the paranormal or conspiracies, such as James Randi, Michael Shermer, CSICOP (now CSI), etc.

Their movement seems way too calculated to be due to sheer human ignorance and closed mindedness. Plus they've hijacked words like "skepticism", "rationality" and "critical thinking" to mean their opposite. Instead of open minded inquiry and the questioning of things and possibilities, they have been twisted to mean the suppression of anything that challenges establishment orthodoxy. That's not skepticism at all.

So could some of them knowingly be part of a disinfo campaign. Hijacking terms to mean their opposite does not seem accidental at all. It seems like a calculated disinfo strategy.

What do you think?

Yet there are so many pseudoskeptics around. James Randi's forum for example, is populated with thousands of them. And my SCEPCOP forum has a regular group of pseudoskeptics too, who repeat the same old arguments that I've debunked many times.

Are some of them disinfo agents and the rest just brainwashed followers?

What motivates such people to religiously reject 100 percent of the metaphysical and conspiratorial? Do these people believe in what they say, or just pretending? They seem so fake, as if they are playing some kind of game, yet there are so many of them and they never admit that they are wrong. Instead they religiously cling to their beliefs.

I've just created a new page on my SCEPCOP site about them possibly being disinfo agents. I'll paste it below. I got an inspiration one morning, like Icke does, to write it. Hope you all like it.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/hijackingterms.php

How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite:
Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression


Pseudoskeptics are not just wrong and fallacious in their reasoning and approach to investigating the paranormal with outright rejection of anything that doesn't fit into a materialist orthodox paradigm. They've also, knowingly or unknowingly, engaged in deceptive mind control by hijacking critical terms to mean their OPPOSITE, including the very term "skeptic" itself. And they've hid what they truly are (suppressors of new ideas) by pretending to the opposite of what they are. Let me explain.

As mentioned earlier, a skeptic doubts, inquires, questions, ponders, etc. But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. They attack, ridicule, discredit and suppress anything and everything that challenges the materialist reductionist paradigm. But don't take my word for it. Just look at any article by James Randi, Michael Shermer, or Skeptical Inquirer, for example, and you will see that there is no questioning of what they are told, doubt or pondering of possibilities at all. All they do is ridicule and attack anything related to paranormal and psychic phenomena, holistic medicine, and conspiracies. That's not what skepticism is. The founder of the term itself meant this:



And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:



Now, take Michael Shermer for example. He is a professional skeptic who runs a Skeptic magazine, which makes him a prominent skeptic in the movement. But does he do any of the above? Does he doubt or question authority or orthodoxy? Does he ponder possibilities and the mysteries and wonders of life? Does he engage in a nonjudgmental open search for truth? No. All he does is try to debunk and discredit anything related to the paranormal. Just look at EVERY article he writes and you will see that. Yet he is one of the "big name skeptics!" What does that tell you?!

So you see, these pseudoskeptics hijack the term "skeptic" so that it can't be used against them. By calling themselves "skeptics", they cast themselves as THE "skeptics" who question everything with critical thinking and doubt. And if you are a skeptic or critical thinker, then you will agree with them, so they hope.

Similarly, they've done the same with the terms "reason, rationality, logic, critical thinking, scientific" as well by hijacking them to fit their agenda, so that they support their agenda of discrediting anything related to paranormal, holistic or conspiratorial evidence.

In essence, what they've done is put themselves in a position of "ultimate authority" on reason, rationality, logic, critical thinking, etc. so that if you call yourself those things, then you must agree with them and their position. As such, being "reasonable and rational" means to AGREE with them. And "critical thinking" can only be used to reject what they reject, never to critique the pseudoskeptics themselves, according to their paradigm, for they are "the critiquers".

Thus, they've made it so that "critical thinking" and "skepticism" can't be used against them, because they are THE "critical thinkers and skeptics". It's a very sly form of mind control that obfuscates the terms and attempts to shield them from "criticism" by putting them in the highest position of criticism.

As such, the term "skeptic" now refers to the one who suppresses, rather than the one who "doubts or questions". It refers to the "ridiculer, debunker and discreditor" of the "questioner" (who is the true skeptic) rather than to the questioner himself. In other words, the new "skeptic" is someone who debunks a "skeptic" by wearing the hat of the person they are out to debunk, in effect impersonating them! It's a highly deceptive form of role reversal that is sneaky and devious, no doubt.

Fortunately though, the true skeptics, critical thinkers and freethinkers see through this BS and call them on it. And that's the purpose of this page, to expose this mind control and hijacking of terms to mean their opposite.

Now, I may be speculating here, but this whole movement of hijacking important words to mean their opposite, and militant suppression of new ideas, seems way too calculated and organized to be due to simple sheer human ignorance and narrow mindedness alone. Instead, it's more indicative of an agenda, such as a disinformation or mind control campaign. This isn't to say that all pseudoskeptics are disinfo agents. But some might be, either knowingly or unknowingly. You have to remember that we are all mind controlled to some degree, one way or another. Even if these pseudoskeptics are not knowingly involved in a disinfo campaign, they are likely to be mind controlled themselves by a disinfo/thought suppression campaign.

It's a definite possibility, since after all, this world has more dark secrets than one can imagine, and most things are not what they appear to be. I don't want to jump to any far out conspiratorial conclusions here. I'm just asserting the possibilities, like a true skeptic does. Either way, there is no question that they have hijacked terms and pretended to be the opposite of what they are.

By hiding behind the mask of critical rational thinkers and skeptics, they've hidden the fact that they are suppressors of new ideas that challenge old paradigms, thus making themselves look forward and progressive, rather than backwards and suppressive.

Now, this form of hiding what you are by pretending to be the opposite of what you are is nothing new. It's a classic form of mind control. MIT professor of linguistics and media critic Noam Chomsky talks here in this video about how the mainstream media in America hides its conservativism for big business interests (which own them) by pretending to be a "liberal voice" for the people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic

This forum poster hit the nail on the head about how and why the mainstream media trick us into thinking it is the opposite of what it is:



Now this is not surprising given the state of affairs in this world, which this quote eloquently sums up:



The lesson here is that we all need to wake up and stop believing what people SAY, and start judging them by their ACTIONS. After all, actions speak louder than words, and talk is cheap. We've been lied to and deceived too often in the past. It's time we stop believing everything we are told, even by those in established positions of authority, and start thinking for ourselves. Seek the truth, and you will be closer to finding it.

It is my hope that many more will join us in this journey of truth and liberation from fear mongering, mind control, thought suppression, and limited thinking. Not only is it more liberating, but it is far more exciting and interesting as well. If you are accustomed to living in fear and conformity, then try the opposite for once. Try living in truth, and you will see that it is much more exciting and soul fulfilling. Once you've tasted that, you will never want to go back. Once you go up in consciousness, you will not want to come down.

It is my hope, therefore, that someday you will look back on this article and say "Hey you know, what I read there was right all along!"
Now that is the type of high quality post that this forum needs. Its got me thinking.
orderoutofchaos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 10:26 PM   #70
bodge
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 91
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Thats just about nailed the coffin of skeptic. What a writer, excellent.
bodge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-2010, 11:51 PM   #71
deca
Senior Member
 
deca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 18,926
Likes: 947 (632 Posts)
Default

again people should understand the use of labels and stereotypes and pegoion hole somebody by them .....easy to distort the perception of a given "stereotypes"

Understanding PSYOPS - Creating Stereotypes

the anti skeptic threads are in danger of taring any credable real skeptic who has actual used real scientific methods and give good infromation and pass on knowledge and understanding.

also this make it easy for people to post false or misleading even subversive belief on here and anybody that does can be easily stereotype "Pseudoskeptics disinformation agents" and this just a useful tool to people creating false or misleading even subversive belief because it stops the actual facts and evidence being critical anylised and put people off or demised for doing so.



you get it....I like when you do...
__________________
It would also appear possible to create high fidelity speech in the human body, raising the possibility of covert suggestion and psychological direction...Thus, it may be possible to 'talk' to selected adversaries in a fashion that would be most disturbing to them."
United States Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, New World Vistas: Air and Space Power For The 21st Century
find out more website ==> https://decasfoxhole.wordpress.com/

Last edited by deca; 30-10-2010 at 11:57 PM.
deca is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2010, 12:07 PM   #72
wwu777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 800
Likes: 6 (2 Posts)
Default

I have a question.

Does the government really hire debunkers to troll the internet and ridicule all alternative info?

If so, how come none of them have blown the whistle and came out and revealed this secret operation? How come none of them have come out and disclosed the manual they received, or documents, instructing them on how to spread disinfo on the net?

I'm starting to wonder if disinfo debunkers might be some form of artificial intelligence? Or somehow are inhuman? Kind of like the sentinels in The Matrix movie?

Last edited by wwu777; 14-12-2010 at 12:07 PM.
wwu777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-12-2010, 03:02 PM   #73
the apprentice
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,637
Likes: 2,982 (2,088 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwu777 View Post
I have a question.

Does the government really hire debunkers to troll the internet and ridicule all alternative info?

If so, how come none of them have blown the whistle and came out and revealed this secret operation? How come none of them have come out and disclosed the manual they received, or documents, instructing them on how to spread disinfo on the net?

I'm starting to wonder if disinfo debunkers might be some form of artificial intelligence? Or somehow are inhuman? Kind of like the sentinels in The Matrix movie?

But, eventually all the money in all of the banks in this world will not save it nor the people in it, one world anything will eventually deplete it of all of its resorces, all debt, ultimately comes from the immediate enviornment, but we cannot see it for the shiny stuff.
the apprentice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2011, 02:32 PM   #74
wwu777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 800
Likes: 6 (2 Posts)
Default Skeptics are controlled by Reptilian Brain

Check out this interview segment where David Icke says that the skeptics are controlled by their Reptilian brains.

wwu777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2011, 02:35 PM   #75
truthspoon
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Africa........ The pirate-coast! Yarrh!
Posts: 20,360
Likes: 275 (166 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwu777 View Post
I was thinking the other day about the professional media skeptics who call themselves "skeptics", but who in reality attack and try to discredit anything related to the paranormal or conspiracies, such as James Randi, Michael Shermer, CSICOP (now CSI), etc.
They're all Humanists.

And Humanism is a dogma like any other.

Dogma means rules of thought and critical thinking is not allowed.

Like priests of the materialistic order of things.

They're worse than the church.
truthspoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2011, 02:46 PM   #76
lemonde
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 126
Likes: 1 (1 Post)
Default

I was just poodling about on youtube and came across some clips of James Randi's show Psychic Investigator. My first question after seeing the obvious symbolism there was the one asked by the OP and after a bit of a search I found this thread. I haven't time to read the entire thread yet so sorry if this is already mentioned - a search on the name of the show didn't return any hits. Thought it was worth resurrecting the thread for this...

Here is a screen shot from one episode:



Can't miss the eye on the floor, the eye in the pyramid in the background, along with the two pyramids missing their capstones... Other episodes have similar obvious symbols.

It was enough to make me wonder if the whole show was a set up and if Randi is a sell-out to the establishment - and from what I've read here, it seems like it.
lemonde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2011, 03:15 PM   #77
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Plus they've hijacked words like "skepticism", "rationality" and "critical thinking" to mean their opposite.
Beautiful. Some of them do possess philosophical reasoning skills. However, Randi's tests have to be conducted on his own impossible terms.

He doesn't investigate as to how someone is actually communicating stuff concerning the deceased or psychic impressions. No usually the better you are the steeper the climb and the demand thus rendering whatever skills one possess null and void. Proving a negative basically. Can't be done.

Ah but then you can't be talking to the dead then can you.

For what it is worth the friends I know that a leading skeptics are in fact are on the autistic spectrum scale.
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2011, 03:26 PM   #78
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wwu777 View Post
I have a question.

Does the government really hire debunkers to troll the internet and ridicule all alternative info?

If so, how come none of them have blown the whistle and came out and revealed this secret operation? How come none of them have come out and disclosed the manual they received, or documents, instructing them on how to spread disinfo on the net?

I'm starting to wonder if disinfo debunkers might be some form of artificial intelligence? Or somehow are inhuman? Kind of like the sentinels in The Matrix movie?
Not in the first few years of this site. Some of the debunkers on the FMOL are saddos. Govt arselickers with not much money and too much time on their hands.

I can't think of one internet forum anywhere that doesn't have a saddo that just gets his rocks off on being mean to the rest. Usually the more popular the forum this type of person will frequent.

Unfortunately though, yes, this site, is beginning to be frequented by paid shills and there are heaps of purves from all kinds writers, songwriters, journos you name it.

I think it came about by David doing bigger shows and the marches that are being organised. They keep photo imaging captions of every march attendee and then profile the name against it using computer technology and face recognition equipment. They used all these tactics against Unions members and known socialists in the 70s and sanctioned it under the auspices of filthy Commy sympathisers or IRA.

Now you know what their up-to-date excuses are.

Where there is popularity expect the bigger amount of parasitic activity to pawn off it.
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2011, 03:30 PM   #79
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatistruth View Post
Although I disagree with you about ID, you make good posts and should post more.

Good day to you sir.
yes concur. The man makes an intelligent and cogent point.
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-05-2011, 03:34 PM   #80
girlgye
Inactive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a land that needs to wake up
Posts: 5,509
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by whatistruth View Post
Yes we all know rent a skeptic moron chris french, that guy is really something else.

But dawkins is legit, he does a great Job tearing down the religious nuts.

Infact, some people are starting to sound a lot like these psueadoskeptics, all just in this thread agreeing with each other and uttering the same phrases over and over again.
"Open minded".


When you really get down to the brass tact of what people actually think and believe it's always hazzy, jumbled and silly (if it's in regards to 'spiritual' things) and through discussion they realise how silly the things they believe are.

I've asked numerous times for the spiritual believers to bring forth evidence or at least explain why they think it's reasonable to believe in such things.
And all it comes down to is belief, nothing more, they've just chosen to believe it like an idiot muslim has chosen to believe in allah.


What strikes me as strange though is how legit skeptics can get it so right, (at least logically right, they could be wrong) on matters of pschics, ghosts, spiritual nonsense, but at the same time deny literally ANYTHING conspiratorial.

No one who isn't either just incredibly gullible and doesnt have the mental fortitude to look into it, or is plain retarded believes the official 9/11 fantasy.
All Dawkins does is scream on about the Objectionable passages in the Bible to which a lot of Fundamentalists take seriously.

Negates to ask intelligent historians, mystics and philosophers who have deconstructed the Bible and will continue to do so until doomsday.

Of course we have to accept the scientific credulity for a 'meme'. Coz his nibs says so ok.
girlgye is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
csicop, pseudoskeptics, randi, shermer, skeptics

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:37 PM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.