‘Human sacrifice’ staged at CERN's Shiva Statue

[Novem5er]

Persons that are authorised to access the CERN site sometimes let their sense of humour go too far, and that is what has happened on this occasion.

At least ten of them? And "sense of humour"? Stabbing a woman in the throat, or even pretending to stab a woman in the throat? What's funny about a contrivance like that?

What's so funny about it? It's funny that with maybe $100 (in cloaks) and an hour of planning, a group of friends can get internet-famous (anonymously) and spend a few weeks laughing at the analysis. It's called trolling.

I think it's worthy of analysis, but after that analysis, it's not surprising that most people think it's a hoax. The sneakers. The hooded figured obstructing the camera. The convenient breaking away of the shot. The lack of detailed (aka graphic) footage. It has all the hallmarks of a prank.

And, of course, that doesn't MEAN it was a prank - it just looks like one. So, without anything more to go on, how can people be blamed for shrugging their shoulders and moving on?

How could we make this more like "Old RI"? Should we just go along and say "omg! So real! Yes, this proves CERN is up to no good!" ?

And just because:

[guruilla]

What's so funny about it? It's funny that with maybe $100 (in cloaks) and an hour of planning, a group of friends can get internet-famous (anonymously) and spend a few weeks laughing at the analysis. It's called trolling.

This is just plain wrong. You obviously haven't had much experience with theater or organization in general. The fact that there is some discussion here at all (and if I may say, tho not to be contentious, it's certainly not the sharpest pencils in the pack who are dismissing the video as a prank) indicates that the job was well done. Had it been done in the manner you suggest, I doubt we'd have even heard about the video at all, much less be discussing it.

Why don't you spend the afternoon and make a similar video for us, to prove your point? I'll even give you two hours, and spot you the $100. But you have to repay it if it doesn't cut mustard.

[MacCruiskeen]

how can people be blamed for shrugging their shoulders and moving on?

No blame, I assure you! Shrug your shoulders, please! Move on, I beg of you! You are not obliged to be here! You are free! Free!

How could we make this more like "Old RI"?

By not posting timewasting shitposts. By not asking questions that have already been answered. By not being too bone-lazy to pay minimal attention to a one-minute video you still feel compelled (why?) to comment on. By leaving (or better: never entering) threads you have nothing useful to add to.

Should we just go along and say "omg! So real! Yes, this proves CERN is up to no good!" ?

[Burnt Hill]

A single stab to the windpipe would most likely not kill someone.

Exploring ritual sacrifice and CERN is interesting.
Twisting logic into pretzels to validate a hoax video is fools play.

& opinions in place of arguments add nothing but noise to the discussion. To make accusations of pretzeled logic without citing a single example is like trying to pass off as a driveby shooting as a showdown. Sloppy.

Not everyone has the time to make in depth posts all of the time.
Often few words say the most.
While my post is certainly opinion, there is nothing sloppy about it.
Applying the logic of Sorcha Faal to validate a hoax video is sloppy.

[Novem5er]

guruilla I do appreciate your observations and opinions, but I'm a little over your passive aggressive personal remarks.

"You've obviously haven't had much experience with theater or organization in general".

You aren't qualified to say what I have experience with or not. And you've also decided who are sharp pencils and who are dull. Snobbery at its finest.

And with your last line, we circle right back to how SO many of these disputes end: "prove it's a fake". Yes, the burden is on me.

For the record, I never said it was a poorly done video. In fact it's well done. The fact that a hooded figure blocks the shot was well done. The position of the camera man was well done. The fact that there is no detail in the shot and nothing graphic, again is well done. But these are scientists or post-grad students - they aren't exactly stupid, and it doesn't change my initial assessment that $100 in fabric and an hour of planning could pull this off, nor the fact that it's called trolling and young people love to do it.

But, for the sake of argument, let me expand on my words and see if it makes one dick of difference: $300 in materials and 3 hours of planning! Maybe they practiced it ahead of time - gasp - such real occultists! This is another point of contention, where other posters take my specific words and attack them, while ignoring the argument itself. In this case, it looks like a hoax and, surprise, most people have that reaction.

[guruilla]

Not everyone has the time to make in depth posts all of the time.
Often few words say the most.
While my post is certainly opinion, there is nothing sloppy about it.
Applying the logic of Sorcha Faal to validate a hoax video is sloppy.

And yet. No one did this.

I guess you missed this:

It seems as though much of the argumentation around the video comes down to whether or not it's worth discussing, at all, which rests on the presumption that it is only worth discussing if the enactment is real, or at least might be real. But clearly it might be real, even if, equally clearly, it raises a ton of perhaps unanswerable questions and seeming anomalies, even absurdities, if we say it is real. I'm not sure myself, but it seems what Mac is trying to get to is the context for the enactment and the context for people's responses to it, here & elsewhere. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong, Mac) he's trying to argue that it is a real murder, only that it is rash to dismiss it as a prank without examining, not just the evidence of the video and the news stories around it, but the social, psychological context in which all this media is emerging.

Yes, exactly. I find it fascinating, and very striking indeed, that when the film finally "emerged" into the corporate media (after a week floating around on the net), the story was already fully-formed and delivered not just forcefully but unanimously: "THIS WAS A HOAX, A PRANK, A FAKE." That was the officially-approved version, already set in stone as soon as it was delivered. And made undeniable on pain of being subjected to that fearful social sanction, the disgrace of being called an Adulterer a Conspiracy Theorist.

...

What I'm doing here is just very basic media analysis, and The New RIers are not pleased to see it at all. 'LOL, tinfoil-hattery is tinfoil-hattery, and that's that.' Everything is as clear as day (except when it suits us to say that We Can Never Know Anything At All), and all of it happens in the context of no-context.

A miniature sample of that psycho-social context is right here & now, at this thread, with the combined experience and knowledge (& beliefs, assumptions, & prejudices) of the people participating.

[Novem5er]

how can people be blamed for shrugging their shoulders and moving on?

No blame, I assure you! Shrug your shoulders, please! Move on, I beg of you! You are not obliged to be here! You are free! Free!

How could we make this more like "Old RI"?

By not posting timewasting shitposts. By not asking questions that have already been answered. By not being too bone-lazy to pay minimal attention to a one-minute video you still feel compelled (why?) to comment on. By leaving (or better: never entering) threads you have nothing useful to add to.

Should we just go along and say "omg! So real! Yes, this proves CERN is up to no good!" ?

You could stop posting threads where you have nothing useful to add. I'd surely stay out of the threads if they never existed in the first place. But, oh, great gatekeeper of both Rigor and Intuition! Keep posting your own shit and then waste time attacking anyone who disagrees with your or makes comments below your threshold of tolerance! I want to learn from you!

And for the record, I jumped into this thread asking some very basic questions. I am SO sorry that buried earlier in posts were the answers. As much as I'm sure people wish that I hung on their every word; I don't. I read; I skim; some posts catch my attention and others make my brain hurt. That's the way of life.

One thing I didn't do is poo-poo all over the idea. I didn't attack anyone. I even made a very truthful statement "If anyone believes that this actually happened, then they'd also have to believe that CERN officials were covering it up." No judgments there.

[Grizzly]

I do not believe and, I believe, at the same time. Much thanks to Robert Anton Wilson. All hail Eris!

[MacCruiskeen]

guruilla I do appreciate your observations and opinions, but I'm a little over your passive aggressive personal remarks.

"You've obviously haven't had much experience with theater or organization in general".

You aren't qualified to say what I have experience with or not. And you've also decided who are sharp pencils and who are dull. Snobbery at its finest.

Now, that's The New RI in pure form, in all its glory! Every opinion is as good as any other (except when we New RIers decide that it's tinfoil-hattery). Disputing our opinion is "passive aggression". Refuting our argument is unjustifiably antagonistic. Finding any of our posts a bit stupid is snobbery. Arguing cogently is bullying.

You're mean, guruilla. You think you're so smart.

[guruilla]

@Novem5er

these things can & do escalate & a lack of patience ironically is one way that happens (more haste, less speed). On the other hand, if you make what some people consider a dumb statement, isn't it reasonable for them, us, to want to call you on it and at least think about how maybe there's a legitimate reason for their impatience? Neither Mac nor I like to pussyfoot around and you can call it passive aggression if you like but I just call it talking straight & treating the other as an equal. Ironically if we didn't do that and walked you through some of these points you might like us better. I am not trying to piss you off but shake some sense into you. I recognize that might seem intolerably presumptuous, but them's the breaks. It's probably equally intolerable to be on my end, having my (I think cogent) arguments reduced to personality flaws.

[Burnt Hill]

Not everyone has the time to make in depth posts all of the time.
Often few words say the most.
While my post is certainly opinion, there is nothing sloppy about it.
Applying the logic of Sorcha Faal to validate a hoax video is sloppy.

And yet. No one did this.

You posted an article from inquisitr.com,
which was copped from whatdoesitmean.com,
which is a Sorcha Faal production.
Would it help if I said-
"Applying the logic of Sorcha Faal to validate a hoax video analysis is sloppy"?

[MacCruiskeen]

That CERN statement again:

I have seen a video of a strange ritual at CERN, is it real?

No, this video is a work of fiction showing a contrived scene. CERN and its on-site accommodation fills up with scientists from across the world coming to CERN as part of their work. Work at CERN can take place 24 hours a day, 365 days a year with shift work and data analysis. Persons that are authorised to access the CERN site sometimes let their sense of humour go too far, and that is what has happened on this occasion. The video was filmed from an office building; strict safety systems are in place to prevent any unauthorised access to technical and experimental facilities. CERN does not condone this kind of spoof, which breaches CERN’s professional guidelines, and is currently carrying out an internal investigation.

https://press.cern/backgrounders/cern-a ... cial-media

Nowhere do they explain how they know it was a "spoof" (sic).

Nowhere do they actually say, "We have identified and spoken to the people responsible."

Above all: Nowhere do they actually say, "No one was harmed. The young woman is alive and well." Yet this is surely the main point at issue, and the one thing that demands to be stated unambiguously.

[brainpanhandler]

Not everyone has the time to make in depth posts all of the time.
Often few words say the most.
While my post is certainly opinion, there is nothing sloppy about it.
Applying the logic of Sorcha Faal to validate a hoax video is sloppy.

And yet. No one did this.

You posted an article from inquisitr.com,
which was copped from whatdoesitmean.com,
which is a Sorcha Faal production.
Would it help if I said-
"Applying the logic of Sorcha Faal to validate a hoax video analysis is sloppy"?

I think Guruilla was just following up on this:

For the amount of time, effort, and risk that went into the "stunt," can't we reasonably deduce a corresponding payoff? It's a psyop worthy of Anonymous, at least, and Anon have generally been pretty serious about their play. So where's the payoff for the CERN-authorized pranksters here? Are the so-called "conspiratards" even taking this that seriously? I don't know, I haven't checked; but, even if they are, how exactly is that a commensurate payoff?

One of my own guesses about the payoff is that the prank was designed for the person recording the video.

[Burnt Hill]

@Novem5er

these things can & do escalate & a lack of patience ironically is one way that happens (more haste, less speed). On the other hand, if you make what some people consider a dumb statement, isn't it reasonable for them, us, to want to call you on it and at least think about how maybe there's a legitimate reason for their impatience? Neither Mac nor I like to pussyfoot around and you can call it passive aggression if you like but I just call it talking straight & treating the other as an equal. Ironically if we didn't do that and walked you through some of these points you might like us better. I am not trying to piss you off but shake some sense into you. I recognize that might seem intolerably presumptuous, but them's the breaks. It's probably equally intolerable to be on my end, having my (I think cogent) arguments reduced to personality flaws.

So when you do it its legitimate, when someone else does it its sloppy.
Nothing snobby about that.

[Burnt Hill]

Not everyone has the time to make in depth posts all of the time.
Often few words say the most.
While my post is certainly opinion, there is nothing sloppy about it.
Applying the logic of Sorcha Faal to validate a hoax video is sloppy.

And yet. No one did this.

You posted an article from inquisitr.com,
which was copped from whatdoesitmean.com,
which is a Sorcha Faal production.
Would it help if I said-
"Applying the logic of Sorcha Faal to validate a hoax video analysis is sloppy"?

I think Guruilla was just following up on this:

For the amount of time, effort, and risk that went into the "stunt," can't we reasonably deduce a corresponding payoff? It's a psyop worthy of Anonymous, at least, and Anon have generally been pretty serious about their play. So where's the payoff for the CERN-authorized pranksters here? Are the so-called "conspiratards" even taking this that seriously? I don't know, I haven't checked; but, even if they are, how exactly is that a commensurate payoff?

Could be.
Perhaps Guruilla will offer context next time he/she posts Sorcha Faal.
*Or better yet, not bring anything by that entity to the argument.