Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, 9thdoctor said:

In other words, utterly implausible.

Dennis,

So you think people who presented a trivial YouTube video to the entire world as the cause of a terrorist strike in Benghazi that killed a US Ambassador, and who kept the "Muh Russians" hoax predominating politics and the mainstream news for three years in America--in America!--and so many things like that, are incapable of wanting to do a stunt like faking RBG if they can get their hands on the technology to do it?

You don't think they will try if they can find the means? You find that "utterly implausible"?

Well, the truth is, the technology to do it now exists, it exists for real and anyone can see demonstrations. The mainstream communications can be rigged, and rigged for real like it just was. And behavioral scientists have discovered ways to pass off a blatant easy-to-debunk hoax as real on a large scale against any and all proof, like they just did.

(You even find the "Muh Russians" hoax "plausible" to use your own description. And for the record, I do not believe, as fact, that RBG is dead, but I won't mock those who are looking into it--on the contrary, I keep an eye on them with open mind since these people are essentially pioneers, many with a pretty good track record, who strive to bring the hidden-by-the-powerful to awareness.)

But at least there's this. It's so comforting to know that nobody on earth will try something outrageous when they get the means to take a shot because it's utterly implausible. I know this for a fact because you said so. :)  

Well, there's this, too. Widespread 5G is coming and this stuff will only get worse, but if I can just believe... if I can just hold on against acknowledging... you know... technology and stuff...

I need to spend more time with my inner Luddite in our Brave New World...

:) 

Michael

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

This ought to clinch it.  For any rational mind.

Dennis,

Let's wait for three years or so, OK?

I think we need some serious investigations, maybe a special counsel or two.

I mean, that's only fair if you are appealing to "rational minds" about plausibility and stuff...

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

False.

Why? Suppose you can identify the position of one of the lamps. Then you can draw lines from that position to the head of the person (light ray, shadow margin). But where the ray hits the wall, will depend on the distance of that person to the wall. What from the current perspective is one single line, may, seen from above, be a series of diverging lines, resulting in different positions of the shadow on the wall, depending on the position of that person. And that is known in only one dimension, the second coordinate is unknown. We don't know where his feet are, nor how tall he is.

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

I suspect that you're misidentifying either the number and positions of lights in the room, or whose shadows are whose, or both, and also maybe the depth of the room and the variations of its surfaces.

You're right, I had confused the right shadow of the tall man with the left shadow of the small woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2019 at 3:08 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

As to RBG, I lean toward her being alive, though.

 

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

And for the record, I do not believe, as fact, that RBG is dead, but I won't mock those who are looking into it--on the contrary, I keep an eye on them with open mind since these people are essentially pioneers, many with a pretty good track record, who strive to bring the hidden-by-the-powerful to awareness.)

At least you're not leaning any more, that's progress.

Benghazi was debunked within a week, as I recall.  There was no evidence, and that hoax further bolstered Hillary's reputation for lying about everything, all the time.  How is it they didn't get away with manufacturing evidence?  They're like all powerful, right?

I'm curious, if RBG dies before Trump's first term ends, and he gets to nominate her successor, will that serve to prove or disprove this hoax?  What if she outlives his term and resigns (or "dies") once his (Democratic) successor takes office?  That'd be a slam dunk, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Max said:

 

Why? Suppose you can...

There are other means of establishing position other than knowing "where his feet are."

All of the entities in the space, including the moving ones, not only cast shadows, but receive them as well. You're only considering a few of the shadows. Try accounting for all of them, and see if you can discover how doing so provides the information that you've claimed doesn't exist in th image.

There are also reflections in the space, and other indicators, such as the height of the camera's viewpoint and the relationships of the entities to the horizon line, and all of the information that such information can tell us.

And there's more. Scale of common objects, proportional falloff of lighting, shadow distance softening/spread, etc.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 9thdoctor said:

At least you're not leaning any more, that's progress.

Dennis,

That's not progress. It's repetition.

I've written this same position over and over. Right here on OL. For several years now.

Not just about RBG, either. Take a look at any conspiracy discussed on OL and you will find at least one post (usually several) where I express this view. (Not fully believing in a conspiracy theory as fact, but not dismissing it as fact, either, unless fully disproven like the flat earth nonsense and so on, with a lot of affection for those who wade into the muck of attacking elitists to find what they are hiding.)

Hell, there's even a thread on OL specifically about conspiracy theories where I talk about the epistemological nature and value of conspiracy theorists, how to use their work, so to speak, and why it is important. I have even cited academic books (like by Mark Fenster) on conspiracy theories, works that are respected in academia and cited in peer reviewed articles.

In this thread about RBG, I mentioned my leanings once again--as repetition, not as something new--for the prejudiced since I know that jumping to conclusions as the only reality for them is the way they think.

It's like the batshit crazy people I wrote about. They may see words and evidence, but this stuff doesn't grok in their brains as corresponding to what it really is. These words and evidence don't register mentally as referents for their own abstractions. The batshit crazy people peg their very perception of reality and almost all their metaphysical focus to the story in their minds. Eyes and ears and the other senses exist for them to find observations that reinforce that story and filter out, or distort, anything that goes against that story.

:)

Seriously. I call it normative before cognitive thinking.

I'm not being hostile. How could I be hostile with truth looked at but not seen after going through two different 12 step programs, one for alcohol and the other for drugs? (And, boy, did I need them back then.) Consider my comment as a playful poke in the ribs--banter if you will--from someone who likes you, but with an element of truth embedded. :) If you don't believe the truth is embedded, look up some of my posts. The truth will be right there in front of you and it will be the exact opposite of what you wrote.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I have even cited academic books (like by Mark Fenster) on conspiracy theories, works that are respected in academia and cited in peer reviewed articles.

The oddest goddam thing just happened.

I tried to find the link (there should be several) and couldn't. Our brainwashing masters in Big Tech Busybodyville have written algorithms that have scrubbed most of Fenster's stuff from the search engines--including from OL's database it seems. And it's not because Big Tech Brother is against Fenster. He leans left and they like him. It's because algorithms are triggered by keywords.

I'm really pissed about this. How in hell did they get to the OL database? I'm going to look into this. (I suspect the programmers are using a Google-based or similar shortcut in the search function. And, on a Google search ["Mark Fenster" site:objectivistliving.com], obviously nothing comes up.)

At any rate, here is the book I referenced somewhere here on OL. At least it's still on Amazon (with a massively reduced presence than before, and a massively inflated price, but it's still there).

Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture by Mark Fenster.

He's got a new book, too, called The Transparency Fix: Secrets, Leaks, and Uncontrollable Government Information.

All of Mark Fenster's videos--all those college lectures and interviews--are off the Internet except a few.

Here is a short video about his new book.

Damn it!

I don't want to live in a world where this kind of shit happens.

This is batshit crazy, the real deal. And I despise it.

There's a silver lining here for me. A kick in the pants kind of silver lining. I may start writing less online and finish up the several books I have going (which I should have done by now).

At least Big Tech will not be able to scrub my books, nor scrub references to them in the alt media,  although it could make things difficult for selling them on mainstream sites. 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

Benghazi was debunked within a week, as I recall.

Dennis,

Not as PR and propaganda and not to massive numbers of Hillary Clinton voters in the 2016 election.

The effect has lingered so much that many people still believe it.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 27, 2019 at 7:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I keep repeating, so this is the last time. See the ends of several of [Max's] posts where he snarks about conspiracy theorists.

So all you're talking about is Max's posts on this thread where he makes a comparison to people who are prone to interpreting unidentified objects or phenomena in the sky as alien spacecraft?  I thought you meant some history, prior to this thread, of attempts to debunk conspiracy theories.  Something a la William.

 

On July 27, 2019 at 7:58 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I know it's difficult.

Very.

---

About Ginsburg:

I think that Dennis' comparison to finding a body double for Martha Argerich who can play like Martha Argerich is apt.  A body double for Ginsburg would have to have expert knowledge of law at the level of a Supreme Court Justice in order to fool the other Supreme Court Justices.

(I don't think that the conservative Justices would go along with a hoax upon the request of the "Trump team," as per Jon's answer here.  Their reputations in the long view of future history would be at stake.  Probably the liberal Justices wouldn't want their reputations mucked up by acquiescing in a fake either.)

Ellen

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

So all you're talking about is Max's posts on this thread where he makes a comparison to people who are prone to interpreting unidentified objects or phenomena in the sky as alien spacecraft?  I thought you meant some history, prior to this thread, of attempts to debunk conspiracy theories.  Something a la William.

Ellen,

To answer this with 100% certainty, I need to go back and look to verify certain patterns in my mind from observing this stuff and, frankly, I'm spending way too much time on it. I like Max except when his insecurities get in the way of contributing value (he has some really good brains for contributing value) and start hogging discussions with silly oneupmanship games. 

Here are some observations and I know people will sound off about psychologizing, but thinking about people's motivations is exactly one of the things human brains were designed to do. Hell, intent is even a legal consideration in judging crimes.

So I'm not going to apologize for it or avoid doing it anymore. Yes, I do analyze human motivations and comment on them. Including my own. I may be wrong at times, but I'm right a hell of a lot of others. Besides, it's awful to think things from an "identify" perspective (that cognitive before normative thing I always talk about), but never be able to talk about what I observe because this will ignite a shitstorm. Screw that. I'm not a lover of shitstorms, so I still avoid them when I believe there is not enough value in my thoughts to risk one, but for the rest, screw that. 

Here in O-Land, there has been way too much shutting down discussion based on peer pressure and thin skins. 

This is exactly what the PC leftie brigade tries to do: shut people up through fear and shaming by victimization, mockery and banishment, with a huge emphasis on victimization. Here in O-Land, it's the same damn thing, except the emphasis is on mockery and banishment. (Not all mockery, victimization and/or banishment is for this purpose, but this kind of fear and shaming is used as a weapon so much because it is quite effective as a weapon.)

The problem with silencing people as a principle form of social control (and getting power) is that when people get intimidated into not speaking their minds, they don't become convinced. They just shrug. The moment they believe their voice will mean something in the society in which they live other than getting a lot of grief and horseshit shoveled at them, they will speak up and generally act to remove the power of those who silence them. This is how many major social movements happened, for example, the civil rights movement. This is also how President Trump got elected.

Notice that everybody who relies on silencing others--not winning arguments enough to convince people, but silencing others--as one of their main forms of social interaction have thin skins. Why? Fear. Fear of losing social standing within groups one identifies with is a fundamental fear. That's why. This universal fear evolved over millennia from humans living in small groups under harsh conditions. An outcast literally died way back when and the dead don't reproduce. Surviving and reproducing are the evolutionary imperatives of any species. So those who developed a healthy fear of being cut off from the group are our ancestors. Those who did not develop such a fear generally became dinner for some other species.

The thin-skinned have this social standing fear (and a fear of being inadequate) way out of whack in relation to other evolved fundamental fears (like fear of spiders and snakes, fear of attack by organized enemies, fear of the unknown, etc.). Also, they don't try to achieve good standing by providing value, but instead by showing the deficiencies of certain group members they target. They may provide value, but they expend a hell of a lot of energy trying to get the group to look at someone they consider inferior.

The key for good living is balance, but they are motivated to an excessive degree by a false sense of higher social standing, and the weird thing about is that the others generally don't give a crap about it. 

Observing the way people interact on a forum is a good way to see this out of whack fear-based motivation unfolding in real time (especially if you know what you are looking for).

But rather than publicly describe and dissect William and Max's patterns that I have observed based on this filter, I prefer to take a pass on the potential shitstorms that would cause. Talk about a time-suck.

:) 

Let's just say that I recognize complexities along with simplicities and I like both guys. But patterns are there from this filter and they are observable. Let those who are interested observe and come to their own conclusions.

16 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

About Ginsburg:

I think that Dennis' comparison to finding a body double for Martha Argerich who can play like Martha Argerich is apt.  A body double for Ginsburg would have to have expert knowledge of law at the level of a Supreme Court Justice in order to fool the other Supreme Court Justices.

Essentially I agree with this. But not because I find it impossible. Based on what I've seen so far, this would be hellishly difficult to pull off, but not impossible. 

I agree because I believe the people who would try something like this are too inept to pull it off without getting busted for something simple. They would nail the details, maybe even to a breathtaking degree, but leave out or screw up something on a duh level. These are arrogant conceited people and their arrogance is like strong drink. It dulls their thinking and caution.

In my view, the pattern of this ineptitude would be like what happened to Dan Rather in his exposé forgery with false information of a George Bush document. He (or his peeps) got the details down as far as plausibility goes, but used Microsoft Word fonts and formatting on a the document when the date on it was for a time Microsoft Word didn't exist. I believe RBG falsifiers would do that kind of screw-up.

16 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

(I don't think that the conservative Justices would go along with a hoax upon the request of the "Trump team," as per Jon's answer here.  Their reputations in the long view of future history would be at stake.  Probably the liberal Justices wouldn't want their reputations mucked up by acquiescing in a fake either.)

They are all politicians (from the judicial branch, but still politicians). I don't trust politicians. Especially not ones with the kind of lifetime power Supreme Court Justices wield. But I agree they would not go along with an outrageous high-risk hoax that could tarnish their exclusive club and, besides, there are too many of them to keep a hoax qua hoax on that scale quiet, even if acting in collusion. 

Oh, they have their own sense of integrity, but I think the checks and balances of the American form of government hold them on the straight and narrow just as much if not more than their political beliefs and integrity. They have a good thing going, a nice little exclusive club, and don't want to screw it up. Faking one of their own goes too far into the heart of discrediting their exclusive club.

As to worrying about their individual reputations, I think that would be secondary (based on some of their weird conclusions). Their individual reputations got greatly enhanced when they got admitted to the exclusive club, which means their future reputations flow from the credibility of that club.

So they would need to be fooled. And, like I said, that would be hellishly difficult for the hoaxer. I don't trust them, but these are not stupid people. In fact, they are smarter than most.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

To answer this with 100% certainty, I need to go back and look to verify certain patterns in my mind from observing this stuff and, frankly, I'm spending way too much time on it. I like Max except when his insecurities get in the way of contributing value (which he has some really good brains to do) and start hogging discussions with silly oneupmanship games. 

Insecurities? Psychobabble framing. 

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here are some observations and I know people will sound off about psychologizing, but thinking about people's motivations is exactly one of the things human brains were designed to do. Hell, intent is even a legal consideration in judging crimes.

I'll tell you what my intent in this discussion was: to show that your arguments for implying tampering with the picture were false. Reread our discussion on that matter. You'll see that I quite neutrally, without any personal remark, told you why your argument was fallacious. You return with new arguments, which I also show to be false. Then you start with personal remarks: 

Quote

 

Here's what I see. You don't think like someone who has messed with this stuff. 

I'll try to explain it, but you seem to be predisposed to belief, not speculation and thinking outside the box. So this may be wasted effort.

 

Observe the condescending tone, and the start of psychologizing: I would have no experience in such matters. How do you know? Because I disagree with you? Further I'm a "believer" who "cannot think outside the box", and therefore explaining it to me will probably be "wasted effort".

Don't you see that you're now exactly doing what you are reproaching me for? Not that it bothers me, but your double standard does.

 

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So I'm not going to apologize for it or avoid doing it anymore. Yes, I do analyze human motivations and comment on them. Including my own. I may be wrong at times, but I'm right a hell of a lot of others. Besides, it's awful to think things from an "identify" perspective (that cognitive before normative thing I always talk about), but never be able to talk about what I observe because this will ignite a shitstorm. Screw that. I'm not a lover of shitstorms, so I still avoid them when I believe there is not enough value in my thoughts to risk one, but for the rest, screw that. 

Here in O-Land, there has been way too much shutting down discussion based on peer pressure and thin skins. 

Yes, and you are a great shutter down of discussions.  When I wrote (about the beard of the statue): "Curious, I just see a beard, an ear and hair on top. No, it's not very clear, but that is due to the fact that the image of the white statue is rather bleached out by overexposure, and it isn't very sharp anyway. That seems to me to be a more likely explanation of what you see, than the notion that some evil conspirator has painted an extra beard on the statue or has removed some embarrassing details of the statue", your reply is:

Quote

 

Likely" is an interesting word the way you say it. It sounds like, "the only, you dumbass."

It sounds like a barking dogma.

 

Escalating again, after a quite normal remark of mine. Probably because you think with your all-knowing psychologizing mind that this must be what I'm really thinking. Well, even if that were the case, I didn't say that, and it is nowhere implied in what I really said. Talk about thin-skinned.

5 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This is exactly what the PC leftie brigade tries to do: shut people up through fear and shaming by victimization, mockery and banishment, with a huge emphasis on victimization. Here in O-Land, it's the same damn thing, except the emphasis is on mockery and banishment. (Not all mockery, victimization and/or banishment is for this purpose, but this kind of fear and shaming is used as a weapon so much because it is quite effective as a weapon.)

The problem with silencing people as a principle form of social control (and getting power) is that when people get intimidated into not speaking their minds, they don't become convinced. They just shrug. The moment they believe their voice will mean something in the society in which they live other than getting a lot of grief and horseshit shoveled at them, they will speak up and generally act to remove the power of those who silence them. This is how many major social movements happened, for example, the civil rights movement. This is also how President Trump got elected.

Notice that everybody who relies on silencing others--not winning arguments enough to convince people, but silencing others--as one of their main forms of social interaction have thin skins. Why? Fear. Fear of losing social standing within groups one identifies with is a fundamental fear. That's why. This universal fear evolved over millennia from humans living in small groups under harsh conditions. An outcast literally died way back when and the dead don't reproduce. Surviving and reproducing are the evolutionary imperatives of any species. So those who developed a healthy fear of being cut off from the group are our ancestors. Those who did not develop such a fear generally became dinner for some other species.

The thin-skinned have this social standing fear (and a fear of being inadequate) way out of whack in relation to other evolved fundamental fears (like fear of spiders and snakes, fear of attack by organized enemies, fear of the unknown, etc.). Also, they don't try to achieve good standing by providing value, but instead by showing the deficiencies of certain group members they target. They may provide value, but they expend a hell of a lot of energy trying to get the group to look at someone they consider inferior.

You seem to be describing yourself. Getting power, bullying, silencing dissenters, you must have a big social standing fear.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

But rather than publicly describe and dissect William and Max's patterns that I have observed based on this filter, I prefer to take a pass on the potential shitstorms that would cause. Talk about a time-suck.

Here is what I'm talking about.

3 hours ago, Max said:

Insecurities? [yada yada yada]

Total time-suck with no value for anyone.

So, continue this crap based on what I observe?

I'll pass.

:) 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 4:23 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

Wouldn't a conspiracy to hide RBG's death or incapacity require the cooperation of the conservative Supreme Court Justices?  If yes, what motive would they have for cooperating?

Ellen

I don't see why. RBG could be spending almost all of her time at home with no congress to speak of with other justices with her staff doing all the work, the idea being to outlast Trump. And just maybe her body is in the freezer laid out in the right posture for the after the election funeral.

--Brant

"Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!"

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2019 at 2:32 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I see this video more as a montage, though, i.e., a video editing job, than an artificial intelligence deep fake like the ones I have seen done with the Deepfakes software.

This is the wrong thread and topic, but hey. Deep Fake in an app. Click through for the rest of Xia's observations. There is some hubbub out there ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm tempted to download Zao to mess around with it (LATER EDIT: I see it's only available in Chinese stores for now, but I have no doubt it can be dug up somewhere on the dark side :) ). I can see why the Chinese would dump it on the American market as a disrupter. But surveillers will be surveillers. Ditto for saboteurs and anyone with half a brain will know there is shit in the code somewhere.

Unfortunately, the greed to use something like this will make many people put the half part of their brain that is still thinking to sleep.

This is going to be a big honking mess.

I'll wait for a user-friendly open source version that has gone through a few generations. That should be relatively safe. Then it will be my turn to have some fun and contribute to the social mess.

:)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/29/2019 at 5:45 PM, Max said:

Insecurities? Psychobabble framing. 

I'll tell you what my intent in this discussion was: to show that your arguments for implying tampering with the picture were false. Reread our discussion on that matter. You'll see that I quite neutrally, without any personal remark, told you why your argument was fallacious. You return with new arguments, which I also show to be false. Then you start with personal remarks: 

Observe the condescending tone, and the start of psychologizing: I would have no experience in such matters. How do you know? Because I disagree with you? Further I'm a "believer" who "cannot think outside the box", and therefore explaining it to me will probably be "wasted effort".

Don't you see that you're now exactly doing what you are reproaching me for? Not that it bothers me, but your double standard does.

 

Yes, and you are a great shutter down of discussions.  When I wrote (about the beard of the statue): "Curious, I just see a beard, an ear and hair on top. No, it's not very clear, but that is due to the fact that the image of the white statue is rather bleached out by overexposure, and it isn't very sharp anyway. That seems to me to be a more likely explanation of what you see, than the notion that some evil conspirator has painted an extra beard on the statue or has removed some embarrassing details of the statue", your reply is:

Escalating again, after a quite normal remark of mine. Probably because you think with your all-knowing psychologizing mind that this must be what I'm really thinking. Well, even if that were the case, I didn't say that, and it is nowhere implied in what I really said. Talk about thin-skinned.

You seem to be describing yourself. Getting power, bullying, silencing dissenters, you must have a big social standing fear.

 

Billy, did you mean to like this just now?

Are you throwing a hissy fit?

We already know you don't like Michael, Billyboy, after all he calls you "cancer."

Wouldn't you rather spend your time with people who have a basic respect for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...