Conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theorists


Recommended Posts

Jonathan wrote, “Peter says that he doesn't want to look into the problem because it's not the type of thing that is in his wheelhouse, which is a mature confession and mindset.”

Well, the paradox is not, “Ripley’s Believe It or Not” material, just like “dancing cops” and parrots fighting their images in the mirror is not feel good news any more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Ted (in) Lieu (of fill in the blank) pulled out his cell phone and on the Congressional record called Candace Owens a ****er lover. I saw it !

Laser cut iceberg---it's about THE TRUTH people: Believe!

Two thumbs up.     We can only hope there is enough talent out there to replace all the other Gunns and Barrs who ought to be fired forpolluting tweets..

Posted Images

44 minutes ago, Peter said:

Jonathan wrote, “Peter says that he doesn't want to look into the problem because it's not the type of thing that is in his wheelhouse, which is a mature confession and mindset.”

 

 

Well, the paradox is not, “Ripley’s Believe It or Not” material, just like “dancing cops” and parrots fighting their images in the mirror is not feel good news any more. 

Sorry, you lost me. I have no idea what the above means. Sorry.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exploring the paradox is not interesting to me. I looked at it and understood it. When I was about 8 I tried to take a wind up alarm clock apart and then put it back together but I couldn't get it to work, but my friend could. I wonder if he ever became an engineer, or a mechanic?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Peter said:

Exploring the paradox is not interesting to me. I looked at it and understood it. When I was about 8 I tried to take a wind up alarm clock apart and then put it back together but I couldn't get it to work, but my friend could. I wonder if he ever became an engineer, or a mechanic?  

Okay. That's cool. I like the fact that you recognize your own personal limitations, and have a healthy enough ego to admit to them. Others don't have your level of self esteem, and can't admit to their obvious weaknesses.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the greatest souls of the generation ...

Here outside the bubble or silo or bubble-gum of a Left Progressive Blob, a not-too-rambly Styxhexenhammer666 evocation of Two Alternatives.  I like to check in on Styx regularly ... this is a good one, at least in the sense of clearly-articulated scenarios.  Whether his alternatives are exhaustive or adequate mirrors of reality I leave to the judgement of the viewer/reader.

 

I copy-paste a large portion of the automated closed caption "transcript" that Youtube+Chrome affords me. To use this option is but a click:

transcript01.png

 

transcript02.png

Spoiler

00:00:08,221 - 00:00:10,230 I don't believe Russia managed to
00:00:10,231 - 00:00:12,240 penetrate our election any significant
00:00:12,241 - 00:00:14,849 degree because nobody pays attention to
00:00:14,850 - 00:00:16,710 Facebook ads this one Russian agent that
00:00:14,849 - 00:00:17,460 gun into the NRA didn't change anyone's
00:00:17,461 - 00:00:19,140 votes and apparently is like you know
00:00:19,141 - 00:00:21,075 pro-gun and shit and was just screwing
00:00:21,076 - 00:00:23,340 people in order to see donor meetings I
00:00:23,341 - 00:00:26,399 really don't give a fuck the NRA is not
00:00:26,400 - 00:00:28,949 part of the US government just happens
00:00:28,950 - 00:00:30,629 to donate to political campaigns who
00:00:30,630 - 00:00:32,340 cares so the Russians want us to have
00:00:32,341 - 00:00:34,710 more gun sounds good to me Thank You
00:00:32,340 - 00:00:35,415 Putin I'm very very glad you stand more
00:00:35,416 - 00:00:37,124 for the Second Amendment that a lot of
00:00:37,125 - 00:00:39,839 politicians in this country really
00:00:39,840 - 00:00:42,679 really funny that that's the way that
00:00:42,680 - 00:00:44,170 things work now I'd say this though
00:00:44,171 - 00:00:46,455 regardless of what actually has been
00:00:46,456 - 00:00:49,019 happening with regards to the last
00:00:49,020 - 00:00:50,414 election the deep state the Intel
00:00:50,415 - 00:00:52,934 agencies Mueller and all this stuff one
00:00:52,935 - 00:00:55,093 of two things is true and regardless
00:00:55,094 - 00:00:57,134 it's really really worrisome either a
00:00:57,135 - 00:00:59,205 foreign state managed to penetrate our
00:00:59,206 - 00:01:01,245 political system to a significant degree
00:01:01,246 - 00:01:03,149 again I don't believe that because I'm
00:01:03,150 - 00:01:05,760 seeing no evidence of it but let's hold
00:01:05,761 - 00:01:07,455 the possibility open as a placeholder
00:01:07,456 - 00:01:10,909 that's one the other possibility is that
00:01:10,910 - 00:01:12,325 elements within our own government
00:01:12,326 - 00:01:14,790 specifically within Intel bureaus have
00:01:14,791 - 00:01:17,429 managed to penetrate our democratic
00:01:17,430 - 00:01:19,079 republic and begin meddling with the
00:01:19,080 - 00:01:21,869 electoral process by conducting unlawful
00:01:21,870 - 00:01:23,955 surveillance on active political
00:01:23,956 - 00:01:26,728 campaigns at the highest level by
00:01:26,729 - 00:01:29,280 literally embedding spies into a
00:01:29,281 - 00:01:31,950 presidential campaign either of these
00:01:31,951 - 00:01:34,200 situations is bigger than Watergate by
00:01:34,201 - 00:01:36,118 an order of magnitude either of these
00:01:36,119 - 00:01:38,400 situations are the sort of thing that
00:01:38,401 - 00:01:42,420 would generally be reminiscent of a spy
00:01:42,421 - 00:01:45,000 versus spy thriller despite the fact
00:01:45,001 - 00:01:47,549 that I don't believe that Russia really
00:01:47,550 - 00:01:50,728 did anything beyond its normal low-level
00:01:50,729 - 00:01:52,290 meddling aka basically trolling and I
00:01:52,291 - 00:01:54,269 preface this on the fact that they
00:01:54,270 - 00:01:56,368 originally were saying Russian collusion
00:01:56,369 - 00:01:58,429 now they've changed their terminology
00:01:58,430 - 00:02:00,959 now they say Russian interference
00:02:00,960 - 00:02:02,520 Russian meddling oh so it's not
00:02:00,959 - 00:02:03,079 collusion because you don't have any
00:02:03,080 - 00:02:04,579 evidence
00:02:04,580 - 00:02:07,010 they colluded during the campaign with
00:02:07,011 - 00:02:09,020 anyone they're too busy focused on a
00:02:09,021 - 00:02:10,909 ten-year-old money laundering scheme and
00:02:10,910 - 00:02:13,700 they apparently they thought Carter page
00:02:13,701 - 00:02:15,530 was some sort of collusion linchpin they
00:02:15,531 - 00:02:17,149 haven't charged him he has not been
00:02:17,150 - 00:02:19,610 indicted with anything despite being
00:02:19,611 - 00:02:21,500 surveilled for two years I'm going to
00:02:21,501 - 00:02:23,150 assume he's probably innocent then and
00:02:23,151 - 00:02:25,250 that they're like whoops yeah sorry
00:02:25,251 - 00:02:26,915 we've conducted massive surveillance of
00:02:26,916 - 00:02:29,625 everything you did for several years but
00:02:29,626 - 00:02:31,710 let's assume that that's possibly true
00:02:31,711 - 00:02:33,665 let's assume that they're working with
00:02:33,666 - 00:02:36,560 the Kremlin and because they've got KGB
00:02:36,561 - 00:02:39,590 allies is really good at covering their
00:02:36,560 - 00:02:39,589 tracks so the FBI and CIA and NSA and
00:02:39,590 - 00:02:42,155 all these kids can't find any evidence
00:02:42,156 - 00:02:44,495 and the Trump actually is like a Putin
00:02:44,496 - 00:02:46,445 partner sign that would be pretty big
00:02:46,446 - 00:02:48,319 news now wouldn't it because it would
00:02:48,320 - 00:02:50,670 mean that our government have been
00:02:50,671 - 00:02:54,510 penetrated by a formerly a hostile power
00:02:54,511 - 00:02:56,870 in a way it would almost be slightly
00:02:56,871 - 00:02:58,730 comforting to know that that power was
00:02:58,731 - 00:03:00,469 actively working with our government so
00:03:00,470 - 00:03:02,254 there was no risk of nuclear war
00:03:02,255 - 00:03:04,205 unfortunately that breaks MADD down and
00:03:04,206 - 00:03:06,335 potentially leads to a future nuclear
00:03:06,336 - 00:03:08,090 conflict as they are then ousting now
00:03:08,091 - 00:03:10,730 you could see the eve of destruction
00:03:10,731 - 00:03:12,289 arrived because of that if that were
00:03:12,290 - 00:03:14,659 true thankfully there's a 99% chance in
00:03:14,660 - 00:03:16,429 my estimation that the alternative is
00:03:16,430 - 00:03:19,609 true but that's barely any consolation
00:03:19,610 - 00:03:22,069 because what is the alternative the
00:03:22,070 - 00:03:23,764 alternative is that at high levels
00:03:23,765 - 00:03:26,510 people within the FBI the NSA within
00:03:26,511 - 00:03:28,880 Congress have been working together to
00:03:28,881 - 00:03:31,429 conduct surveillance you using the the
00:03:31,430 - 00:03:33,485 most obviously false op research that
00:03:33,486 - 00:03:35,345 they could gobble up from the Jeb Bush
00:03:35,346 - 00:03:38,269 campaign of all places they've been
00:03:38,270 - 00:03:40,699 spying on an active presidential
00:03:40,700 - 00:03:43,459 campaign they've been colluding to try
00:03:43,460 - 00:03:45,560 to shut down obstruct the proper flow of
00:03:45,561 - 00:03:47,989 government they've attempted to deny the
00:03:47,990 - 00:03:49,580 American people their right to vote for
00:03:49,581 - 00:03:51,769 the people that they want to represent
00:03:51,770 - 00:03:53,660 them and they've been continuously
00:03:53,661 - 00:03:55,849 trying to throw a wrench into the plans
00:03:53,659 - 00:03:56,614 of those within government that actually
00:03:56,615 - 00:03:59,030 are noble they know what they're doing
00:03:59,031 - 00:04:02,659 in one of the you know maybe solve the
00:04:02,660 - 00:04:05,330 world's problems either way we're a deep
00:04:05,331 - 00:04:06,799 shit you do realize that the United
00:04:06,800 - 00:04:09,440 States right now the economy is going
00:04:09,441 - 00:04:11,120 fine we're not in any major Wars I know
00:04:11,121 - 00:04:12,650 generally speaking on that and
00:04:12,651 - 00:04:14,569 everything's going hunky-dory it's
00:04:14,570 - 00:04:17,329 actually it's pretty optimistic
00:04:17,330 - 00:04:18,725 now but when we look at the at the
00:04:18,726 - 00:04:20,959 concept of nobility versus corruption
00:04:20,960 - 00:04:22,668 within government
00:04:22,669 - 00:04:24,214 somewhere along lying something's real
00:04:24,215 - 00:04:26,869 messed up something is totally totally
00:04:26,870 - 00:04:29,179 wrong it should not be happening within
00:04:29,180 - 00:04:31,370 a Democratic Republic it should not be
00:04:31,371 - 00:04:33,139 happening especially within the United
00:04:33,140 - 00:04:34,894 States we're supposed to be the ones
00:04:34,895 - 00:04:37,010 that don't operate in that capacity
00:04:37,011 - 00:04:39,860 we're supposed to be not not the world
00:04:39,861 - 00:04:42,589 police that's that's sort of a bush-era
00:04:42,590 - 00:04:45,169 bullshit mentality we're supposed to be
00:04:45,170 - 00:04:46,879 the ones that stand for freedom was sort
00:04:46,880 - 00:04:48,634 of holding together the modern-day
00:04:48,635 - 00:04:51,139 Delian League we've observed that now
00:04:51,140 - 00:04:52,910 it's been a while we've been slowly
00:04:52,911 - 00:04:56,030 degrading that role in the world in
00:04:56,031 - 00:04:58,629 favor of just being world police Bush
00:04:58,630 - 00:05:00,978 isn't the first one he won't be the last
00:05:00,979 - 00:05:03,348 unfortunately that sort of thing in the
00:05:03,349 - 00:05:05,180 post atomic era is more or less
00:05:05,181 - 00:05:06,800 inevitable it's going to happen because
00:05:06,801 - 00:05:08,870 you're gonna have a multipolar world

Two useful thing you can do with the caption Transcript is 1) Control-F 'search' for key words and phrases -- and 2) jump to a time-coded place in the video by clicking a particular line in the Transcript. 

(for those who want to be able to manipulate an actual caption file, I use Google2SRT to download them in .srt format, and then clean up the file with Subtitle Edit)

Edited by william.scherk
Added link to explainer on .srt files
Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 10:43 AM, Max said:

The only occurrence of the term “essential” in that link is in this sentence: “It's essentially the physical principle behind the gearing of a bicycle or motorcycle..”. That is obviously not the same as saying: “gears and chains are essential" [for explaining the paradox], as you're suggesting. Nowhere does Jonathan say anything like that. What he does say in that sentence, has a completely different meaning, namely that the theory behind the explanation of the paradox is also in essence the principle behind the gearing of a bicycle or motorcycle.

The word, “essential” is an interesting term. I looked for the word on my files and found this old letter, from Canadian Ellen Moore. Peter

From: Ellen Moore To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: Consciousness Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 14:38:03 -0600/ Rand's full statement:  "Existence exists - and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."  (Atlas shrugged)

This is one of Rand's most broad and comprehensive philosophical propositions.  Yet she uses the terms "perceives" and "perceiving".  Is that all there is implied by that statement?

There are entities conscious of only sensory awareness.

There are entities conscious of perceptual awareness.

There are entities conscious of volitional awareness.

There are entities conscious of conceptualization and reason.

When Rand is speaking axiomatically of the philosophical axioms of Existence, Identity, Consciousness, she is speaking of HUMAN consciousness and its implicit knowledge.

Existence IS Identity.    Consciousness IS Identification.

So, when Rand speaks of axioms, Existence, Identity, Consciousness, she is implying All living existents, and ALL living Consciousnesses – that is, unless she is speaking of one specific kind of consciousness out of many or of inanimate matter.  And when she speaks of human consciousness "perceiving" existence, she is speaking of ALL its essential attributes: sensation, perception, volition, conception, identification, and integration.  And there is a hierarchy involved in certain stages of that list that is both automatic and volitional in their proper placement.

My point is that "perceiving" is Rand's term in that proposition which refers, denotes, conceptually ALL the levels of identification and integration: sensual, perceptual and conceptual.  She uses this terminology of "perceiving" over and over again in reference to human conceptual knowledge of existents.

Birds and animals perceive.  Humans perceive and volitionally conceptualize.  Rand's position is that it is humans' volitional consciousness which distinguishes man from all other species of living entities.

[Now, I do not care if some members here wish to think that all creatures who perceive are also volitional and conceptual.  They assert, but can provide no evidence for their views.  The point is that Rand's position is the Objectivist position, and if you don't agree with it, then choose a different philosophy and quit playing around trying to undermine the premises of Objectivism.]

It's true that birds and animals perceive, but they do not perceive 'similarity' because to do so requires actions of volitional consciousness - about which there is no evidence to indicate they possess.  They are limited to automatic percepts.  Their awareness does not allow "focus" - raising awareness to be conscious.  They are perceptually aware only, and it's limited to the perceptual level.  They have to perceive something, physically and automatically, in being aware of it - meaning that percepts are the means that makes them aware of something.  To be conscious IS to be aware of something perceived.  To perceive something IS to be aware.  Consciousness IS states of awareness.  These may be sensory, perceptual, or conceptual pertaining to different kinds of living organisms. And it [conscious awareness] may yet apply to living organisms in ways not yet identified by humans - Why? Because consciousness is a metaphysical axiom pertaining to living organisms.

Regardless of what some of you may wish to think, there is a stage of cognition that Rand identified as *preconceptual*.  It's the stage between percepts and concepts wherein concepts are being formed - concepts must be formed before one can use them to think "conceptually".  The preconceptual level is actually a complex series of volitional actions of identification in the formatting of each concept. It is *implicit* in the preconceptual stage - it is what Rand identifies in ITOE as the *process* of concept formation.  Once one understands this process then one may explicitly grasp HOW concepts are formed, according to Objectivism.  Take it or leave it.

The things "inherent" in acquiring a "percept" are "a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism" - AR. Beyond that, measurement of characteristics of entities requires volitional "focus", and measurement omission requires a complex process that is volitional and preconceptual - meaning in the stage beyond percepts where a concept may be in the process of formation.

It is not cognitively permissible, or wise, to ignore the steps described within a process.  For example, when Rand said that "The faculty of reason works by means of concepts", it behooves one to learn to understand the requirements of how concepts are formed by human beings, not to mention learning why and how some humans fail to form concepts properly, thus undermining their own reasoning and knowing. Ellen Moore

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, back to the monkeyshines. Below are images of the character Ari from Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes.

The character's physical features were intentionally humanized. She doesn't look like an ape, but like a Hollywood fantasy concoction intended to only suggest an ape. It's beyond suspended disbelief. People in the theatre groaned at the character's first appearance on screen.

Okay, so lots of people of all races have been visually compared to the character (you can see below that someone has compared her to Judge Judy). It's really more like comparing someone's features to those of an imp or an elf, or some kind of pixie-mouse hybrid. But that's not as fun as screaming racism and boycotting and ending someone's career. Oh, and, of course, trying to connect it all to Trump and anyone who doesn't go along with getting rid of him at all costs. The ends justify the means.

 

Ari2.jpgh36F66496.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Infowars performance of Alex Jones having a stroke over Myooooooler has been removed from the Youtube platform, something something Sandy Hook, something something "standards," something something. Apparently (though varied outlets are not all reporting the exact same details), the Infowars channel is 'suspended' from live broadcasts.  For me this is a bit puzzling -- there is more than one Youtube channel under the Infowars tent.**

In any case, the Infowars blob staff can simply upload a recording.  Strike!

Trust, but something something verify.

_______________

** 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by william.scherk
Strike! added link to live-streaming Infowars, inside spoiler code
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

For me this is a bit puzzling -- there is more than one Youtube channel under the Infowars tent.

William,

Notice that, did you?

Now look at the crowing of Alex's enemies. See any misalignment?

:) 

If you are interested in seeing the four videos for yourself, here are a couple of links on Infowars.

Frankly, despite the hyperbole, you will get better information about this on Infowars than in the mainstream news. Especially with Paul Joseph Watson. He does not engage in the yelling Alex is famous for, but instead, presents a lot of facts stated clearly.

Sharia-compliant YouTube Removes Videos Criticizing Islamic Immigration

CNN Lies About Banned Infowars Videos In New Censorship Attempt, See The Banned Videos For Yourself

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where oh where did my videos go, where oh where can they be ...?

23 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
On 7/26/2018 at 10:36 AM, william.scherk said:

The Infowars performance of Alex Jones having a stroke over Myooooooler has been removed from the Youtube platform, something something Sandy Hook, something something "standards," something something. Apparently (though varied outlets are not all reporting the exact same details), the Infowars channel is 'suspended' from live broadcasts.  For me this is a bit puzzling -- there is more than one Youtube channel under the Infowars tent.**

If you are interested in seeing the four videos for yourself, here are a couple of links on Infowars. [...]

Sharia-compliant YouTube Removes Videos Criticizing Islamic Immigration

CNN Lies About Banned Infowars Videos In New Censorship Attempt, See The Banned Videos For Yourself

It may be just my browser (though I checked the HTML code), but neither of the pages at these two links has a video.  There are headlines under a promise that "you can watch the four banned videos below." Ie, 

Quote

You can watch the four banned videos below:

How To Prevent Liberalism – A Public Service Announcement:

 

SHOCK REPORT: Learn How Islam Has Already Conquered Europe

 

Shocking ‘Drag Tots’ Cartoon Sparks Outrage

 

VIDEO: French President Macron Pretends Crime Rates And Migrants Are Not Co-Related

The HTML code seems to call a video up:

<script data-cfasync="false" defer="" type="text/javascript" src="https://embed.cloudflarestream.com/embed/r4xu.fla9.latest.js?video=6fd7b2a930cb1ff0513bebdd63686fb9"></script>

But no videos appear in either Chrome or Edge. 

And at Bitchute, the 'censored Infowars' file is blank:

infowarsBitchute00.png

As for the main Infowars Bitchute, no videos with the same titles above appear ... at this point in my search.

Bitchute does not have a simple way to embed videos, but this kludge might work:

July 12 Seth Rich Crank Theory Bullshit ...

Although outlets such as Fast Company directed readers to the Infowars/Alex Jones Facebook pages where 3 of the videos were said to be, nothing is there.  

Which maybe should not be a surprise ... since Facebook has just suspended Alex Jone's personal account posting privileges for thirty days.

Here, courtesy of Media Matters, a section of the very weird "Myooooooler" video now disappeared.

Edited by william.scherk
Kludge resize, added info about Alex Jones' Facebook suspension
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

As for the main Infowars Bitchute, no videos with the same titles above appear ... at this point in my search.

William,

That's retarded.

Bitchute doesn't censor anyone. Maybe pedofiles and terrorists. I just took a screenshot.

07.27.2018-15.59.png

 

As for YouTube and Facebook re Inforwars, the writing is on the wall for the legacy social media. And it's not for Infowars. Have you seen the tanking in Facebook and Twitter stocks? 

Styx is right:

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recursion ...

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

But no videos appear [at the Infowars pages: Link1 | Link2] in either Chrome or Edge. 

And at Bitchute, the 'censored Infowars' file is blank:

infowarsBitchute00.png&key=204c901168c7a

As for the main Infowars Bitchute, no videos with the same titles above appear ... at this point in my search.

William,

That's retarded.

Bitchute doesn't censor anyone.

Yeah, I agree, with your caveats.  I am just looking for the most likely places to find it since I failed so far at the Infowars site. Ie, Were you able to view the four videos embedded in the Infowars HTML code (but not showing on my Chrome and Edge browsers)? That would be a relief.

Barring that, did you find at Bitchute -- as I have not yet -- the four named videos in the pages you linked to above (those subject to Youtube+Facebook actions)?  

They were: 

  • How To Prevent Liberalism – A Public Service Announcement:

  • SHOCK REPORT: Learn How Islam Has Already Conquered Europe

  • Shocking ‘Drag Tots’ Cartoon Sparks Outrage

  • VIDEO: French President Macron Pretends Crime Rates And Migrants Are Not Co-Related

Quote

[..] I just took a screenshot.

07.27.2018-15.59.png

Yeah.  I have looked at the four channels.  The named videos we (some of us) haven't seen, the 'scapegoats' that were killed by Youtube (and it appears, Facebook), they haven't turned up there.

So, I am not suggesting that a Bitchute apparatus blocked them, but that they aren't there on that platform under those titles (in other words, not excised from longer broadcast blocks of two or three hours. If we had the first published dates for each of the four 'hidden' videos, then I could cross-check the transcripts of CC files and offer OL a cut.

Basically, I don't yet have a  Bitchute copy or direct link of the weirdnesses/scapegoats/free-speech-acts to view (besides the Myoooooler excerpt from MMFA), and so far neither does anyone else here posting punditry about them.

I'd like to interrogate the Guideline People about what in particular was so freaking awful about these ones that Youtube/Facebook AI+finger-on-the-scales scapegoated.

I got other home and yard  and burial duty work to do, so if anybody updates this with the content of the scapegoat, thank you in advance.

In parting, a recent Bitchute upload from Infowars. Rather depressing, but hey. It's titled "NEW ZEALAND PASTOR ARRESTED IN AUSTRALIA FOR EXPOSING ISLAM"

Edited by william.scherk
Image resize/fix.
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Not according to his wife...

Korben,

Do you have an ex?

If so, how accurate do you think she would be in an interview with a press hostile to you?

:evil:  :) 

I, myself, have about 12 or 15 exes or so, I lost count, so if I ever become famous enough to be a threat to the press, I know where my own reputation in the press will end up. :) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I am just looking for the most likely places to find it since I failed so far at the Infowars site. Ie, Were you able to view the four videos embedded in the Infowars HTML code (but not showing on my Chrome and Edge browsers)? That would be a relief.

William,

You may have javascript or java or flash or something disabled. I see the videos just fine on the links I provided. I use Chrome. Here's a search link for help. I suggest you only look at more recent entries, so on the search page, click Tools --> Any Time (drop down opens) --> Past year or Past month.

Since you like these things, you might want to look into an extension called "Magic Actions for YouTube." It's really cool. I only use it for removing the screen clutter when I watch a video, but I like that feature. There's a whole lot more stuff I want to look at when I get in the mood to play.

Michael

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, thanks for the suggestions**. I still have a mysterious block on the videos in my versions of Chrome and Edge, even after checking to make sure Javascript was not being blocked, same with Flash.  A curiosity in any case. In a fresh Firefox browser install just now the four videos do show for me -- and the underlying division and script-call code has not changed. So, it's me.  Cue suspenseful music ... dum dum dum dum dum.  Who is thwarting WSS's display?

One thing that has changed (not due to my actions) is on the same Infowars reference page -- an added link for each of the four videos to new Bitchute cuts.

So, next, we can all see what got Facebook and Youtube spooked.

Bitchute links snagged from the reference page "Watch These Videos YouTube Doesn’t Want You to See" ...

https://www.bitchute.com/video/fiBC7fSUZ80/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/CeYP1C_51XA/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/WtAHuu0ycCY/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/GSYrZ8gUsxs/

I don't just now have the time to embed those here, but waste your time with the code for a DIY embed:

<iframe src="https://www.bitchute.com/embed/PASTE-UNIQUE-ID-HERE/" width="66%" height="360px" style="..."></iframe>
<! -- You can also change the size of the video block by width or height. Width takes precedence. -->

[Added: ] _____________________

** the two greatest suggestions for me were Great Suspender and the local TTS extension.

Edited by william.scherk
"Did you actually watch the videos yet, William?"
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I don't just now have the time to embed those here, but waste your time with the code for an embed:

William,

Here are the notes (modified) I put together for myself a couple of months ago.

I am using the first video in your post (https://www.bitchute.com/video/fiBC7fSUZ80/).

You have to use "source view" in your post to do this. I suggest putting the HTML5 video code in between paragraph tags like below:

<p>put HTML5 video code here</p>

For the instructions below, a magnet link is a direct torrent link. You get the magnet link at the "U" icon on the bottom right of the BitChute video player on the BitChute site. Right click it and select "Copy Link Address" or whatever means that on the browser you use.

I bolded and increased the seed url for clarity.

In the HTML5 video code, you can change the size if you like.

Quote

HOW TO EMBED BITCHUTE VIDEOS INTO OL.

1. Get magnet link and extract seed url. Example from your video. When I right click on the "U" icon and copy the link, I get the following:

magnet:?xt=urn:btih:0f7984e158779d47bd0c69eea1725077f159e2d9&dn=fiBC7fSUZ80.mp4&tr=udp://explodie.org:6969&tr=udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969&tr=udp://tracker.empire-js.us:1337&tr=udp://tracker.leechers-paradise.org:6969&tr=udp://tracker.opentrackr.org:1337&tr=wss://tracker.openwebtorrent.com&as=https://seed15.bitchute.com/8479/fiBC7fSUZ80.mp4&xs=https://www.bitchute.com/torrent/8479/fiBC7fSUZ80.webtorrent

 

2. For HTML5 video code, use the following and replace video file (HTML5Sample.mov) with seed url.

Without seed url:

<video width="430" height="240" controls>
  <source src="HTML5Sample.mov">  
Your browser does not support the video tag.
</video>

With seed url:

<video width="430" height="240" controls>
  <source src="https://seed15.bitchute.com/8479/fiBC7fSUZ80.mp4">  
Your browser does not support the video tag.
</video>


More info: https://www.htmlgoodies.com/html5/client/how-to-embed-video-using-html5.html

It's convoluted right now, but I expect BitChute will get better over time and will have an easier procedure.

Michael

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool, two ways to embed, via an iframe kludge and straight-up HTML5. Thanks.  This is my all-purpose HTML5 video code, for the interested:

<video controls 
       style="width:66%" 
       src="http://full.addressOfMP4file.mp4" 
       poster="http://full.addressOfSnapshotForPOSTER.png">

Eg, 8479/CeYP1C_51XA from the "magnet link"  (the forum software rewrites the code to full conformance, and browser functions insert a poster if you haven't).

<video controls=""
       style="width:33%"
       src="https://seed15.bitchute.com/8479/CeYP1C_51XA.mp4">
</video>

Edited by william.scherk
Reduced size of MP4 to speed loading from Bitchute; 2 down, 2 to go. Are they deserving Facebook+Youtube Spanking?
Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

The video you embedded is slow to load.

I'm going to try my code to see what happens.

Michael

EDIT: As I thought. A longer video does a lot better when it's smaller. This is because the video is essentially loading from a torrent (lots of computers all over the Internet), not a single server (or cloud) like YouTube.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Fake News dodge. As for fake Howard, whom I love, it is a truth that Q himself and or committee-of-nostradamus therein pay little attention to reporting of the type linked below.  A question remains --  why isn't  the Qommunity of 'researchers' all over detention centre abuse stories?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2018 at 11:54 AM, william.scherk said:

The gist is that Nathan S is skeptical of the Q Phenom without being bitchy, snarky, freaky, accusatory, angry or anywhere off the baseline. That makes him perhaps boring to listen too ... but it didn't harm Scott Adams, who takes a similar reasonable and middle-of-the-road tone and register.

Try it, you'll like it, Conspiracy Theorists of Objectivist Living.

Forget Nathan Stolpman for the moment -- as he is fully involved with interviews of alleged Satanic Ritual Abuse survivors. Scott Adams has a video in which he says Q is 100% not real.  Here's an excerpt from the video uploaded yesterday:

Edited by william.scherk
Added poster for video
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Forget Nathan Stolpman for the moment -- as he is fully involved with interviews of alleged Satanic Ritual Abuse survivors. Scott Adams has a video in which he says Q is 100% not real.  Here's an excerpt from the video uploaded yesterday:

Billy, what's up? You're investing a hell of a lot of your life into this Q nonsense. What gives? Why is so damned important to you?

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, is the anonymous Q  Michael Scheuer or not?  At least according to Buzzfeed's Ryan Broderick, not.

It's Looking Extremely Likely That QAnon Is A Leftist Prank On Trump Supporters

 

sub-buzz-3866-1533554010-1.png?downsize=

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now