Active Shooter San Bernardino

[tapitsbo]

Even as an epistemological detour, the lack of a final "boss level" to truth is explicitly not supposed to discourage examination of data!

My impression is that MacCruiskeen has gotten some ways to "solving" some questions about inputs and outputs of MSM reporting on these incidents.

The next step would be to move from rhetorical questions to a database debunking the official narrative (I know this has been attempted before)

[MacCruiskeen]

A child may pretend not to know what her daddy did to her, pretend not to know that what he did was wrong and hurt her, and pretend not to know that Daddy threatened her with terrible consequences if she ever told the truth. Her problem, like ours, is not an epistemological problem.

And we are not children.

[tapitsbo]

Sounds to me like a problem of "individuation", as it were.

[slomo]

By now shouldn't we know what's going on? Get the big picture and let it go. The details do not matter because we'll never solve it.

That kind "LOL GUYS GIVE UP C'MON" shit is baffling here.

Why are you here?

I got burned in the whole 9/11 truth BS. Then Sandy Hook and that bottomless pit of conjecture just sealed it for me.

Sealed what, exactly?

Obviously the media narrative is entirely fake, but it's impossible to ever know what the real truth is.

You've just contradicted yourself. If the media narrative is "obviously" fake, then that proves that we can, very often, know the truth. E.g. we know that we are being sold a fake narrative, in this case (yet again) about a mass murder used as a casus belli. We can pretend not to know it, and we can also decide (on the basis of that knowing pretence) not to act on that knowledge. But that is a very different issue, one that is well worth talking about.

it's impossible to ever know what the real truth is

That is a deeply comforting untruth, and people only ever state it when it's prudent or convenient for them to do so. They never doubt, for example, that it's possible to know whether their salary has in fact been transferred to their bank account this month, or to know whether a red light really does mean "stop", or to know whether the wine in their glass is not in fact mercury.

It will drive you crazy trying. It's like that Keel/Leek character in Mothman Prophecies:

Leek: In the end it all came down to just one simple question. Which was more important - having proof, or being alive? Trust me. I turned away years ago, and I've never looked back.
Klein: Didn't you need to know?
Leek: We're not allowed to know.

I don't know why you would insist on muddying the waters by injecting fiction into a discussion of facts, and light entertainment into an examination of real murder and mendacity.

wiki: The Mothman Prophecies is a 2002 American supernatural thriller-horror film

^^We know that movie is a work of fiction, one of the many that America is steeped in.

Why am I here? Why do I keep coming back? I just want some confirmation that other people are experiencing the same acid trip I am.

Sorry, Slomo, but I can't offer you that confirmation. What we are experiencing is neither an acid trip nor a supernatural thriller-horror film. I know this, and so do you.

- tl;dr: The difficulty we are confronted with is not an epistemological difficulty.

It is not a contradiction to say that the mainstream narrative is inconsistent (sometimes triply and quadruply so), therefore false, and to also say that it is impossible to develop a coherent narrative supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Even in the parapolitical community is there consensus on the truth of 9/11? Sandy Hook? I don't think so. The waters have been muddied by various disinformation campaigns (and not my obvious attempts to provide dramatic emphasis on important points) to the degree that it's now difficult to sort fact from fiction. Beyond that, even if you can establish something that hangs together, who will listen? How many of your friends and family members will follow you? I realize that establishing the truth is a distinct issue from disseminating it, but all the hous and days you spend sifting through the evidence and narratives -- where will it get you?

[Nordic]

Well maybe some day, somehow, you'll know what really happened. Trouble is, it might be in the fashion of the original "The Vanishing" movie. That guy learned what happened too.

Some of us are simply compelled to search for the truth.

[tapitsbo]

The contradictions in the narrative themselves speak; in the case of 9/11 much of the investigative work has been completed, although some of the keenest sleuths have been killed or silenced.

The value of the research exceeds any possible verdict; there is by all means a metapolitical dividend! There are parties who are listening, following, collating the info.

[slomo]

The contradictions in the narrative themselves speak; in the case of 9/11 much of the investigative work has been completed, although some of the keenest sleuths have been killed or silenced.

The value of the research exceeds any possible verdict; there is by all means a metapolitical dividend! There are parties who are listening, following, collating the info.

Fair enough point.

But what does knowing the truth do for you?

I understand that there is an insatiable need among some to know the truth, and supposedly Truth has metaphysical value in itself. But what is the pragmatic value? In my decade-plus of hanging out at RI, I have encountered exactly one person in my real life who was moderately interested in 9/11 truth. So you won't convince anybody, and it certainly won't help you get dates or get along with co-workers. You will have exactly zero effect on the world.

I guess for those who still are attracted to the idea that the world must make sense, or some lingering doubts that the media and our government may be morally salvageable, it is useful to delve into the details of these events to arrive at greater certainty that it's all irredeemably fucked-up. But since I already believe that without any reservation, I'm not sure there's any value-added in sifting through the details of yet another obvious false-flag. I certainly do appreciate the work that has gone into uncovering the inconsistencies of San Bernadino, for the benefit of people who are new to this. But past a certain point, it becomes some kind of unhealthy obsession.

For me, it's enough to know that this is yet another mass-killing whose official narrative is a lie.

[MacCruiskeen]

It is not a contradiction to say that the mainstream narrative is inconsistent (sometimes triply and quadruply so), therefore false, and to also say that it is impossible to develop a coherent narrative...

Of course it isn't and of course I never said that it is. What I did say is that it is an untruth.

But I truncated your sentence. Here it is in full:

It is not a contradiction to say that the mainstream narrative is inconsistent (sometimes triply and quadruply so), therefore false, and to also say that it is impossible to develop a coherent narrative supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since when has that become a requirement (in a court of law, or even on an internet discussion board)?

Since when do lawyers and the police have to say: "There is no point in arresting or interrogating these suspects, because we can't yet make an airtight case against them, one that is supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."?

Since never.

Even in the parapolitical community is there consensus on the truth of 9/11? Sandy Hook? I don't think so.

So what? See above.

The waters have been muddied by various disinformation campaigns (and not my obvious attempts to provide dramatic emphasis on important points) to the degree that it's now difficult to sort fact from fiction.

No, it's not difficult at all, in many cases.

Beyond that, even if you can establish something that hangs together, who will listen? How many of your friends and family members will follow you? I realize that establishing the truth is a distinct issue from disseminating it, but all the hours and days you spend sifting through the evidence and narratives -- where will it get you?

Now you're talking! Once again, the truth is not often impossible (or even very difficult) to arrive at. The difficulty is not at all epistemological, but social, financial, ethical and political:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary [or his peace of mind - MacC] depends on his not understanding it.

- from I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked (1935)

QED, every day since he said it.

You're a scientist, Slomo, and I guess you know not just about the life of Galileo, but also about the lives of Alfred Wegener and poor Ignaz Semmelweis (to name but three). Truths are knowable, but discovering or even stating those truths can sometimes come at a heavy cost.

The difficulty is not epistemological. I'm glad we have established that.

[slomo]

^^^^ Mac, if I seem to be pooping on parapolitics researchers, I certainly don't mean to. I learned a lot during the whole 9/11 truth fiasco. But I don't think I know the Truth. I disagree with you, I don't think it's knowable, I do think the Truth is difficult to establish (given all the streams of conflicting evidence, some of them intentionally fabricated); however, I don't think it is difficult to establish that whatever the Truth is, it certainly isn't what we are told from our TV sets, so perhaps there is value in deconstructing the dominant narrative. For first-timers (as I once was). The issue is maybe more personal for me ... I don't see the personal value. I grow fatigued of trying to understand each piece of evidence, and of trying to determine if the evidence itself is real or fabricated, if the only conclusion I can come to in the end is that the mainstream narrative is BS. I already know that. I take that as a given.

But I agree with your other point about it being difficult to understand something if your income stream depends on it. Ironically enough, in my professional life I (along with my close colleagues) have been a Galileo of sorts (in a much smaller way, in a much narrower field), promoting an iconoclastic view that has penetrated very slowly through the field precisely because it disrupts certain other researcher's income streams.

[tapitsbo]

I see a curious counterpoint to your mens' rights material in your attitude towards data in this arena. You're the one saying this is about capital-T truth... the rest of us are painting a picture of an interpretation qualified in different terms.

Your presence here suggests you can't look away, despite considerable fatigue. Well, that makes (at least) two of us.

[backtoiam]

The next step would be to move from rhetorical questions to a database debunking the official narrative (I know this has been attempted before)

That was my intention by starting by starting the new propaganda thread. A place to put the information that comes from the stream and attempt to determine why that information was dumped into the stream and how they attempt to shape and mold our future with the impression they are intentionally imprinting upon our minds.

With what type of legislation? How would it be implemented? What impact will it have on our lives in the future? What could it portend for the future? They have already let us know in no uncertain terms that they intend to firmly implant the notion into the public mind that this country is absolutely overrun with sophisticated "terror cells" and that the definitions and parameters of these "terror cells" will include us all.

The days of believing that "the left" in this political system is not also as rotten to the core as "the right" is naive. The "left" in Washington cheered the creation of "ISIS" and supported it just like "the right." Sometimes those websites that have good write ups that include good factual information and details also come from sites that seem to be stumping for the right. Believing that either side of this political equation is good and means well is long gone. Regardless of what either side of this equation SAYS they both DO the same thing.

I realize that establishing the truth is a distinct issue from disseminating it, but all the hous and days you spend sifting through the evidence and narratives -- where will it get you?

Predictive value maybe. So that we might be able to see what is coming in the future and how it may be implemented so that we can be prepared and try to stay out of the way and not get hurt by it. Distributing this information to people that would never understand it and attempting to make converts is not on my list of things to do and I hate to be pessimistic but in my opinion it may be a mute point at this point in history.

In 2012 the wording in the propaganda laws changed so that loopholes were created to legally allow propaganda into the info stream and we are watching it everyday in every single piece of information that comes from the mainstream outlets. They have gone overboard with it to the point that it has become so sloppy the seams are showing all over the place, at least for observers like us.

[slomo]

I see a curious counterpoint to your mens' rights material in your attitude towards data in this arena. You're the one saying this is about capital-T truth... the rest of us are painting a picture of an interpretation qualified in different terms.

Your presence here suggests you can't look away, despite considerable fatigue. Well, that makes (at least) two of us.

You're kind of right... I don't mean to poop on the efforts here, I think this just says more about my own fatigue and resignation.

Regarding the other threads, I think it is possible to move people a little bit towards greater understanding when it comes to gender, and that is an area where there is practical application of what you learn. I'm not so sure there is any practical application here. Of course, as in the other threads, I am also open to being proven wrong.

[MacCruiskeen]

^^^^ Mac, if I seem to be pooping on parapolitics researchers, I certainly don't mean to. I learned a lot during the whole 9/11 truth fiasco. But I don't think I know the Truth. I disagree with you, I don't think it's knowable, I do think the Truth is difficult to establish (given all the streams of conflicting evidence, some of them intentionally fabricated); however, I don't think it is difficult to establish that whatever the Truth is, it certainly isn't what we are told from our TV sets, so perhaps there is value in deconstructing the dominant narrative. For first-timers (as I once was). The issue is maybe more personal for me ... I don't see the personal value. I grow fatigued of trying to understand each piece of evidence, and of trying to determine if the evidence itself is real or fabricated, if the only conclusion I can come to in the end is that the mainstream narrative is BS. I already know that. I take that as a given.

But I agree with your other point about it being difficult to understand something if your income stream depends on it. Ironically enough, in my professional life I (along with my close colleagues) have been a Galileo of sorts (in a much smaller way, in a much narrower field), promoting an iconoclastic view that has penetrated very slowly through the field precisely because it disrupts certain other researcher's income streams.

Slomo, I do not regard myself as a "parapolitics researcher" or part of any "community" of such. Just as a human being who is not indifferent to the easily-knowable and well-known fact that innocent people have been framed for mass murders so that governments could achieve nefarious goals. See this recent thread about the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Maguire 7 & Judith Ward. (I grew up with those cases, which were very close to home.) Thank god there were many brave and persitent people -- lawyers, journalists, family members, etc. -- who were not content merely to know (privately) that those people had been framed, but who insisted, un-popularly and eventually successfully, that that knowledge must have tangible consequences (socially and politically).

The issue is maybe more personal for me ... I don't see the personal value. I grow fatigued [...]

I sympathise. No one said it was all fun and games, or a sure-fire way to gain promotion, or a popular way to break the ice at dinner parties.

[slomo]

Just as a human being who is not indifferent to the easily-knowable and well-known fact that innocent people have been framed for mass murders so that governments could achieve nefarious goals.

I agree that this is definitely knowable.

But unless you are in the position to help specific innocent parties, it's all just a lot of effort to arrive at a conclusion that has no practical implication.

[tapitsbo]

The pudding of history written over a long temporal arc is proof of the assets provided by scribes arranging grains of sand downstream from gusts of futility.