Take the Wacco conspiracy quiz

Conspiracy Quiz

In just the last few months I've noticed quite a large number of conspiracy theories posted as truth on this Wacco forum. Most all of them are conspiracies claimed to be instigated by various powers-that-be (either local, national, or global) with the intention to control the population in some way, sometimes going so far as leading to mass detention in FEMA camps. I am sure there are many others I have missed, but below I have listed the conspiracies I have recently seen put forward as truth in this forum. Please take this short quiz to find out where you rank with conspiracies. Give yourself one point for each conspiracy you believe to be true. (Your results below)

• Fluoridated water
• Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
• Chemtrails
• Efren Carrillo getting a delayed hearing and receiving only a misdemeanor charge
• The drought
• Agenda 21
• Smart meters
• Vaccination
• Fukushima "coverup"
• 9/11
• JFK
• Global Warming
• Neighborhood Watch programs
• HAARP
• Pretty much everyone around you

Your results (in points):

• 13-15-- Raving Wacco
• 9-12 -- Okay, now get off the computer quickly before they track your results through their embedded wifi mind scans.
• 5-8 -- You sufficiently question authority (or suffer from paranoia, depending on one's point of view) to qualify as a true West County-ite able to post on this forum without being seriously challenged.
• 3-4 -- Are you sure you are even a member of this community?
• 0-2 -- You are no doubt part of the Shadow Government and one of those who are behind these conspiracies.

[Larry's suggestions below have been integrated and the scoring scale adjusted. - Barry]

How about:

- Agenda 21
- Global warming
- JFK

I'm just shy of RAVING if one considers these issues 'bogus'...

OR ALERT-AWARE, able to see patterns-connections, willing to educate myself on 'real' facts/science behind the major media mind-numbing pablum, even if the knowledge is deeply disturbing-distressful.

It's a challenge to live life consciously, lovingly, and respectfully...and to continue to be pro-active and hopeful, the way things are now with massive cultural, ecological, and economic destruction all around.

Thanks for your poll and opening a forum for discussion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

Conspiracy Quiz

---

Fluoridated water

This may be an actual conspiracy to dispose of a toxic waste.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Nope. Just a roving loony.

Chemtrails

I can believe there are limited scale experiments happening with weather modification (cloud seeding, etc). But I don't think all the vapor trails you see are anything other than normal engine exhaust.

Efren Carrillo getting a delayed hearing and receiving only a misdemeanor charge

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a conspiracy, but I would say the Efren's high-powered lawyer is serving him well.

The drought

I think the conspiracy angle on this was about the lack of publicity around this situation. That seems to have changed.

Agenda 21

Nope, but I can understand how and why it drives the more paranoid and individualistic people crazy. Agenda 21 is just common sense policy so we avoid the tragedy of the commons.

Smart meters

Don't think they were intended for anything other than helping make our electrical distribution system more efficient. However they can be a large intrusion into privacy. I think the wi-fi concerns were helpful at first to be sure they are not emitting more signal than intended, as well as accuracy concerns. I think both concerns have been addressed and I would have no problem with having one.

Vaccination

I don't think this is a conspiracy, but I think the premise is somewhat outdated and the whole issue needs to be re-examined with modern science and a more holistic orientation.

Fukushima "coverup"
I could definitely believe we have not been told the full truth and it was a travesty to leave Tepco in charge for so long.

9/11

There's enough strangeness about the event to make me wonder.

:fairy:

JFK

Magic bullets are right up there with tooth fairies.

Global Warming
I think there is definitely a conspiracy of FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt) being perpetrated by the deniers and their financiers. Seems so silly though, because I have no doubt that there as much or as more money to be made by working to mitigate climate change. People (and apparently corporations and industries) hate change. So unfortunate.

Neighborhood Watch programs
Huh?

HAARP

I had to look this one up. I found a good article about it in Wired here. I'll add it to my reading pile :):

Pretty much everyone around you

Clearly!

So lets see... I get points for:

- Fluoridation
- Vaccination (sorta)
- Fukushima "coverup"
- 9/11
- JFK
- Global Warming (but opposite of the normal understanding)

So based on the (updated) scoring I get:

Quote:

---

5-8 -- You sufficiently question authority (or suffer from paranoia, depending on one's point of view) to qualify as a true West County-ite able to post on this forum without being seriously challenged

---

Whew! :whew: I'd hate to not be able to post here! :wink: :waccosun:

Who's next?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Barry:

Neighborhood Watch programs
Huh?

---

Barry,

Below was a posting on Wacco from earlier this year:

Quote:

---

It's important to know that your local "Neighborhood Watch" groups are teaching these harassment tactics to your neighbors to create a destabilized community, and promote false community leaders that have ties to protected organized crime such as Drug Dealing and Human Trafficking! It's networked through your local community service organizations, churches, social clubs, etc...

Gang Stalking is stalking by more than one person to a victim, usually involving community harassment, or the "mob", using people from all backgrounds and vocations to harass, tracking 24/7, sometimes organizing lethal vehicle accidents, poisoinings, electronic harassment, home invasions/property destruction, corrupt or ignorant doctor diagnosis given to stamp the victim as bogus mentally ill with delusions, paranoia, or schizophrenia, etc. Everything is done covertly, and with a sophisticated real time dispatching system to organize the criminals' harassment and attacks, often in the hundreds to thousands of criminals participating as a coordinated mob at any given time while the criminals due their normal routines of work, shopping, commuting to and from work, leisure, etc., using the method of moving foot and vehicular surveillance techniques, and computers, cell phones, verbal and visual cues, and every other conceivable type of communication.

---

This posting confirms the Wacco conspiracy category of "Neighborhood Watch programs" while the long series of similar postings it came from (along with numerous responses of agreement and support by other folks on Wacco) confirms the conspiracy category of "Pretty much everyone around you".

Scott

Fun quiz. I don't feel I can participate because it's not clear how many points I'd get for answers like "Haven't the foggiest" and "I'm leaning in this direction but am not remotely sure"--the only honest answers I could give to most of the questions. As usual, I wonder how many of those with strong opinions have investigated at least two sides to the controversy fairly deeply.

P.S. Don't be a conspiracy monger! Pay no attention to the persssissstent rumor that I'm an interdimensional reptilian overlord.

“The limits of debate in this country are established before the debate even begins, and everyone else is marginalized and made to seem as either a communist, a kook, some sort of disloyal person or a conspiracy theorist – Something that shouldn’t even be entertained for a minute that powerful people might get together and have a plan. DOESN’T HAPPEN. You’re a kook and a conspiracy buff.”— George Carlin

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/14/whatabout7/
‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile –
But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation: the CIA’s 44 year old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn out. In academic studies, as in comments on the news article, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous-and more rational than anti-conspiracy ones. No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

In the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press, Professor deHaven-Smith… explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.”

University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information –

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:

"If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur."

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief. [called cognizant dissonance]

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

Conspiracy Quiz

In just the last few months I've noticed quite a large number of conspiracy theories posted as truth on this Wacco forum.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Mudwoman:

I'm just shy of RAVING if one considers these issues 'bogus'...

OR ALERT-AWARE, able to see patterns-connections, willing to educate myself on 'real' facts/science behind the major media mind-numbing pablum, even if the knowledge is deeply disturbing-distressful.

It's a challenge to live life consciously, lovingly, and respectfully...and to continue to be pro-active and hopeful, the way things are now with massive cultural, ecological, and economic destruction all around.

Thanks for your poll and opening a forum for discussion.

---

I'm with you, MW. I find that 'connecting-the-dots' by educating myself is so very important. Those who like to divert the issues to jabs and public ridicule if others have a different point of view instead of discussing the topic and sharing their sources, oftentimes have no inkling in what it takes to maturely converse or to know how to agree to disagree.

I find discernment is always essential, and the patterns for what some of this group want to label 'conspiracy theories' have been backed by scientists, independent researchers, whistleblowers, doctors, engineers, government officials, military officers and other professionals. And the same corporate or government connections and players that work to destabilize what is really going on show up over and over in what these people report.

I want to reintroduce my friend, Fred Burks' site www.wanttoknow.org Fred use to work for several Presidents and high world leaders as a top Indonesian translator up until 2004. He uses verifiable news articles that are in many censored media publications to make the connections. The information is there if people want to open their eyes and minds....but snubs or scuffs will not further the cause of peaceful negotiations or changes. It's a reenactment of just what our government does.

"The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see a brick wall at the back of the theater." Zappa

Someone privately emailed me asking my opinion about this thread's list of "conspiracies". He wanted something a little more than my refusal to express a strong opinion due to my ignorance of the arguments pro and con. FWIW, here's what I wrote to him:

Fluoridated water
May very well be a conspiracy in the sense that people may be continuing fluoridation programs to make money even knowing that fluoridation is useless or even harmful (if indeed it is).

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
Seems unlikely to be a conspiracy.

Chemtrails
The pictures I've seen proffered as proof of conspiracy have looked like nothing unusual to me, so I'm skeptical. I understand that some cloud-seeding with different substances has been done for weather control purposes. I believe it's credibly reported that factions of the government have at times disseminated disease organisms in public places to test biological warfare, so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the use of contrails in such enterprises occasionally.

Efren Carrillo getting a delayed hearing and receiving only a misdemeanor charge
Bigwigs (federal, state, local etc.) commonly get special treatment, so this one is plausible to me.

The drought
Whaaaa?

Agenda 21
From what little I know about it, it seems like climate change deniers' paranoid interpretations of environmental policies that are, at least arguably, reasonable.

Smart meters
Dunno. I have the impression that most (all?) perceived sensitivity to radiation is imaginary, but wouldn't be terribly surprised if there were some increased health problems associated with some wavelengths. Concerns about fire hazard may be reasonable.

Vaccination
If you mean thimerosal > autism, I think that's been fairly well debunked. Other concerns about vaccination I don't know about. Perhaps some vaccines are useless or dangerous but still used so someone can make money? Dunno.

Fukushima "coverup"
Money-making industries and their handmaidens in government always attempt to whitewash dangers or damages to the public, partly to limit legal liability and partly to secure the future of the industry. No doubt much of this could accurately be described as "conspiracy". But of course many claims about the seriousness of the contamination, as well as claims that the accident was done on purpose (!) seem to lack credibility.

9/11
Many aspects of this stink to high heaven. I suspect that factions of our government are involved, at least to the extent of knowing it was going to happen and allowing it. Benefits to them are obvious: an excuse for lucrative war-making, distracting people from domestic problems to focus on an alleged external threat, rationalizing erosion of civil rights such as habeas corpus, increasing surveillance and police and military presence in society, and possibly even destroying records of investigations into financial improprieties (including the Pentagon's missing trillions of dollars).

JFK
With anyone as influential as an American President, there are always powerful people who have the motivation and wherewithal to commit an assassination. I suspect a conspiracy in this case; I don't buy the "lone nut" story.

Global Warming
Seems unlikely to be fake.

Neighborhood Watch programs
To the extent that they may suppress harmless behavior like a little drug-dealing, they are oppressive, but I don't think the term "conspiracy" would apply. Mostly they seem like a good idea.

HAARP
Haven't heard enough pro and con to venture an opinion, though I've heard there's been pretty good evidence of sea creatures such as cetaceans being harmed/killed, no?

Pretty much everyone around you
For good evolutionary reasons, we have the capability and tendency to deceive, sometimes in very complicated ways. Advertising, propaganda, public relations, and the numerous West County snake-oil peddlers come to mind. Some of that could fit the definition of "conspiracy".

Lack of verifiable evidence proves the conspiracy is working.:Yinyangv:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...1_09-06-07.png

I find it quite interesting that conspiracy theories are for the most part embraced by the more extreme ends of the political spectrum. I also think if you were to diagram the political spectrum it would look like an omega shape, so the far left and the far right are kinda close to one another. Just sayin.......

P.S. We haven't heard from wacco's own Director of Conspiracy Theories yet. What's up with that?

Like Dixon, I'm of mixed minds about some of these, think others are far-fetched, others quite likely. But I have to admit that I simply don't KNOW anything for a fact. "Connecting the dots" is a valid tool up to a point, but the fact that we connect a bunch of dots of light into Orion, the Big Dipper, and Casseopeia doesn't mean that those beings actually exist or have anything whatever to do with one another.

"Follow the money" is certainly a valid tool as well. But it seems there must be a small distinction between making money from research to find a cure for AIDS and being responsible for (a) inducing panic about AIDS or (b) causing AIDS in order to make money on it.

I'm only moved to write because of these quotes:

>>>University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong confirmation bias - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the conspiracy theory label) to avoid conflicting information.
>>>The extreme irrationality of those who attack conspiracy theories has been ably exposed by ...

I think that's absolutely true. But I would ask whether "strong confirmation bias" is equally true of people promoting such theories. I don't believe one side of these arguments is any less immune to fierce addiction to its world-view than the other. I would ask a rude question: Is there anything that would sway you from your belief in (name the idea)? Any way for contrary evidence not to be seen as tainted?

Tad's jocular note (I assume it's jocular) — "Lack of verifiable evidence proves the conspiracy is working" — is in fact a rephrasing of the report a general made in WW2 about West Coast Japanese sabotage: its absence proves the danger. That resulted in the concentration camps.

I realize that no one here has any lack of evidence for their beliefs, maybe dozens of Web postings, videos, citations, etc. But I have yet to see much, if any, collaborative exploration of any of these. It's "This is the truth, Buster, and you better believe it!" Not my kinda party.

Hope this isn't offensive enough to warrant a counterattack, but as you will. Just sharing my own perspective, as the conspiracies start to make me go numb.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

or as Carl Sagen said, "Absence of evidence Is not evidence of absence."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ted Pole:

Lack of verifiable evidence proves the conspiracy is working.:Yinyangv:

---

I thought that this graphic was appropriate ... also appropriate is this quote ...

“The greatest ignorance is to reject something you know nothing about”

Can't seem to find the author, sorry ... or my own personal mantra " do the research " ....


Yes, it's all very murky, ...... I do know one thing though, where there is injustice, deception and greed ( as exposed constantly in our present world ) ... you can expect to find a dozen or so spin doctors convincing you that it's not really happening ....:wink:

Scott,

The post that you reference regarding "gang stalking" can only be mine, as I don't recall anyone else posting about this subject. Thank you for renewing my concerns ...

If you do a general search for this term on google you will find over 2 million references.... If you do a search on YouTube for this term you will find over 200,000 videos..... If you do a search on Change.org for this term you will find pages of petitions addressing the problem..... Are all of these people wacko "conspiracy theorists" or is this a real problem worthy of our attention ?

I suggest that we, as an intelligent, open minded community, do the research to determine the validity of any claims, ... it would be a shame to ignore information which might be true and a danger to our community ....

The Reptilian Overlords disseminate a vast array of conspiracy theories to distract us from seeing who really controls everything.

Finally someone else who really understands!!!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Larry Robinson:

The Reptilian Overlords disseminate a vast array of conspiracy theories to distract us from seeing who really controls everything.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Larry Robinson:

The Reptilian Overlords disseminate a vast array of conspiracy theories to distract us from seeing who really controls everything.

---

That would be the Mammalian Overlords, who have shown themselves to be somehow colder than reptiles.

There are patterns that occurs over and over, like the fibonacci sequence, like seasonal changes, like life cycles. To me, there is an order in the chaos of life...something I have experienced, not a belief system.

And to just say that we can connect the dots and they may not connect can be just like the 'cup half empty' perspective... AND what if they do actually exist, they aren't theories and have everything to do with each other since there are so many interconnections in life, in creation? How would one hold that against what they were taught to believe? How would that change a person's relations with others if their perspective shifted radically? What if what you're calling beliefs are someone's actual experiences? How and where would that fit into your belief system? Could you hold space for another's reality as a possible truth without you having the experience? What is the scariest thing if the conscious mind doesn't rule the subconscious in what it thinks is real and true?

I agree that not "one side of these arguments is any less immune to fierce addiction to its world-view than the other." I offered an open opportunity to explore a collaborative source that has been working diligently to bring to light many topics that people want to label conspiracies (which comes from the word conspire or breathe together, which I appreciate in its essence), who worked in a top governmental position and works with both independent and media journalists all over the world. He is also sourcing from our own local Project Censored. I didn't hear if anyone was actually interested in looking into this site or did look into this. One can twist, turn and intellectualize what is said, but if it's not researched and looked into deeper, it means little but opinion in what is called belief, theory or facts.

I honestly wonder how can we be interested in important topics of our times like fracking, radiation, GMO's, Snowden, NSA, Andy Lopez/police militarization, drones, taking away constitutional rights, letting the bankers off the hook, creating wars, and more, and not see what is working behind the scenes as connections when the information is available. Perhaps I'm naive in thinking that there are common threads but after many years of exploring this, I tend to think this exists. The Watergate scandal was first considered a 'conspiracy' until enough people supported Daniel Ellsberg, like Bob Woodward and other journalists, who connected the dots The newspapers were not run by five corporations then, and there was no internet. If Ellsberg could bring down a president and what went on behind the scenes, what are the possibilities for the rest of us in seeing how to work with connecting the dots, collaboratively, in the similarities of issues of today? If you (and not specifically meaning you, Conrad) don't want to look into it, fine. Use your time and energy where it feels appropriate.

But the mockery, disparaging remarks, and condescending attitude towards those of us who do, is what I question....it's been a pattern on this forum and many people have left. And I'm fine agreeing to disagree. I appreciate that you have your concerns, and you could share it without being offensive at all (at least to me). I respect that people have different points of view...we don't want to be another sheep clone like Dolly ;-)
.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by theindependenteye:

Like Dixon, I'm of mixed minds about some of these, think others are far-fetched, others quite likely. But I have to admit that I simply don't KNOW anything for a fact. "Connecting the dots" is a valid tool up to a point, but the fact that we connect a bunch of dots of light into Orion, the Big Dipper, and Casseopeia doesn't mean that those beings actually exist or have anything whatever to do with one another.

"Follow the money" is certainly a valid tool as well. But it seems there must be a small distinction between making money from research to find a cure for AIDS and being responsible for (a) inducing panic about AIDS or (b) causing AIDS in order to make money on it.

I'm only moved to write because of these quotes:

>>>University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong confirmation bias - that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the conspiracy theory label) to avoid conflicting information.
>>>The extreme irrationality of those who attack conspiracy theories has been ably exposed by ...

I think that's absolutely true. But I would ask whether "strong confirmation bias" is equally true of people promoting such theories. I don't believe one side of these arguments is any less immune to fierce addiction to its world-view than the other. I would ask a rude question: Is there anything that would sway you from your belief in (name the idea)? Any way for contrary evidence not to be seen as tainted?

Tad's jocular note (I assume it's jocular) — "Lack of verifiable evidence proves the conspiracy is working" — is in fact a rephrasing of the report a general made in WW2 about West Coast Japanese sabotage: its absence proves the danger. That resulted in the concentration camps.

I realize that no one here has any lack of evidence for their beliefs, maybe dozens of Web postings, videos, citations, etc. But I have yet to see much, if any, collaborative exploration of any of these. It's "This is the truth, Buster, and you better believe it!" Not my kinda party.

Hope this isn't offensive enough to warrant a counterattack, but as you will. Just sharing my own perspective, as the conspiracies start to make me go numb.

Peace & joy--
Conrad

---

Scott,

I was looking through my writings on gang stalking hoping to find this quote but I'm not having any luck ... can you tell me where you found it? ... thanks!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

Barry,

Below was a posting on Wacco from earlier this year:

It's important to know that your local "Neighborhood Watch" groups are teaching these harassment tactics to your neighbors to create a destabilized community, and promote false community leaders that have ties to protected organized crime such as Drug Dealing and Human Trafficking! It's networked through your local community service organizations, churches, social clubs, etc...

Gang Stalking is stalking by more than one person to a victim, usually involving community harassment, or the "mob", using people from all backgrounds and vocations to harass, tracking 24/7, sometimes organizing lethal vehicle accidents, poisoinings, electronic harassment, home invasions/property destruction, corrupt or ignorant doctor diagnosis given to stamp the victim as bogus mentally ill with delusions, paranoia, or schizophrenia, etc. Everything is done covertly, and with a sophisticated real time dispatching system to organize the criminals' harassment and attacks, often in the hundreds to thousands of criminals participating as a coordinated mob at any given time while the criminals due their normal routines of work, shopping, commuting to and from work, leisure, etc., using the method of moving foot and vehicular surveillance techniques, and computers, cell phones, verbal and visual cues, and every other conceivable type of communication.

This posting confirms the Wacco conspiracy category of "Neighborhood Watch programs" while the long series of similar postings it came from (along with numerous responses of agreement and support by other folks on Wacco) confirms the conspiracy category of "Pretty much everyone around you".

Scott

---

It's my experience that wild conspiracy theory claims are actually rarely challenged in this forum. And when they are challenged I have found the exchanges have often gone something like this:

Person A makes a public claim in this forum that is highly improbable and not backed up by solid evidence. (Maybe something like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where it was claimed in this forum that it was a "false flag" operation and all an elaborate conspiracy involving fake school officials, fake "parents", emergency responders, media, and many others, probably hundreds if not thousands all together, done by the Government or some sort of shadow Government, all so that Obama could get stricter gun control laws passed -- which apparently failed, by the way.)

Person B challenges the claim, maybe calls the idea ludicrous or something.

Person A then goes after Person B on an individual level, attacking them personally for challenging the claim, and thus taking things out of the realm of discussing ideas and into the realm of personal conflict.

My hope is that with these things we can keep the discussion on the ideas themselves and not make it personal (or take it personally). And maybe all lighten up a bit (that includes me too).

Scott

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Scott,

The post that you reference regarding "gang stalking" can only be mine, as I don't recall anyone else posting about this subject. Thank you for renewing my concerns ...

If you do a general search for this term on google you will find over 2 million references.... If you do a search on YouTube for this term you will find over 200,000 videos..... If you do a search on Change.org for this term you will find pages of petitions addressing the problem..... Are all of these people wacko "conspiracy theorists" or is this a real problem worthy of our attention ?

I suggest that we, as an intelligent, open minded community, do the research to determine the validity of any claims, ... it would be a shame to ignore information which might be true and a danger to our community ....

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Scott,

I was looking through my writings on gang stalking hoping to find this quote but I'm not having any luck ... can you tell me where you found it? ... thanks!

---

Wacco link here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...nt-Individuals

Look, I really do not wish to argue with you about "gang stalking" or whether or not Neighborhood Watch groups are trying "to create a destabilized community, and promote false community leaders that have ties to protected organized crime such as Drug Dealing and Human Trafficking." I just included them on a list of conspiracy claims I've seen posted on Wacco in recent months. My posting was all in good fun and meant to be humorous.

Scott

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

It's my experience that wild conspiracy theory claims are actually rarely challenged in this forum. And when they are challenged I have found the exchanges have often gone something like this:

Person A makes a public claim in this forum that is highly improbable and not backed up by solid evidence....

Person B challenges the claim, maybe calls the idea ludicrous or something.

Person A then goes after Person B on an individual level, attacking them personally for challenging the claim, and thus taking things out of the realm of discussing ideas and into the realm of personal conflict.

---

I think she's referring to a different perception of the third step: Person A's feeling is that their idea is being ridiculed and not given respect, much less a fair hearing. Because remember, person A usually really believes their claim; they're not actually posing it as a plausible but refutable idea, and they really don't want to hear reasons that it may not be as well-established a fact as they know it is. I've yet to see a response that treats step two as something to be engaged and considered. Sometimes step two's argument doesn't rise to much more than a blanket denial of the one in step one; but even when it does, it's rarely followed by useful dialog where multiple points of view are tested against each other.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

But the mockery, disparaging remarks, and condescending attitude towards those of us who do, is what I question....it's been a pattern on this forum and many people have left. And I'm fine agreeing to disagree. I appreciate that you have your concerns, and you could share it without being offensive at all (at least to me). I respect that people have different points of view...we don't want to be another sheep clone like Dolly ;-)
.

---

replying to posts in somewhat random order.. my immediately preceding post doesn't apply to ones like this! good post, sharingWisdom. I may disagree about the level of mockery/disparaging remarks, but your defense of the 'connecting the dots' doesn't deserve mockery OR disparagement.

I heard someone on the radio last night mention "Confirmation Theory". He also said that some folks will present all the evidence that supports their Theory and ignore evidence that does not. I looked it up when I got home and found some very interesting information on reasoning, which I believe may relate to conspiracy Theorists.


Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

So, as to those topics listed... Conspiracies?
I don't know.

Tom

No offense taken Scott, and I'm actually glad that you brought it up, I just wanted to see the entire post so thanks ...

Perhaps we could shift this conversation a bit ...

I have been writing about gang stalking, a new and controversial subject ... this subject was brought to mind recently because of the overwhelming published response on Dr. Phil's website following his show on stalking. For those of you who looked at that response, you can see for yourselves what I mean ... also, I've recently posted the search statistics for this term on the internet citing 3 sources, a general google search, a YouTube search, and a search on change.com ...

So when do we decide that a theory is worth researching? ... What sort of information determines this? With most media censored and under control ( see sharingwisdom's post ) and the awareness of covert policies on the rise ( as proven by whistleblowers Snowden, Ted Gunderson, William Binney, Thomas Drake, et al ) it's a fair guess that any information which concerns practices which are controversial, illegal, immoral, or questionable will be suppressed.

At this point it is up to the citizens themselves to gather and disseminate information, ...

A good example of this is the current Fukushima controversy ... we are being told that everything's fine, everything's under control, but when citizens take readings on our beaches they are elevated .... also, life is dying in our ocean without explanation .... so why should the citizens be out there on the beach doing the research? ... shouldn't our government be doing this? ... what's going on here?

So back to gang stalking ... if thousands of people are publishing on the internet trying to educate the public about this, ... is that enough to prompt research?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

Wacco link here: https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showt...nt-Individuals

Look, I really do not wish to argue with you about "gang stalking" or whether or not Neighborhood Watch groups are trying "to create a destabilized community, and promote false community leaders that have ties to protected organized crime such as Drug Dealing and Human Trafficking." I just included them on a list of conspiracy claims I've seen posted on Wacco in recent months. My posting was all in good fun and meant to be humorous.

Scott

---

I repeat:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

which of course speaks to both sides of many, if not most, theories and arguments

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:

I heard someone on the radio last night mention "Confirmation Theory". He also said that some folks will present all the evidence that supports their Theory and ignore evidence that does not. I looked it up when I got home and found some very interesting information on reasoning, which I believe may relate to conspiracy Theorists.


Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

So, as to those topics listed... Conspiracies?
I don't know.

Tom

---

... and let's not forget the subsequent steps of siting an internet link, sometimes reputable, sometimes not, with Person B calling that link total BS, and refuting with an opposing internet link, sometimes reputable, sometimes not.

What research, what evidence, what statistics... are reliable? It takes a lot of reading, thinking and observing to start to get a clear picture. It is my observation that most of us who discuss have a firm pre-existing belief and find corroborating evidence to support that belief, digging in our heels even more when that belief is challenged.

I once said on this board that I do not disbelieve anything. This is not the same as believing everything, but rather remaining open to the possibility of some truth in all I hear until proven to me to be BS. For example, yeah, I can imagine that there are some liars and corrupt profit-minded forces working within the Center for Disease Control, and other government agencies, AND I can concede that among people who claim to be stalked and harrassed, there are those who probably are.

Why do we end up so polarized againt an entire viewpoint package? Can we, along with refraining from personally insulting each other, be open to agree with some aspects of the package even if we disagree with other aspects? This is essential to what I like to call INDEPENDENT thought. But it is easy to find the black crayon and the white crayon... where did all the gray crayons roll off to? Let's remember what fundamentalism is and what it has done to us throughout history.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

It's my experience that wild conspiracy theory claims are actually rarely challenged in this forum. And when they are challenged I have found the exchanges have often gone something like this:

Person A makes a public claim in this forum that is highly improbable and not backed up by solid evidence. (Maybe something like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where it was claimed in this forum that it was a "false flag" operation and all an elaborate conspiracy involving fake school officials, fake "parents", emergency responders, media, and many others, probably hundreds if not thousands all together, done by the Government or some sort of shadow Government, all so that Obama could get stricter gun control laws passed -- which apparently failed, by the way.)

Person B challenges the claim, maybe calls the idea ludicrous or something.

Person A then goes after Person B on an individual level, attacking them personally for challenging the claim, and thus taking things out of the realm of discussing ideas and into the realm of personal conflict.

My hope is that with these things we can keep the discussion on the ideas themselves and not make it personal (or take it personally). And maybe all lighten up a bit (that includes me too).

Scott

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by tomcat:

I heard someone on the radio last night mention "Confirmation Theory". He also said that some folks will present all the evidence that supports their Theory and ignore evidence that does not.

---

:shitstorm:

Tomcat, for a discussion with examples of the "confirmation bias", see my Wacco column here. As a bonus, there follows an extremely long and heated comment thread in which I get rather viciously slapped around by a number of folks who took offense at my suggestion that beliefs we're attached to in spite of a lack of evidence are likely delusional.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by gardenmaniac:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

---

That's true as far as it goes, but there are far more possible claims than true ones, so claims without evidence are more likely to be false than true.

Sharingwisdom, while I'm substantially in agreement with your post, I do want to point out one thing--

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

What if what you're calling beliefs are someone's actual experiences?

---

Conclusions (i.e. beliefs), such as, for instance, "This conspiracy is [or isn't] real", are NEVER given directly by our experience. They are always based on some interpretation of our experience, which itself is based on at least one assumption ("This conclusion is implied by that experience"). Since our interpretations are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, open-mindedness about alternative explanations of our experience is always in order.

I like to think that all members of this forum are encouraged to present ideas and links to support those ideas .... I see a lot on this forum that I don't agree with and sometimes I comment and disagree, but it is never in the nature of my comments to discredit the author, as I realize that all here are worthy of my respect ... we choose to live in a civilized world and it is our very actions ( and words ) which determine if that choice is realized ...

I think that this topic has been analyzed to death when it's really very simple ... an idea is presented with information to support it ... you either care enough to do your own research or you just don't give a dam ...

I could post again the lists of "conspiracy theories" that have been proven to be true, and actually that list is growing as brave souls expose the ugly hidden realities of our world, .....but I can't be bothered ... I could write, once again, about how the phrase "conspiracy theory" has been used purposely to discredit those telling the truth, but I have better things to do ...

I will say two things before I call it a night .....

sharingwisdom is correct regarding her observation about this forum and how people are leaving ... I've noticed that too ... there have been several other members who have complained about being stalked and harassed and then they disappeared .... I have to wonder why ...

and Scott, I reread your comment about my posting and I have to object to your assumption that gang stalking involves "Pretty much everyone around you".... this is not true and I never insinuated that it was ... Gang stalking involves security groups, like neighborhood watch, who are supposed to be keeping our communities safe ... it might be a good system, though personally I don't believe in any action against anyone without due process ( unless you're a thug of course ) ... the problem with the system is that the top level, those in command of it, are corrupt, so instead of targeting true criminals, innocent people are targeted, usually for revenge ... do you want evidence of this kind of behavior? ... do a bit of research using the term "cointelpro" ....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

...With most media censored and under control ( see sharingwisdom's post ) and the awareness of covert policies on the rise ( as proven by whistleblowers Snowden, Ted Gunderson, William Binney, Thomas Drake, et al ) it's a fair guess that any information which concerns practices which are controversial, illegal, immoral, or questionable will be suppressed...

...A good example of this is the current Fukushima controversy ... we are being told that everything's fine, everything's under control, but when citizens take readings on our beaches they are elevated .... also, life is dying in our ocean without explanation ....

---

Okay, this is something I completely agree with you about: that the Fukushima issue is the perfect example of how most of this conspiracy stuff on the internet works. Just probably not in the way you think.

Scott

I agree that there are interpretations of experiences, and keeping an open mind is essential. Yet when there are the same experiences of people that happen over and over, there is a pattern of incidences or similarities that emerge, and with research and enough people bringing forth information that is verifiable if actually read or listened to, who have either had the experiences or recognize the patterns, further insight occurs, and this can create an awareness of awakening truth...at this level of reality. A group consciousness occurs around this that helps to support a way to deal with what is happening. This could take it out of the 'main stream' consciousness, but has grounded validity for those who experience it.

This made me ponder on reality of truth in general, like quantum physics in connection to this. For an example, as a planetary group consciousness, we have defined a chair as a 3-dimensional object that can be made out of different materials, is 'solid', comes in different shapes where people or animals will place a body part on it though it can have many other purposes. We agree to identify this awareness as a 'chair' by group consciousness. But what if one person's articulaticulation is able to perceive it multi-dimensionally, like a chair has more than 3 dimensions and moves as particles or waves of atoms that can dissolve, be moved through and re-form...that it's not solid. Some people would call that delusional, not possible, because they don't understand where the person is coming from or the experience of having the chair different than what the 'majority' agrees it to be. (It's interesting that people who have dyslexia can often see things from this perspective and have had experiences with chairs that are similar to what I've described.) This could quite possibly bring up fear in the 'majority' awareness as the agreement of perception is being asked to change structure (or in this example into a lack of structure). Change is not always so easy for many.

So the person decides they want to share this awareness with others anyways, only to find out that they are met with hostility, called derogatory names or labeled by the medical mode in having some sort of condition furthering the difference, and marginalizing the person. But the person keeps sharing the awareness and experience with others, and ultimately finds others who are having the same experience, who see the 'chair' as patterns of waves or particles of atoms that can be played with, and they live with this awareness, insight, experience and reality/truth. They can see it from the group conscious perspective also as a solid, practical object, but chose to allow this added awareness as it makes much more sense, it's much more encompassing and feels intuitively and somatically integrative.

So the interpretation of all those who have this experience in this expansive reality is not right or wrong...it's just expansive in what it encompasses. The conclusion is that there is more to it than meets the eye. That is how I see what others call 'conspiracy' or 'conspiracy theories'...there is an expansive awareness that is supported by insight, awareness, research, patterns and connections, more than meets the eyes, like an ah-ha moment. Not all perceptions fit into this experience integratively, but all are able to be seen from different levels of awareness.

And I am quite aware that I don't know what I don't know...a wonderful place for me to live in the mystery of creation, and also honor and accept what I do know, though I'm open to that changing too if it supports my evolutionary growth. Thank you, Dixon, for sparking all this for me.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Sharingwisdom, while I'm substantially in agreement with your post, I do want to point out one thing--


Conclusions (i.e. beliefs), such as, for instance, "This conspiracy is [or isn't] real", are NEVER given directly by our experience. They are always based on some interpretation of our experience, which itself is based on at least one assumption ("This conclusion is implied by that experience"). Since our interpretations are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, open-mindedness about alternative explanations of our experience is always in order.

---

Fluoridated water is indeed both useless (i.e, it does not work) and harmful, the latter particularly so to young developing creatures of all types.

Money is only one of the motivators behind the push to continue and expand these water fluoridation schemes even though there is ample evidence that they simply do not work. The larger motivators are industries creating fluorides as a waste product avoiding liability and culpability for fluoride pollution, and the need to save face on the part of the "public health" and medical establishments who have fallen for this racket. For both of these groups, there is no way out that is not going to hurt... and hurt a lot.

You are welcome to visit our website at https://www.fluoridefreesonomacounty.org/ and the Fluoride Action Network website at https://fluoridealert.org/ to learn more.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Fluoridated water: May very well be a conspiracy in the sense that people may be continuing fluoridation programs to make money even knowing that fluoridation is useless or even harmful (if indeed it is).

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

This made me ponder on reality of truth in general, like quantum physics in connection to this. For an example, as a planetary group consciousness, we have defined a chair as a 3-dimensional object that can be made out of different materials, is 'solid', comes in different shapes where people or animals will place a body part on it though it can have many other purposes. We agree to identify this awareness as a 'chair' by group consciousness. But what if one person's articulaticulation is able to perceive it multi-dimensionally, like a chair has more than 3 dimensions and moves as particles or waves of atoms that can dissolve, be moved through and re-form...that it's not solid. Some people would call that delusional, not possible, because they don't understand where the person is coming from or the experience of having the chair different than what the 'majority' agrees it to be.

---

Contrary to the claims of many New Age types who are selling stuff based on ridiculous claims about quantum physics, quantum physics has no effect on our experiences of objects on the human scale such as chairs. I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, but if you're claiming that some people can pass through solid chairs, I'm very, very skeptical--but I'd be pleased and delighted to have you or anyone prove me wrong; contact me and we'll get together for the demonstration. I'll even bring the chair if you wish.

Quote:

---

So the interpretation of all those who have this experience in this expansive reality is not right or wrong...it's just expansive in what it encompasses.

---

On the contrary, claims about objective reality such as the solidity of chairs are indeed right or wrong--or in some cases maybe partly right and partly wrong. And such a belief may indeed be delusional, in which case it's no insult to call it such, as long as we've been willing to consider the evidence first.

Quote:

---

The conclusion is that there is more to it than meets the eye.

---

Sometimes. And sometimes the converse is true: there's less to it than meets the eye.

Quote:

---

Thank you, Dixon, for sparking all this for me.

---

You're most welcome. And thank you for sharing your thinking.

In late Medieval Europe, humans didn't have a knowledge of the science we now know. Unexplained mysteries, like the discovery of and new use for an herb, were feared and deemed sorcery. Those who practiced this 'sorcery' were called witches, and were tortured, banished or executed. In many cases, these experiences, like witnessing a woman using a new herb to create sorcery, happened over and over until there was an established pattern of incidences or similarities. Villagers were able to quickly identify these similarities and flushed out the dreaded witches. Enough people brought forth information that was verifiable... so there was grounded validity, and thus was mounted a massive witch hunt. At the time, their way of dealing with what was happening seemed so sensible. The group consciousness of that time was, of course, correct. (Musta been... after all, there are no more witches there.)

It has been said in some circles that sanity is a question of agreement. Other circles warn, in a world of fugitives, those running away appear to be the fugitives.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

I agree that there are interpretations of experiences, and keeping an open mind is essential. Yet when there are the same experiences of people that happen over and over, there is a pattern of incidences or similarities that emerge, and with research and enough people bringing forth information that is verifiable if actually read or listened to, who have either had the experiences or recognize the patterns, further insight occurs, and this can create an awareness of awakening truth...at this level of reality. A group consciousness occurs around this that helps to support a way to deal with what is happening. This could take it out of the 'main stream' consciousness, but has grounded validity for those who experience it.

---

re: " But what if one person's articulaticulation is able to perceive it multi-dimensionally, like a chair has more than 3 dimensions and moves as particles or waves of atoms that can dissolve, be moved through and re-form...that it's not solid."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

.. quantum physics has no effect on our experiences of objects on the human scale such as chairs. I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, but if you're claiming that some people can pass through solid chairs, I'm very, very skeptical... On the contrary, claims about objective reality such as the solidity of chairs are indeed right or wrong--or in some cases maybe partly right and partly wrong..

---

I'm not sure what " one person's articulaticulation is able to perceive it" means; if it means motion rather than perception, I'm on your side. And 'quantum' is slung around a lot, by me too, with only faint reference to its real meanings. However -- it is indeed true that the chair is not solid in a technical sense. 'Solid' colloquially is a property of an object that means it completely fills the space within a definable boundary. Physics (not really quantum physics, but particle physics, anyway) states that there is no such thing as that kind of property. And there may be someone whose mind is expansive enough to see objects that way. Most of us simplify things like the interactions of light, particles, and fields into gross generalizations like solidity, weight, heat and force.
'course, if she is implying that enlightenment lets you violate physical laws that govern the interaction of large systems of particles in fields, she's lost me....

I don't know anything much about this stuff, although I did read Bob Toben's "Space, Time and Beyond" years ago, but I have heard one definition (vague though it may be) of enlightenment as "seeing things exactly as they are"....so I thought if one could see all the particles or waves of, say, a chair, and one's own particles as well, then maybe that person could see how to walk through the chair (or wall, or whatever).....

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

I have heard one definition (vague though it may be) of enlightenment as "seeing things exactly as they are"....so I thought if one could see all the particles or waves of, say, a chair, and one's own particles as well, then maybe that person could see how to walk through the chair (or wall, or whatever).....

---

the problem with that is in the assumption that if you just saw more, or knew more, you'd have more actions available to you. That's not the case. You'd just have a deeper understanding of nature and reality - you wouldn't suddenly see tricky ways around its laws.

kinda like the difference to a child: for a long time, you just are given "because I told you so" as a reason for the rules around you. Later, you (hopefully) understand the motivations behind the rules.
then again, sometimes you do find out that the rules given weren't as inviolable as you were led to believe!! but I think the interactions of particles and their fields at the gross level that gives rise to 'solidity' and 'gravity' are pretty well understood. You aren't going to somehow cunningly fit the particles of your body in between those of the chair just by grokking more thoroughly.

Hmmm...how do you get the quote in that cool blue box?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

Hmmm...how do you get the quote in that cool blue box?

---

[QUOTE]blah blah blah [/QUOTE]

gives the box. Don't forget the [/QUOTE]

Quote:

---

.. You aren't going to somehow cunningly fit the particles of your body in between those of the chair just by grokking more thoroughly.
...
Prove it.

---

it's a theory based on a preponderance of evidence. New understandings of how the fields between particles work may offer a new strategy. Evidence without understanding works too - if I see someone embedded in a chair I think a new theory would be in order!!

Scott,

Unlike gang stalking where you have thousands of people all reporting the same thing, verifiable law suits, a retired FBI agent submitting a signed affadavit regarding it's existance, a DOJ stalking report verifying it's existance, law enforcement verification, and several mainstream news reports reporting the practice,

https://gangstalkingismurder.wordpress.com/gang-stalking-f-o-i-a-lawsuit/


the coverage of the Fukushima disaster is all over the place. My postings about Fukushima will reveal this as I've been careful to report on all points of view ... I don't know what the truth is about Fukushima ... do you?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

Okay, this is something I completely agree with you about: that the Fukushima issue is the perfect example of how most of this conspiracy stuff on the internet works. Just probably not in the way you think.

Scott

---

OK, that's enough about gangstalking on this thread. You can call me part of the "gang".

Also regarding quantum physics and other dimensions, if the person is correct about the other dimensions, they should prove it (to Dixon's satisfaction) and be awarded a Nobel prize, if not it's just another conspiracy theory, most likely loony.

Let's get back to the quiz... Try following my example and comment briefly on each one theory you believe or not and give yourself a grade.

Scott's post below is an outstanding observation that really nails it. Unfortunately, there is no "Super Gratitude" button to express the exceptional levels of truth and appreciation. Few posts are as accurate as this one. It was short and sweet, making it powerful.

This forum is overrun with "Person A's." It is often very frustrating (on this list) to try and talk to someone with very stubborn, uninformed dogma, such as the folks who vehemently insisted that Sandy Hook was a "black op" of the Obama Admin. Most of the folks on this issue piled up against me when I protested this grossly irresponsible and small minded delusion.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Scott McKeown:

It's my experience that wild conspiracy theory claims are actually rarely challenged in this forum. And when they are challenged I have found the exchanges have often gone something like this:

Person A makes a public claim in this forum that is highly improbable and not backed up by solid evidence. (Maybe something like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where it was claimed in this forum that it was a "false flag" operation and all an elaborate conspiracy involving fake school officials, fake "parents", emergency responders, media, and many others, probably hundreds if not thousands all together, done by the Government or some sort of shadow Government, all so that Obama could get stricter gun control laws passed -- which apparently failed, by the way.)

Person B challenges the claim, maybe calls the idea ludicrous or something.

Person A then goes after Person B on an individual level, attacking them personally for challenging the claim, and thus taking things out of the realm of discussing ideas and into the realm of personal conflict.

My hope is that with these things we can keep the discussion on the ideas themselves and not make it personal (or take it personally). And maybe all lighten up a bit (that includes me too).

Scott

---

Personally, in this age of disinformation and spin doctors I don't take anyone's word for anything ... if a subject interests me then I do my own research ... if I find strong evidence that a theory is true then I tend to believe it ... I look for reputable professional statements rather than amateur opinion ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Personally, in this age of disinformation and spin doctors I don't take anyone's word for anything ... if a subject interests me then I do my own research ... if I find strong evidence that a theory is true then I tend to believe it ... I look for reputable professional statements rather than amateur opinion ...

---

All that is just dandy assuming you research at least two sides of each issue. Do you make a point of seeking out the responsible skeptical viewpoints on each issue?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

Hmmm...how do you get the quote in that cool blue box?

---

Sara (and others who have the same question), just above the box wherein you type your reply, there's a toolbar that includes a symbol that looks like a stylized comic-book word balloon. If you highlight some text and hit that button, the highlighted text will be in the cool blue quote box. Don't forget that there's already a quote thingie at the beginning and end of the post you're responding to, so if the part you've highlighted is from the beginning or end of the person's post, you'll have an extra quote thingie at the beginning or end of the quote you're excerpting, so you must delete the extra one, just leaving one quote thingie at each end of the quote. You can try it and hit the "Preview Post" button to see how it looks without publishing the quote, for practice.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Sara (and others who have the same question), just above the box wherein you type your reply, there's a toolbar

---

raw HTML is more of a challenge...

That depends, Dixon ... when dealing with theories which are inconclusive such as Fukushima then the answer is "yes" as my postings will reveal ... I look at every side of the issue ...

When dealing with issues which are proven ... i.e. Snowden and NSA surveillance ... no, I don't bother ...

What I'm saying is that it depends on the quantity and quality of the evidence that I find, and of course personal experience also plays a role ...

If at any time any one can post strong evidence to contradict the information which I provide, then I would be extremely interested and grateful ... I am trying to be of service to the community and it is not my intention to mislead in any way ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

All that is just dandy assuming you research at least two sides of each issue. Do you make a point of seeking out the responsible skeptical viewpoints on each issue?

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

When dealing with issues which are proven ... i.e. Snowden and NSA surveillance ... no, I don't bother ...
What I'm saying is that it depends on the quantity and quality of the evidence that I find...

---

The Snowden issue may not be a good example in this context, because, AFAIK, nobody, not even the NSA, disputes Snowden's claims.

The quality of the evidence you find cannot be assessed without perusing the disagreeing viewpoints. It may turn out that what seemed like good quality evidence was just lies, hoaxes, misinterpretations, or plain old bad logic. There is no substitute for getting another perspective. Concluding, prior to seeking that other perspective, that your evidence is good puts the cart before the horse.

Quote:

---

...and of course personal experience also plays a role ...

---

Relevant personal experience falls under the category of evidence, and our interpretation of the meaning of our experience is always subject to critique, as we could be wrong about what our experience implies.

Quote:

---

If at any time any one can post strong evidence to contradict the information which I provide, then I would be extremely interested and grateful ... I am trying to be of service to the community and it is not my intention to mislead in any way ...

---

I believe you.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sara S:

...if one could see all the particles or waves of, say, a chair, and one's own particles as well, then maybe that person could see how to walk through the chair (or wall, or whatever).....

---

And if pigs could fly, we'd all need to carry heavy-duty umbrellas. "If" is a huge word.

Anyway, no eye is capable of resolving atomic particles without something like an electron microscope, and seeing the atoms doesn't allow the seer to walk through solid objects like chairs--sorry!

As always, the burden of proof is on the claimant, and I continue to await the "walking-through-a-chair" demonstration. If it is indeed possible, it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate; there are plenty of chairs around. In the absence of such a demonstration, why are people still talking about this as if it's a real possibility?

P.S. Comic book characters who can walk through chairs, walls, etc. include the Spectre, the Vision, Kitty Pryde, and quite a few others. And the Atom can shrink down small enough to pass between the constituent particles of the chair! For those who enjoy such fantasies, I recommend superhero comics, which can be lots of fun when they're well-written and well-illustrated.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

P.S. Comic book characters who can walk through chairs, walls, etc. include the Spectre, the Vision, Kitty Pryde, and quite a few others. And the Atom can shrink down small enough to pass between the constituent particles of the chair! For those who enjoy such fantasies, I recommend superhero comics, which can be lots of fun when they're well-written and well-illustrated.

---

It's not the nuclei, it's the electromagnetic bonds between them that keep solid objects from passing through each other. The particles in gasses and fluids do not have such bonds.

Richard

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by geomancer:

It's not the nuclei, it's the electromagnetic bonds between them that keep solid objects from passing through each other.

---

Don't tell The Atom that!

just so delighted to see the excellent verb "to grok" deployed anew.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

the problem with that is in the assumption that if you just saw more, or knew more, you'd have more actions available to you. That's not the case. You'd just have a deeper understanding of nature and reality - you wouldn't suddenly see tricky ways around its laws.

kinda like the difference to a child: for a long time, you just are given "because I told you so" as a reason for the rules around you. Later, you (hopefully) understand the motivations behind the rules.
then again, sometimes you do find out that the rules given weren't as inviolable as you were led to believe!! but I think the interactions of particles and their fields at the gross level that gives rise to 'solidity' and 'gravity' are pretty well understood. You aren't going to somehow cunningly fit the particles of your body in between those of the chair just by grokking more thoroughly.

---

I get what you're saying Dixon, but I don't quite agree ... personal experience when added to many other cases of identical personal experience carries a bit of weight ...

For example ...

Recently one of our members spoke out about police surveillance which seemed extreme ... I think that she talked about police waiting for her at several destinations ... another member wrote about police corruption which she had witnessed first hand ... I relayed my experiences of police harassment ... now anyone of us could have been labelled "paranoid" but none of us were ... the information was accepted and discussed because there were several of us complaining about this at the same time ...

Then stories started to appear about police presence around town and that was questioned and discussed ... and then the shooting of an innocent child ... and then media stories about America possibly becoming a "police state", ... a progression of thought based on common experience ...

I think that when you have a whole lot of people experiencing the same thing at the same time then you should pay attention ... when this happens you are beyond the realm of personal interpretation of events and into the territory of "collective experience", and that to me is a whole different ball game ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

The Snowden issue may not be a good example in this context, because, AFAIK, nobody, not even the NSA, disputes Snowden's claims.

The quality of the evidence you find cannot be assessed without perusing the disagreeing viewpoints. It may turn out that what seemed like good quality evidence was just lies, hoaxes, misinterpretations, or plain old bad logic. There is no substitute for getting another perspective. Concluding, prior to seeking that other perspective, that your evidence is good puts the cart before the horse.


Relevant personal experience falls under the category of evidence, and our interpretation of the meaning of our experience is always subject to critique, as we could be wrong about what our experience implies.


I believe you.

---

Physicist, John Wheeler (now deceased), probably would have found your label-box of calling him New Age more than interesting. What you refer to as subjective reality around the chair is completely subjective to me along with the many who I respect in their expansive awareness of energy. And since I will be teaching a 3 day workshop starting Friday on these principles of shifting atoms and molecules in the body for the purposes of healing, which acupuncture does as well in its philosophy and understanding of energy, I need to keep my time and focus where its most received and understood.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Contrary to the claims of many New Age types who are selling stuff based on ridiculous claims about quantum physics, quantum physics has no effect on our experiences of objects on the human scale such as chairs. I'm not sure I'm understanding you right, but if you're claiming that some people can pass through solid chairs, I'm very, very skeptical--but I'd be pleased and delighted to have you or anyone prove me wrong; contact me and we'll get together for the demonstration. I'll even bring the chair if you wish.


On the contrary, claims about objective reality such as the solidity of chairs are indeed right or wrong--or in some cases maybe partly right and partly wrong. And such a belief may indeed be delusional, in which case it's no insult to call it such, as long as we've been willing to consider the evidence first.


Sometimes. And sometimes the converse is true: there's less to it than meets the eye.


You're most welcome. And thank you for sharing your thinking.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sharingwisdom:

Physicist, John Wheeler (now deceased), probably would have found your label-box of calling him New Age more than interesting.

---

If you're a John Wheeler fan, you might be interested in this passage from the Wikipedia article on him:
"...Wheeler spoke to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), asking it to expel parapsychology, which had been admitted ten years earlier at the request of Margaret Mead. He called it a pseudoscience, saying he didn't oppose earnest research into the questions, but he thought the "air of legitimacy" of being an AAAS-Affiliate should be reserved until convincing tests of at least a few so-called psi effects could be demonstrated."
So I'm guessing that Wheeler would laugh at your claims about acupuncture (below), etc.

I'm also guessing that you cite Wheeler because you like his Participatory Anthropic Principle (the astoundingly self-centered and grandiose notion that matter itself depends on a conscious observer for its very existence). Perhaps you're one of those who love to assume that's true because you think it supports the validity of various New Agey "healing" claims. Did I guess right?

Well, listen--invoking the argument from authority is dicey enough as it is; if you're gonna do that, you have to go with the consensus in a branch of science. You can't pick out one or a few maverick physicists and say "He says it's true and he's a famous physicist", ignoring the fact that nearly all physicists disagree with him. That's like saying "Doctor So-and So says tobacco won't hurt you", ignoring the consensus of other medical experts. It's dishonest to cherry-pick your experts that way.

Quote:

---

What you refer to as subjective reality around the chair is completely subjective to me along with the many who I respect in their expansive awareness of energy.

---

That sentence is unintelligible. Did you mean to say "objective" instead of that first "subjective"? Let's be clear on the fact that a real chair (as opposed to an imagined one) is indeed objective--it's an object. And the claim that someone can actually walk through a chair (as opposed to imagining that they walk through it), is a claim about objective reality. It's an easily testable claim, so anyone who makes it should either demonstrate it or admit that it's not true after all. This is an honesty and open-mindedness issue.

Quote:

---

And since I will be teaching a 3 day workshop starting Friday on these principles of shifting atoms and molecules in the body for the purposes of healing, which acupuncture does as well in its philosophy and understanding of energy...

---

Oh really? I think if someone really demonstrated that, they'd get the Nobel Prize.

Quote:

---

...I need to keep my time and focus where its most received and understood.

---

Are you saying that you can't spare one minute to walk through a chair for me, thus turning me into a believer and supporter of your claim? I guarantee you that such a demonstration would be well-received and understood by me. It's time to "put up or shut up", as they say. Can you pass through a chair or not?

I think your point, Chris, if I'm understanding you, is that your example was to show a grounded and verifiable reality for that time.

For clarity, I didn't say that there weren't different sectors of group consciousness which didn't do some things that were not in the highest and best interest of all concerned. What I said was, "there is a pattern of incidences or similarities that emerge, and with research and enough people bringing forth information that is verifiable if actually read or listened to, who have either had the experiences or recognize the patterns,..." It was about how group consciousness can form that allows for ideas and awareness of individuals who think outside the box, to be shared in a positive, supportive way.

In your example, the villagers didn't find the similarities.. it was whoever and whatever the patriarchy/town officials (who were male) or the church fed them as truth. That created a forced and manipulated group consciousness. The level of education and the level of control those villagers lived under didn't allow for discernment. The peasants couldn't read in those days. Many women were set up as vendettas to just keep them in order, to keep them submissive, under control. Those who looked into it, (as passed on the historical stories) realized that the women were innocent (like sometimes their families shared it down the lineage) but feared if they spoke up, they would be next in line with whatever accusations were brought forth. Over 6 million women were murdered. Many weren't practicing herbs. There is a difference between mob mentality brought forth about through institutions as group consciousness, and the forming of a group consciousness that uses discernment through a free flow of independently researched information that does no harm...which is essential, and that was an aspect of what I was sharing.

Seems to me that the FDA and CDC do similar in their tactics as the town officials and church did then.

And I liked your quote about sanity and fugitives...objective reality... which the rest of my writing was about. Thanks for sharing another angle though it's not how I see the application in what I wrote.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Chris Dec:

In late Medieval Europe, humans didn't have a knowledge of the science we now know. Unexplained mysteries, like the discovery of and new use for an herb, were feared and deemed sorcery. Those who practiced this 'sorcery' were called witches, and were tortured, banished or executed. In many cases, these experiences, like witnessing a woman using a new herb to create sorcery, happened over and over until there was an established pattern of incidences or similarities. Villagers were able to quickly identify these similarities and flushed out the dreaded witches. Enough people brought forth information that was verifiable... so there was grounded validity, and thus was mounted a massive witch hunt. At the time, their way of dealing with what was happening seemed so sensible. The group consciousness of that time was, of course, correct. (Musta been... after all, there are no more witches there.)

It has been said in some circles that sanity is a question of agreement. Other circles warn, in a world of fugitives, those running away appear to be the fugitives.

---

I didn't know there was a conspiracy theory about Neighborhood Watches but now that I do, my score is zero. Though I do think there is a dog conspiracy where they all rise up at midnite and have animated conversations about how to overthrow the govt,, often mistaken by the unthinking as barking.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Scott,

I was looking through my writings on gang stalking hoping to find this quote but I'm not having any luck ... can you tell me where you found it? ... thanks!

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by meherc:

I didn't know there was a conspiracy theory about Neighborhood Watches but now that I do, my score is zero. Though I do think there is a dog conspiracy where they all rise up at midnite and have animated conversations about how to overthrow the govt,, often mistaken by the unthinking as barking.

---

So even though frequent real barking after midnight is really an owner being inconsiderate and rude, you are saying sometimes the dogs are in fact having doggy conspiratorial conversations after midnight being misinterpreted by 'unthinking' humans who imagine they're hearing something? Not following this point or how it adds to any of the subjects on this thread.

Alexia, Marilyn was just trying to make a joke.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

So even though frequent real barking after midnight is really an owner being inconsiderate and rude, you are saying sometimes the dogs are in fact having doggy conspiratorial conversations after midnight being misinterpreted by 'unthinking' humans who imagine they're hearing something? Not following this point or how it adds to any of the subjects on this thread.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Alexia, Marilyn was just trying to make a joke.

---

so was Alexia?

Alexia that was a JOKE!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

So even though frequent real barking after midnight is really an owner being inconsiderate and rude, you are saying sometimes the dogs are in fact having doggy conspiratorial conversations after midnight being misinterpreted by 'unthinking' humans who imagine they're hearing something? Not following this point or how it adds to any of the subjects on this thread.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Alexia, Marilyn was just trying to make a joke.

---

Veiled personal agenda alert. I like that you have zero tolerance for BS, Dixon and insist on calling things exactly as they really are, but it can't be done without all the information. Reread her post knowing it was made hours after her being really annoyed about being called about her own dogs umpteenth time barking after midnight.

Doesn't your BS meter now say this was using the thread as an excuse to make a veiled personal complaint, not a clear thought about a joke concerning the thread content, probably why it was clumsy and made no sense anyway? I had to call the deceptive BS not liking seeing the forum and good-will of people here being used.

Alexia, thanks for supplying the missing information. It now appears that what looked to most of us like a clumsy joke by Marilyn was probably a covert dig at you. And, FWIW, I share your anger at inconsiderate dog owners.

There would have been way less confusion had you supplied the missing info in your initial post, or maybe emailed Marilyn privately about it.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

Veiled personal agenda alert...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Alexia, thanks for supplying the missing information. It now appears that what looked to most of us like a clumsy joke by Marilyn was probably a covert dig at you. And, FWIW, I share your anger at inconsiderate dog owners.

There would have been way less confusion had you supplied the missing info in your initial post, or maybe emailed Marilyn privately about it.

---

Thanks for getting it Dixon. I sure would have been more direct as you suggested if my free speech directly to this person about barking had not been forbidden by Barry a year ago. I was trying to expose the BS without crossing the line by showing the disingenuousness of the ‘joke’.

This little drama though is actually a great example of what I think is the crux of the problem with either information or disinformation being contributed to the ‘collective ether’ about the controversial subjects in this thread. I also suspect that what we are all individually contributing to that ether with our awareness really matters because not all able to be Martin Luther Kings, it’s the best... or worst the common person can do for either positive change or the perpetuation of lies.

We just saw people here instantly and vigorously defending their best assessment of the known facts. But when additional facts were known, the best assessment changed dramatically. In the meantime, a lie that sounded good was bought into and gained strength.

The best we can ever do without direct personal experience is gather as much data as possible and make the most intelligent, common sense assessment. But if an issue has 100 crucial data points and you only know 10, your opinion is limited to your best assessment of the 10.

The internet blew open the doors to massive amounts of both profound accurate information and intentionally manipulative disinformation. That does not mean that enough data points cannot be collected to determine an accurate truth. The world is still full of extremely intelligent, educated, curious and/or discerning people who are very grateful they can now find each other to gather, share and compare notes to make the best assessment.

But being ‘Researched and Informed’ about complex subjects takes a lot of time and effort with countless books, reports, interviews, documentaries, testimonies and conversations to sift through.

The information age also means that shocking, radical and deep new concepts, technologies and agendas have surfaced that are very threatening to the comfortable view of reality of many. Those who find these concepts unsettling frequently quickly latch onto and defend the shallow results of searches like “Why is (something) stupid?” instead of “What are the primary factors in (something).”

Therefore, the chasm between the level of awareness of the Deeply Researched and what is ultimately a state of fear, disinterest, denial or lack of time of the Shallowly Researched is getting huge, and lies quickly spread even by well meaning people if only 10 of 100 data points are known.

My greatest concern is that many of the more global complex topics listed in this thread, if true, are negatively impacting the world’s well being in profound ways and are being funded and allowed to proliferate by the tax dollars of those who, especially, are ignoring the fact that through the internet they have more info and power to organize and stop the proliferation of these problems than ever before.

It would also mean that the future will look back at these days as the common person blindly contributing numerous working hours per week out of his pocket to help fund the worst crimes against humanity in history, complacently leaving this legacy for his children.

That’s why I say becoming as researched and informed as possible, and contributing to the 100th monkey effect ether by getting past your own fears and helping to spread more correct data points is more than just all the common person can do, it’s a huge contribution. Conversely, it is a great disservice to humanity to contribute the data and energy that further embeds destructive lies and deception.

I and, you may be surprised at how many others around the world, long ago lost all doubt about the ugly truth of many of the threatening subjects listed here, have come to the same conclusions independently, and have moved on and are dealing with the new realities quite actively, clearheadedly and holding each other accountable for the accuracy of data points being put on the table.

I agree with the axiom that the opposite of love is fear.

If so, the most important attribute of growing more conscious is becoming more fearless.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

Veiled personal agenda alert... Reread her post knowing it was made hours after her being really annoyed about being called about her own dogs umpteenth time barking after midnight.
...

---

so??

I suppose it's good to know the subtext when you're reading James Joyce, but glib remarks on Wacco just seem to stand on their own slight footing.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

...contributing to the 100th monkey effect...

---

I still hear people citing the "100th monkey effect" frequently. It's frustrating to me because the 100th monkey effect has been thoroughly and decisively debunked, but people still haven't gotten the message, and many don't seem to want to get it.

For those who don't know what it is, here's some info from the Wikipedia page: "The story of the hundredth monkey effect was published in Lyall Watson's foreword to Lawrence Blair's Rhythms of Vision in 1975...and spread with the appearance of Watson's 1979 book Lifetide. The claim is that unidentified scientists were conducting a study of macaque monkeys on the Japanese island of Koshima in 1952...These scientists purportedly observed that some of these monkeys learned to wash sweet potatoes,...Watson then claimed that the researchers observed that once a critical number of monkeys was reached—the so-called hundredth monkey—this previously learned behavior instantly spread across the water to monkeys on nearby islands...This story was further popularized by Ken Keyes, Jr. with the publication of his book The Hundredth Monkey."

The implication of this story is that the monkeys' all supposedly learning instantly how to wash sweet potatoes was a miraculous supernatural phenomenon, and that furthermore, if enough of us accept certain beliefs (such as antiwar, etc.) suddenly everyone will magically agree with us.

Leaving aside the somewhat fascist implications of magically forcing agreement, the important thing to note is that the story was a fraud; it never happened. When a researcher confronted Watson about this, he admitted it wasn't true, claiming that he'd intended it as a parable, though he'd presented it as fact in two different books. So, people, please drop the 100th monkey thing; it's bullshit--or monkeyshit.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

I still hear people citing the "100th monkey effect" frequently. It's frustrating to me because the 100th monkey effect has been thoroughly and decisively debunked, but people still haven't gotten the message, and many don't seem to want to get it......

---

Thank you very much for citing the specific reason for this viewpoint. I just wonder if that fiction was a misguided attempt to explain something real considering the current quantum and matrix theories.

But OK, I can leave the monkey part out, the rest is more important. The greater point was that a lot of intelligent people around the world have done a lot of work to document and sort through massive amounts of data to reach the most reasonable answers to the subjects listed in this thread and have independently reached exactly the same paradigm shifting conclusions.

There is a huge community who now take these disturbing premises for granted, long ago lost any need to debate them and have moved on to sorting and discussing details and new data as it arrives instead. I believe this is making a valuable contribution to society rather than those who stay stuck defending shallowly researched disinfo because it's too personally threatening to believe some of this stuff is actually true and they stop before looking at all the data.

I still wonder however how much a proliferation factor the virtual reality matrix is that someone like physicist Tom Campbell explains so succinctly about the digital information created and broadcast by thought.

Here’s a recent interview with him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_-sZxg98hQ

I'm going to highlight a few phrases that you're using here, that (to me, at least) refute the tone you seem to be reaching for: of dispassionate, intellectual analysis of new ideas:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

... I just wonder if that fiction was a misguided attempt ...
.. a lot of intelligent people ... independently reached exactly the same paradigm shifting conclusions.

a huge community who now take these disturbing premises for granted, long ago lost any need to debate them and have moved on

those who stay stuck defending shallowly researched disinfo because it's too personally threatening to believe some of this stuff is actually true and they stop before looking at all the data.

---

why impute motives to people, or give subjective and value-laden descriptions, if you're trying to explain the reasonableness of whatever Tom Campbell is explaining succinctly?
I'm as fond of advocacy posts as anyone on this site, obviously, but I hope when I'm making a religious argument rather than an intellectual one, the difference is clear from the writing style.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

I'm going to highlight a few phrases that you're using here, that (to me, at least) refute the tone you seem to be reaching for: of dispassionate, intellectual analysis of new ideas:

Alexia wrote:
... I just wonder if that fiction was a misguided attempt ...
.. a lot of intelligent people ... independently reached exactly the same paradigm shifting conclusions.

a huge community who now take these disturbing premises for granted, long ago lost any need to debate them and have moved on

those who stay stuck defending shallowly researched disinfo because it's too personally threatening to believe some of this stuff is actually true and they stop before looking at all the data.

why impute motives to people, or give subjective and value-laden descriptions, if you're trying to explain the reasonableness of whatever Tom Campbell is explaining succinctly?
I'm as fond of advocacy posts as anyone on this site, obviously, but I hope when I'm making a religious argument rather than an intellectual one, the difference is clear from the writing style.

---

Sorry you found my wording insincere, let alone religious. Having to be so general about such big complex issues was hard, and written conversations are so imprecise and open to misinterpretation anyway. For one thing, it wasn’t meant to be a post just to advocate Tom. It was suggesting Tom’s theory might be a supportive substitute for the monkey issue Dixon debunked, but also that I cared more about the other points and what they were.

More than anything, I'm passionate about the topics in this thread because the ramifications are serious and I know it. I don't get why it was wrong to point out how varied the data awareness is in people with strong opinions, and how frequently it suggests that now is not unlike other times in history where people who don't like having a belief changed refuse to look at all the facts... (and kill the messenger...). I do understand how no fun the topics are. I'm reminded everyday how deep the pandora's boxes were and how big the rude awakenings were.

I don't get why it was wrong to say that I have now experienced years of discussion with many people from around the world who are in agreement after looking honestly at all the data. I was trying to say the answers are there, but you have to look.

I purposely chose the words you highlighted because of how probable the data suggests that many of the topics will turn into scenarios like the following. For example, what if the existence and ugly ramifications of chemtrails gets completely exposed as true?:

.....wouldn't it be a paradigm shifting event changing the whole world's awareness to knowing what very dangerous technologies had been developed behind their backs and what organizations they had previously trusted had been brazenly using these technologies in very broad, long term plans against their well being?

.....wouldn't it have been a disturbing or threatening concept to their comfort zone that most people had refused to look at or dismissed as crazy for a long time?

.....wouldn't there have been a point where many figured it out long before others and lost any need to debate?

.....wouldn't it be clear that many had been in denial for a long time using shallowly researched disinfo to defend why it couldn't possibly be true..... frequently adding disdain and criticism for any messengers?

Anyway, for me it's never been about looking for one-sided data to support what I want to believe. It's been about hating to be lied to, manipulated or a guinea pig and wanting to make the most effort I can to protect myself and
my family, and not helping any negative agenda either by being one of the closed minded, gullible sheep.

My view of the world has changed dramatically since opening all these pandora's boxes and I can't unknow what I've learned. Facts start adding up and don't change, but I'm also constantly reminded that opening one curtain just leads to another.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

Sorry you found my wording insincere, let alone religious. ....
I don't get why it was wrong to say that I have now experienced years of discussion with many people from around the world who are in agreement after looking honestly at all the data.
...
I purposely chose the words you highlighted because of how probable the data suggests that many of the topics will turn into scenarios like the following. For example, what if the existence and ugly ramifications of chemtrails gets completely exposed as true?:

---

I'm getting perilously close to flogging a dead horse - repeating the same message in different contexts too much. But you exactly miss what I said.
My comment (not complaint) had nothing to do with sincerity, and was not at all a judgement on whether you were wrong or not. It was that you were muddying the post by using a religious, true-believer's tone along with claims of scientific honesty and references to fact- and data-based analysis.
The mixture is common in lots of posts, this included, and I suggest that it's self-defeating. To rope Dixon into this, he's often pointed out the fallacies in arguments that use "what if?" as part of their reasoning. What if pigs had wings? They'd be pigeons. There are a lot of similarities between pigs and other animals with wings, so it's not so impossible. That's in your presentation. Well, not the pig part. And the ad-hominem and value-laden words used are equally distracting, creating the tone of advocacy.
I write about this a lot (meta-argument, to be buzzy), and while I don't insist everyone starts taking these concepts to heart, I wanted to respond since the point of my post obviously didn't come through.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by podfish:

...To rope Dixon into this, he's often pointed out the fallacies in arguments that use "what if?" as part of their reasoning...

---

Well, since I've been roped into this by my esteemed colleague podfish, I guess I should comment. The type of "what if?" argument mentioned by him (and initially referenced by me) is indeed a bad one, but the mere presence of "what if" or similar words does not necessarily signal bad logic. Hypothetical situations certainly have their place in good reasoning.

Similarly, regarding Alexia's phrases which podfish boldfaced in his post #72 on this thread, I can't agree that the mere presence of these phrases necessarily signals bad logic (whether or not that's podfish's position). Just about any of them could be found in the context of good reasoning. Even a speculation about the other discussant's internal process such as "too personally threatening" could have its place in good reasoning, as long as it's held with appropriate tentativeness and not used to fallaciously invalidate their argument. Of the phrases podfish boldfaced, the one I'm inclined to agree with him about is "lost any need to debate". If you ever get to a point where you think you've nailed it all down and couldn't possibly be mistaken, especially regarding a complex set of claims like the welter of conspiracies under discussion, you're stepping into the realm of closed-mindedness--not a good thing. (Assuming that here "debate" means open-minded discussion, not the useless closed-minded contest often denoted by the term).

My general point here is that, while there are a few phrases that may always be evidence of bad reasoning, in most cases that's too simplistic. We have to consider how the phrase is used in context. Dismissing an argument based on the presence of a particular phrase often smacks of someone's looking for an excuse to invalidate the other's argument without doing all the research that would really justify such dismissal.

This whole conspiracy thing is so complicated, with so many related but separate claims, so hotly argued with reams of data on 2 or more sides, that I can't reasonably have a general conclusion about it, as I haven't done much of the research. I have explicated my current bias to some degree, and have addressed specific issues a little, but I mostly have to sit with uncomfortable uncertainty for the time being. I may never take the time to research this stuff enough to have any degree of appropriate certainty. One of the main tenets of good thinking, and one of the hardest to practice, is to be able to say, "Gee, I don't know."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

My general point here is that, while there are a few phrases that may always be evidence of bad reasoning, in most cases that's too simplistic. We have to consider how the phrase is used in context. Dismissing an argument based on the presence of a particular phrase often smacks of someone's looking for an excuse to invalidate the other's argument without doing all the research that would really justify such dismissal......

---

Thanks for saying it better than me. I'm a little exhausted from trying to restate the context of nitpicked phrases and being told what I meant. But again, conversations on keyboards are really, really constricting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

...... Of the phrases podfish boldfaced, the one I'm inclined to agree with him about is "lost any need to debate". If you ever get to a point where you think you've nailed it all down and couldn't possibly be mistaken,........

---

But this is one of them. The CONTEXT is that I and many discussion tables long ago lost the need to debate that there is foundational substance to these topics, not that we figured out all the details. That's what I meant with this sentence for CONTEXT a couple posts back...."long ago lost all doubt about the ugly truth of many of threatening subjects listed here, have moved on and are dealing with it quite actively, clearheadedly and holding each other accountable for the data points being put on the table." That says we're not done, it's ongoing.

To me, the people who really 'lost the need to debate' in the way that is bothering both of you are those dismissing the concepts as loony or conspiracy then slam the door.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

. One of the main tenets of good thinking, and one of the hardest to practice, is to be able to say, "Gee, I don't know."

---

I don't know. I look at as much data as I can find and make my best assessment based on what explanations accumulate the more substantial evidence - both for what is true and what is untrue. I find that once you're on the right track, the additional data that comes in starts to organize and the most likely truth picture starts to get more and more solid for either category.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

Thanks for saying it better than me.

---

You're welcome. And thanks for the compliment.

Quote:

---

...conversations on keyboards are really, really constricting.

---

Agreed.

Quote:

---

The CONTEXT is that I and many discussion tables long ago lost the need to debate that there is foundational substance to these topics, not that we figured out all the details.

---

I understand that, but I'm still a bit skeptical about whether, even just regarding the foundational beliefs, your level of certainty is justified. For instance, I wonder whether TIs in general have sought out and considered skeptical assessments of their data to balance the voluminous amount of "believer" material. One reason I wonder about this is that I don't recall having seen any acknowledgement from you "believers" that some percentage of the data cited by "TIs" is in fact psychotic delusion or hallucination. Subjective experiences such as hallucinated voices, "thought insertion", "thought broadcasting", "mind reading", and being controlled by someone else have been reported for hundreds of years--long before there could conceivably have been any technology capable of doing these things. And of course, the interpretation that we're being harassed/persecuted is paranoia--except when it isn't. So, even if we assume that all the main claims of the TI community (electronic torture, harassment, vandalism, thought control, mind reading, insertion of voices into people's heads) are true, it's still virtually certain that a substantial percentage of the "data" is psychotic material. I'd have more faith in the TI community if I saw some evidence that they were acknowledging that and making some effort to separate the real wheat from the psychotic chaff. Can you acknowledge, Alexia (and arthunter), that psychotic paranoia, delusions and hallucinations have existed for centuries, having nothing to do with any real conspiracies, and that the TI community would predictably attract lots of folks who are confusing psychotic experience with conspiracy?

Thank you Alexia for stating the obvious ...

Some of these theories have indeed been researched to death, and based on that research, huge communities have come together to continue that research, having verified that there's enough fact to the issue to justify that action ... if those who have not done the same amount of research come along and judge this information as "delusional" or "conspiracy theories" then one can only ask that they do the same amount of research as judging a theory without doing this research is just wrong ...

https://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/

"The Great Way is not difficult for those who cease to cherish opinions."

- Seng Tsang (Third Zen Patriarch)

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Larry Robinson:

"The Great Way is not difficult for those who cease to cherish opinions."

---

That, of course, is an opinion.

Dixon,

It would be nice if someone actually looked at the links that I've posted before commenting on targeted individuals. I purposely posted an interview in which the doctor and author compared real mental illness with targeted individual harassment ... I even posted the exact moment in the video where this happens so that you don't have to watch the whole interview. I think that this proves that I accept alternative reasons for someone hearing voices, but there are differences and I'd be willing to discuss the differences but first you have to listen to the interview.

The mind reading and thought insertion that you talk about are things that I too have trouble believing, and I have already stated that there are a lot of disinformation agents out there spreading unbelievable information to discredit TIs, .... but I have posted lots of information to show that if it isn't technologically possible now, then they are working on it .... I would think that this kind of factual information would produce a response ... hello? ... whether or not you think that the TI community is subjected to non-consensual experimentation, are you not the least concerned about the progression of mind control technology which is clearly evident by the factual information which I've have posted?

Also, I find it amazing that you are not commenting on any of the other links such as mainstream news reporting, police department comments, government whistle-blowers statements, petitions, lawsuits, and even a conviction ... though I don't know you, you seem like an intelligent rational man and so I question the selective focus which you have shown through out this discussion ...

I think Alexia is correct ... those who skim the surface of complex subjects and then discredit them, do a great dis-service to those who have researched deeply ... and in some ways, they might even do a great dis-service to humanity ... because if any one of these theories is true, and please read the link on my last posting on this thread to see how many have indeed been true, then our planet is in deep trouble and facing natural disaster as well as certain tyranny ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

You're welcome. And thanks for the compliment.
s,nation. Subjective experiences such as hallucinated voices, "thought insertion", "thought broadcasting", "mind reading", and being controlled by someone else have been reported for hundreds of years--long before there could conceivably have been any technology capable of doing these things. And of course, the interpretation that we're being harassed/persecuted is paranoia--except when it isn't. So, even if we assume that all the main claims of the TI community (electronic torture, harassment, vandalism, thought control, mind reading, insertion of voices into people's heads) are true, it's still virtually certain that a substantial percentage of the "data" is psychotic material. I'd have more faith in the TI community if I saw some evidence that they were acknowledging that and making some effort to separate the real wheat from the psychotic chaff. Can you acknowledge, Alexia (and arthunter), that psychotic paranoia, delusions and hallucinations have existed for centuries, having nothing to do with any real conspiracies, and that the TI community would predictably attract lots of folks who are confusing psychotic experience with conspiracy?

---

Isn't this thread supposed to be a QUIZ, aka a poll? There's a poll feature available on Waccobb, right? How about creating a poll with a closing date and then tallying the result?

On a related note, the misplaced discussion on this quiz thread reminds me a lot of author-speaker Michael Shermer and one of his books, Why People Believe Weird Things.

Shermer also has an informative TED talk on this subject:
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sh...ge_things.html

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

... So, even if we assume that all the main claims of the TI community (electronic torture, harassment, vandalism, thought control, mind reading, insertion of voices into people's heads) are true, it's still virtually certain that a substantial percentage of the "data" is psychotic material. I'd have more faith in the TI community if I saw some evidence that they were acknowledging that and making some effort to separate the real wheat from the psychotic chaff.....

---

Totally agreed up till there, except I would change the word 'substantial' (do you really 'know'? I don't.) to 'unknown'.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Can you acknowledge, Alexia (and arthunter), that psychotic paranoia, delusions and hallucinations have existed for centuries, having nothing to do with any real conspiracies, and that the TI community would predictably attract lots of folks who are confusing psychotic experience with conspiracy?

---

Yes, of course you are correct with the section I've highlighted in blue, and probably correct about the 1st sentence within your list of items that constitute 'conspiracy'. But to me, that's where it gets too big to summarize as all or nothing, and I'm pretty sure my conspiracy (long term plans, technologies and organized efforts to influence and control other human beings) list would be much longer and esoteric-concept laden than yours - too much to define in email. Conspiracy, deception and contagious negative mass influences did not begin with modern advanced technology.

But what era's technology was more advanced anyway? Us, or the era's that produced things we still can't duplicate?

Dixon,

I'm sorry, but your assumption that a large percentage of targeted individuals are mentally ill is just wrong ... First of all, information about this protocol is not mainstream, so it is not going to attract your general mentally ill person who is sitting around looking for a new delusion ... people generally find out about this protocol by searching for specific crimes ... when they stumble across this information a light bulb goes off because of "the protocol" and it's unmistakable organized structure ... when they join one of the support groups they are questioned ... if they describe the protocol correctly then they are seen as a true targeted individual ...

Also, as Dr. Hall describes in his interview, mentally ill people usually rant on about God, etc., and they usually respond to medication, ... targeted individuals have records of very precise events in their lives and many of them have proof of these events .... they are usually middle-aged professional people who are very articulate and intelligent ... and they can answer questions about their harassment in great detail which corresponds to information already gathered ...

Lastly, this protocol, unlike any true delusion in history, has been verified by two government whistle-blowers, an ex-governor, several mainstream news stations, several policemen, and many reputable authors ..

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_1...qid=1390438371

Please respond to my gang stalking post in the gang stalking thread ...there are other theories that deserve attention on this thread, and also, I agree, the idea of a poll is a good one ...

two photos that belong in this thread when considering what we believe and how that is determined ....

Alexia, arthunter et al.--

Now that both Glia and Barry (this thread's originator) have complained about our hijacking this thread for a lengthy tangent, I'm feeling guilty about having done so. While I'm really tempted to respond to your recent posts here, I'm gonna resist the temptation. It's becoming clear to me that the dialogue could go on for a thousand posts. I will try to find some time to look at some more of your evidence.

Dixon, your wisdom shows up once again...and as always it's much appreciated. :heart:

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Dixon:

Alexia, arthunter et al.--

Now that both Glia and Barry (this thread's originator) have complained about our hijacking this thread for a lengthy tangent, I'm feeling guilty about having done so. While I'm really tempted to respond to your recent posts here, I'm gonna resist the temptation. It's becoming clear to me that the dialogue could go on for a thousand posts. I will try to find some time to look at some more of your evidence.

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Isn't this thread supposed to be a QUIZ, aka a poll? There's a poll feature available on Waccobb, right? How about creating a poll with a closing date and then tallying the result?....

---

The few that took it felt compelled to add some clarification. Maybe there would be more participation if the choices were described with a little more explanation like these:


A. After much research and exposure to many sides of this issue, I feel there is overwhelming evidence indicating that the truth of this issue is vastly different than what mainstream news has presented to the public, suspect a deliberate and organized effort to suppress many disturbing facts, and feel it’s very much worth forcing accountability where applicable for these facts and questions.

B. I have only picked up bits and pieces of varying media stories, but my gut feeling is that it is something worth investigating thoroughly and honestly.

C. I’m detached from any real interest in the subject one way or another.

D. I’m not really concerned, but can go along with the explanations and characerizations offered by the government, TV stations, newspapers and/or big corporations. I have to rely on them to know more about these things than me and I don’t see why they would deliberately lie to me, deceive, manipulate or want to harm me.

E. I hardly know anything about it but am absolutely sure only loonies and nutjobs would think this subject has any substance and I’m not one of them.

F. What?

Those clarified response choices sound good to me. Now, can these choices be converted into a poll within Waccobb, or is it necessary to use an outside tool such as Survey Monkey?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

The few that took it felt compelled to add some clarification. Maybe there would be more participation if the choices were described with a little more explanation like these:

---

Great job, Alexia ...

I only have one suggestion ... I'm not in favor of insulting anyone on this forum so I would change "E" to a simple "I don't believe it" ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Alexia:

The few that took it felt compelled to add some clarification. ...

---

maybe increase specificity on option E to something like:

"IMO there is no validity to this purported conspiracy, or it can be reasonably explained as something other than a conspiracy."

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Great job, Alexia ...
I only have one suggestion ... I'm not in favor of insulting anyone on this forum so I would change "E" to a simple "I don't believe it" ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

Great job, Alexia ...

I only have one suggestion ... I'm not in favor of insulting anyone on this forum so I would change "E" to a simple "I don't believe it" ...

---

Thank you, no agreement from me is needed to change anything. But I said it that way on purpose using the exact words and/or sentiment already insultingly used here and elsewhere frequently regarding the subject matter. I believe one of the clearly valid categories in the list is one representing many who really do look down on the people taking these subjects seriously, but it's probably better to figure out how to rephrase a bit more mildly.

I think that this is an interesting article ... obviously, we are not the only community having this kind of discussion....

https://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/01/...rnative-media/

You have to see this to believe it ... people on FaceBook are posting videos of snow that won't melt ... here's an example ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tEza2wB20c#t=37

more snow that won't melt ... is this a hoax?

https://www.theweatherspace.com/2014...re-touches-it/

and on it goes ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_-e7DPABfg#t=414

I hope that I'm not annoying by posting all of these, but I'm amazed ... can anyone explain this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_-e7DPABfg#t=414

Wow... I didn't think I would see this experiment again in my life. The first time was in high school physics class. Let's see if I can remember the explanation:

1. Ice is a solid form of water, and when it melts, it will yield water.
2. Snow is a particular type of crystalline water and when it melts, it yields water.

3. When you hold it to a flame, ice will melt.
4. When you hold it to a flame, snow will melt.

5. Because ice is solid, the water drips off.
6. Because snow is mostly air, however, with pretty crystals of water lightly held together by adhering to each other, it melts but the water is absorbed back into the air/crystal mass... and eventually will harden over with a crust of melted and refrozen ice. Continue putting that flame to that and it will yield water that drips off.

It's a fun magical trick that quickly explains to a young person the different properties of snow and ice.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by arthunter:

I hope that I'm not annoying by posting all of these, but I'm amazed ... can anyone explain this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_-e7DPABfg#t=414

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Chris Dec:

Wow... I didn't think I would see this experiment again in my life. The first time was in high school physics class...

It's a fun magical trick that quickly explains to a young person the different properties of snow and ice.

---

and by the way, it was also explained in the comments following the video (though rather rudely). The part that I found useful was the explanation of where the blackening on the ice comes from:

Quote:

---

. The snow does melt and the water is absorbed back into the snowball 1. And 2 you will notice that the surface where the lighter was is now ice because its refreezing. Any additional water is so small that it evaps right away. And those burn marks are carbon from the lighter, and that burnt smell guess what, its burning butane. This is not plastic or whatever.

---

Thank you! ... I've never seen this before ...

Meanwhile, people all over the country are trying to burn snow ... :wink: ... I think that this might be a good indication of the public's mistrust of geo-engineering right now ... several people are having the snow tested, which should end all concerns ...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Chris Dec:

Wow... I didn't think I would see this experiment again in my life. The first time was in high school physics class. Let's see if I can remember the explanation:

1. Ice is a solid form of water, and when it melts, it will yield water.
2. Snow is a particular type of crystalline water and when it melts, it yields water.

3. When you hold it to a flame, ice will melt.
4. When you hold it to a flame, snow will melt.

5. Because ice is solid, the water drips off.
6. Because snow is mostly air, however, with pretty crystals of water lightly held together by adhering to each other, it melts but the water is absorbed back into the air/crystal mass... and eventually will harden over with a crust of melted and refrozen ice. Continue putting that flame to that and it will yield water that drips off.

It's a fun magical trick that quickly explains to a young person the different properties of snow and ice.

---