Does anyone else feel like...something isn't right,

[DrEvil]

What is the evidence for your latest theory?

What "theory"?? Look up the word in a dictionary.

Two witnesses saw three people, and no one has explicitly said that one of them was small and child-like?

Three witnesses at least saw three people. And yes, no one out of the 50-60 surviving eyewitnesses has "said that one of them was small and child-like." Although by all accounts she was.

Can you think? Can you think why that might matter?

If you think that is unimportant
Why is it that every time there is a mass shooting you're screaming from the roof tops that it can't possibly be them, it's a setup,

No I'm not. That's a plain lie. But absolutely typical of you. Because you can neither read nor think -- or, if you can, you choose not to whenever it doesn't suit you to do so.

you just know

Ah-ah. Stop right there. Look up "burden of proof". (I tire of repeating myself. Can you think?)

that they're innocent because look - this little detail doesn't add up with what this witness said or what this cop said or what this grainy youtube video shows and OMG the blood in this picture doesn't look right, none of which prove anything. All you have is speculation and some strange details, but you just know.

Look up "burden of proof".

Tl;dr: My pet peeve with you is that your standards for evidence are shit.

Look up "burden of proof". (Ffs.) My pet peeve with you is threefold:

1) that you are incapable of thinking (you have never heard of "burden of proof", for example). or even of reading (QED):

2) that you go out of your way to piss on me in passing with a disgustingly sanctimonious, witlessly shitstirring and deliberately pointmissing post (which you were then too cowardly to retract and not to half-retract, incompetently):

3) that you are a kneejerk defender of all things sourced to "sources". (QED).

This is exactly what IanEye meant. You have extremely thin skin.

The fact that you go from "Ah-ah. Stop right there. Look up "burden of proof"." to "you have never heard of "burden of proof", for example" in a single post tells me everything I need to know about your ability to think and reason. First you speculate and then you turn your own speculation into proof.

PS: You forgot to say "grotesque".

[tapitsbo]

What's your attitude towards the allegations though, DrEvil? Forget Mac's standards.

Do you really think we've been given substantial backing for the claims against Farook and Tafsheen, given the conflicting data and the fishy context/framing of the MSM claims?

[MacCruiskeen]

Aha. So I have "extremely thin skin".

Try telling that to the President of the USA, who was so extremely thin-skinned that he chose to address the nation from the Oval Office -- a place usually reserved for statements concerning matters of exceptionally grave national importance.

Try telling it to the fucking NYT, which was so extremely thin-skinned that it devoted its first front-page editorial in 95 (in words: ninety-five) years to tut-tutting about this case while ignoring the most elementary duties of any self-respecting reporter, journalist or editor.

Try telling it to the extremely thin-skinned governments of the UK and Germany (just for instance) which are now lending even more active support to the disgusting fascist USA's disgusting fascist War on Terror while trying to cope with the millions of refugees that that War is inevitably causing (which is more than the disgusting fascist USA will ever do).

Try telling it to that couple's extremely thin-skinned six-month old baby once she is old enough to understand human speech.

Try telling it to the extremely thin-skinned people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and now Syria.

You have not a leg to stand on, DrEvil, but I don't doubt that your skin, like your skull, is admirably thick.

Congratulations.

[MacCruiskeen]

The fact that you go from "Ah-ah. Stop right there. Look up "burden of proof"." to "you have never heard of "burden of proof", for example" in a single post tells me everything I need to know about your ability to think and reason. First you speculate and then you turn your own speculation into proof.

"Speculation", "proof", "reason"... How you do throw those words around! And the fact that you quote but do not even begin to address the point I made about the burden of proof demonstrates that you are either a) dishonest or b) actually incapable of thinking, as I said. So I wasn't being unkind. And I don't see why I should have to restate the bleeding obvious over and over and over again.

[Burnt Hill]

Why do we think Tashfeen is "small and childlike"? She appears to be around 5' 7" to me, add an inch or two with the burka? Combat boots add a couple inches? Dressed in "assault gear" with faces masked ? Wouldn't they appear to witnesses as "tall men"?

[Elvis]

Two witnesses saw three people, and no one has explicitly said that one of them was small and child-like?

I replied to this in the "Active Shooter San Bernardino" thread: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39367&p=584044#p584044

[MacCruiskeen]

^^Elvis is right. (I was absolutely serious about what I suggested doing in my first post in this thread, by the way. And the suggestion wasn't OT, nor was it meant as a dig or anything. But any further comment on this particular case, please take it over there.)

Something isn't right. That is undeniably true.

[82_28]

I could name members who have way "thinner skin" than Mac. But I won't. Mac, you ain't no thin skinned motherfucker. That's the last thing that would come to mind for me about you. So, let's drop this shit.

[DrEvil]

What's your attitude towards the allegations though, DrEvil? Forget Mac's standards.

Do you really think we've been given substantial backing for the claims against Farook and Tafsheen, given the conflicting data and the fishy context/framing of the MSM claims?

Substantial depends on whether you believe they were killed in a shootout with the cops or if it was staged to look like a shootout. Personally I don't know. I don't think there's enough info to decide either way yet. The witness statements about three white guys are certainly worth looking into.

@Mac: I was out of line and for that I apologize, but you could probably tone down the personal insults a bit.

[BrandonD]

For myself, that wrong feeling stems from an essential part of myself rejecting the predatory nature of the entire visible world, as it has been described to us through language.

Example?

Things like wars and environmental destruction seem to me only the predictable results of the fundamental "code" that makes the world around us tick.

That code being? Predation?

Because of the incompatibility between this "essence" and what appears to be real, there is a recognition in myself that the world I see is in some way an artificial facade.

Explain.

In the first question, are you asking me to provide an example of this language-based predatory nature? One example off the top of my head: a bird sings to attract a mate.

The code is not necessarily predation, though that word does come close. It is difficult, because language is an intrinsic part of the facade and the only way I can explain myself here is through language.

Analogies can get close - the idea of the body rejecting a foreign particle, like an indigestible object that gets swallowed. The body cannot assimilate the object and so the object is rejected.

The above idea, as an analogy to our reality, is inconceivable to most of us because the world is seen as objective - another product of our language. Language has reversed our perception, we see ourselves as the indigestible object and the visible world as the body, when in reality it is the reverse. The visible world is a subjectivity composed of language, a language that determines what we will perceive and not perceive.

What exists prior to words, or apart from words, is more fundamental than the visible world. There are non-verbal ideals that are approximated with words, and yet being prior to words they exist without them, as only an indescribable feeling. Many objects of the visible world oppose these feelings, and if (like most of us) we believe the visible world to be the objective body, then that can only mean that we ourselves must be the subjective indigestible object. To rectify this incompatibility, our only sensible course of action in such an instance is to expel ourselves.

For those who consider what is prior to language as fundamental, when confronted with such an incompatibility, our only sensible course of action is to expel the world.

If I didn't clarify anything, hopefully I at least entertained you.

[Sounder]

In what is surely the clearest indicator yet that something is really wrong, I'm doing pretty great.

My semi-stock reply when someone ask me how things are going, is to say; well I am feeling find of worried,----things are going really well, or I say; well I don't really know because I don't have anything else to compare it to.

But really things are just about right given our insistence on maintaining a split model of reality.

We 'learn' by making others suffer. Humans are so special.

[lucky]

Shame this thread started off with an intresting proposition and I was really looking forward to reading posts from intelligent, well informed well read etc folks....but it descended in to a school boy spat....now could we resume to speculating on the original thread title...Please??

[minime]

Everything is exactly as it should be.

[jakell]

“All through my life I've had this strange unaccountable feeling that something was going on in the world, something big, even sinister, and no one would tell me what it was."

"No," said the old man, "that's just perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the Universe has that.”

ETA: Even though this was posted simultaneously with Minime's, it does gel somewhat.

[coffin_dodger]

Brandon wrote:

Language has reversed our perception, we see ourselves as the indigestible object and the visible world as the body, when in reality it is the reverse. The visible world is a subjectivity composed of language, a language that determines what we will perceive and not perceive.

Have you ever researched sigils?

A sigil is the physical manifestation - through written form - of a magical ideal, made real.

Imagine that we are saturated in thought and deed with someone else's sigils - that we use to communicate, not only with each other - but to think using them - this can begin to explain some things that you are intuitively noticing. The very words written upon this page lock us into, bind us into and intentionally blind us to a imposed, controlled reality. Sigils work - take a look around. The Anglo-Saxon sigils - our 26 different 'letters', when combined as words and then as sentences, (especially within our minds), form an indelibly powerful 'field' in which we exist. The good news is, that once we know them for what they are, their power diminishes. They work like all 'magic' - best when occult.

Check out some of the most powerful sigils ever created:

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

Each sigil has it's own meaning and associated 'power'. It's not important to know what they mean - simply knowing them for what they are is sufficient to begin breaking the 'spell'.

The exquisite, natural beauty of this system is that it's 'hidden in plain sight'.

As an example - take the 'words' that describe (and incant) the everyday use of our language:

SPELL - what an interesting word. When we form individual sigils (a,b,c etc) into words, we SPELL them out. Coincidence?

1. spell - to name, write, or otherwise give the letters, in order, of (a word, syllable, etc.):
2. spell - a word, phrase, or form of words supposed to have magic power; charm; incantation:

Spell and spell - one begets the other, one means the other. How's that for 'eyes wide shut'?

also of possible interest -

'letter' - i.e. ' spell the letters out to form the word ' - 'letter' - to 'let' - to 'allow' - to 'enable' - to allow the incantations of the sigils to breathe - 'letters'

'sentence' i.e. spell the letters out to form words that become sentences - although spelt differently, the incantational pronounciation of sentence is exactly the same as sentance - the written word 'sentence' is simply pronouncing the sentance that the combined sigils place upon the recipient reader.

'word' - is ultimately related to Latin verbum, ‘put forth’ To put forth the meaning of the letters.

All in front of our eyes and in our minds, every day, every where. It's a miraculous way to keep order. One amongst many that Nature is finally beginning to relinquish, as we begin to evolve a new layer of consciousness - and understanding.