Deliberate Misrepresentation of Evidence, Videos carefully crafted to be easily debunked Options

[Natasha]

IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT YOU READ THIS THREAD FIRST.



Hi painter, and everybody,


I am a new member. I am not a pilot, and I am no scientist by a long shot either. I promise to do my very best, to be both respectful and patient though, and I think I have something to offer.

A lot of people have been extremely turned off, to the ideas Fred and Killtown have been misrepresenting and purposely presenting very poorly, and I hope it is not too late to help undo the damage they have done.

I sure wish I had read, the thread this split off from, quite a bit sooner!

I was still very new to the ideas Fred and company were presenting, and I had just finished watching his 911 Octopus movie, for like the 10th time, when I finally joined their forum just a couple of months ago.

Back when I was a member of Killtown's forum, before they banned me for political reasons, I remember that Fred started a thread about what happened here.

As usual when one of them gets banned, they go to their forum and begin bragging about being banned, by the "nasty fascists" at LC and Pilots etc, and they then rave on and on about how 'they' don't ban people for political reasons.

The hell they don't though. They banned me, because I noticed this pattern, and I began asking them about the other HUGE PR blunders they ALL make on a regular basis also.

I also believe that the videos Fred has been making, are carefully crafted to be easily debunked later, when whoever oversees their modified limited hangout operation [cough Rick Siegel] gives them the word.

Please go here, and read my Rick Siegel's Lunatic Fringe: Todays NAZIS smear you as antisemtic thread on the Loose Change Forum about this.

Odd indeed, how the "nasty fascists" at LC, have left it up for a few days now. But if it's gone, then please go to my Youtube channel, linked to in my signature, and then read my comments section etc.


Thank you for letting me have my say. I hope I can be of service here.

Best to all of you,

Natasha

This post has been edited by Natasha: Aug 18 2007, 01:34 AM

[Natasha]

Just for the record (since I won't be around for most of the day) to me, "uncertainty" is a more productive state than "belief." To me "the lack of real plane crashes on 9/11" is not self evident but the evidence of the crashes is "suspicious" and worthy of further investigation -- especially for those of us who are not knew to this research. However, I do not jump to conclusions. I want to see evidence or at least discussion from knowledgeable and reasonable people (without insults and slander).

I appreciate the patient admonitions, made by both you and Sanders, that I need to take greater care to be objective and to refrain from jumping to conclusions. You guys are right. I really do need to be more circumspect, and I am going to make a real effort to do so.

I can agree, that sometimes in some things, uncertainty is a more productive state than belief. Is not though your statement that, " "uncertainty" is a more productive state than "belief." ", yet something which you believe? You do seem very certain about that, and your statement taken literally clearly implies that certainty is a product of, or an indication of, a state of belief.

Now would I be foolish, to "look beyond" your literal statement, to then "sense", feel or "know", what your intended meaning really is? I mean how could I be certain? How do any of us 'know' anything? How can we "bust a move" during a crisis or when in danger, when there is no time for thinking, if we do not accept our uncertainty and believe whatever it is that guides us at such times? I beleive your statement is just such a guiding belief. Not untrue, it points to something beyond it's literal meaning, and it circumvents linear thought. That my friend is the essence of belief. Are you certain, that you didn't rather mean, "uncertainty" is a more productive state than "certainty." I believe you need to think this through a bit more. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I can say I think, and to my mind, that infers some amount of uncertainty, with which I have no quarrel. I can say also that I believe, and to my mind that infers neither an utter lack of uncertainty, nor any sort of absolute certainty closed to further possibility, but rather merely less uncertainty.

I certainly believe it is a possibility that what you say about Fred and KT is true. Then again they may simply be doing what you may be doing -- jumping to conclusions based on suppositions drawn from unverified evidence -- something I see some people in this movement do and something I see the government do all the time. Unlike many, I can hold a lot of ambiguity in my thinking. I don't have to come to a conclusion, I simply note that there are contradictory possibilities. I hold these ideas as an "open question." As I go on, hopefully new information will come to light which will help things become more clear. I tend to be less "convinced" by "reasonable" argument and more convinced by evidence.

I do not believe it true that anything is possible. Is tolerance for ambiguity really a virtue now? While I think wisdom requires us to suspend judgement at times, at other times it demands that we choose, and yet of course choices are not made between two always. The wise will balk when presented with an either or, black and white choice, and they wont be pressured into deciding right now, if it is not absolutely necessary.

As for how government relates to this. This monster we have now ruling us, seems really to more each day enforce ambiguity, by means I don't claim to understand, and for this our society just accepts accepts accepts more each day most unwisely. We are given false choices between several identical candidates now, and people just accept that even though they know better. People who know far better also accept video evidence, presented by a media they well know to be untrustworthy, of events which if by some miracle is not impossible is yet extremely improbable. The ability of people to accept ambiguity, while useful at times is not a virtue, and sadly it has even become a vehicle to secure our misplaced obedience, and terrifying inaction in the face of the greatest crisis our nation has ever faced.

A supposed argument, devoid of evidence to support it, is not an appeal to reason. If an appeal made, whether supposedly to either reason or emotion, does cause one to think and not merely get emotional, then I think it is an appeal to reason. It think it reasonable to conclude, that an appeal to reason may also stir up emotion, and sometimes it would even have to.

Natasha, what I'd be interested in learning more about from you is some of the information provided in Fred's "Full Spectrum Treason" video. What I see there is a presentation of some very interesting information which states emphatically that 'such-and-so' is true. It isn't presented as this may be true but that this is true -- and that is where my suspicions regarding all this
got turned up to a full burn.

Ok, now what struck me about this is that this brings to public view some specific details of information warfare not commonly known by most people. That such technology exits. That such information warfare programs exist, and son on. AT THE SAME TIME certain assertions are made which are not verified and which, I believe, in certain instances, are not factual. In any case they are not proven as fact, merely stated as fact. To me, this looks like a very well crafted piece of disinformation because it reveals something while simultaneously making it seem not credible from its source precisely because it does not prove its stated assertions. Again, this is the difference between "may be" and "is". A thing "may be" true and yet "not" be true; if something "is" true it must be verifiability so, not merely possible. Not everything that is "possible" is "actual". It is possible for me to be dead but, as of this moment, I am not. -- But of course you don't know that for a fact. Perhaps I've been offed and someone else has taken my place.

-- See what I mean?

You know I do painter. I noticed that KT Fred and the guys began to change a great deal, and before they banned me, I even said I thought maybe some sort of mind control or psychotronic weapon was being used against them. Now I realize that I just began to snap out of it is all. Fred's 911 Octopus is what got me back into 911 activism. I had given up trying, a couple of years before, because it was like talking to a wall. It was always the controlled Truther party line everywhere. I was fascinated with Octopus. I watched it, at least ten times, even getting up in the middle of the night sometimes just to watch it. I Frankly liked Fred. One day however, I realized that I had no reason to at all, since I had never met him and new nothing about him. It began to dawn on me, that it was something about his voice in his videos, and that made me begin to look at his work in a whole new way.

I noticed that Fred's videos have changed a great deal lately. While the one above seems technically better than his previous work, the content of his last two videos I find blatantly offensive. I read last night, that Fred has made some very offensive 911 videos containing porn before, and the entire thing just seemed like a crude parody of a 911 doc.

I did not base my conclusions about Fred on this video. In fact I have never watched it past the first minute or so, and that is because by the time it came out, I had become very suspicious about his sound tracks. Think me crazy if you like. I believe that his videos, are very far from, the innocent amateur productions that they seem to be.

What I do believe is that in the next 9/11 (or god help us, whatever) the kind of technology and rules of engagement outlined above WILL BE implemented even MORE strongly than on 9/11 itself. It is THIS that makes the information important -- if we can pick the gems from out of the turds and use them to learn more.

Yes I agree. I am certain they will do something very dramatic eventually, and yet they are using a far more sinister and insidious weapon against us already. Have you never wondered how the people can remain so complacent and blind to the extreme danger they are in? The most powerful and evil weapon, ever developed, is the television. I think Fred's "ministry" is directed against hard cases, who don't watch TV, those in the 911 truth movement and the politically aware on the Internet, and as such it is extremely powerful not to mention very very dangerous.

This post has been edited by Natasha: Aug 18 2007, 10:12 PM