rigorousintuition.ca

Burnt Hill » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:01 pm wrote:

brainpanhandler » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:52 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:29 pm wrote:

guruilla » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:10 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:04 pm wrote: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:

guruilla » Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:47 pm wrote: 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.

The context is that Guruilla is not an idiot.

It was deliberately posted without comment to see how people would respond. It was bait of a sort.

brainpanhandler » Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:04 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:01 pm wrote:

brainpanhandler » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:52 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:29 pm wrote:

guruilla » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:10 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:04 pm wrote: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:

guruilla » Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:47 pm wrote: 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.

The context is that Guruilla is not an idiot.

It was deliberately posted without comment to see how people would respond. It was bait of a sort.

Really.
So its gamesmanship/trolling rather than legitimate discussion.
And Guruilla is aware you are speaking for him/her?

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

That never occurred to me and is a good speculation.

As in, "Something is happening around the Shiva statue at X AM xxxday. You might want to bring a video camera".

Has it ever been revealed when and from where the video was first uploaded to the internet?

If CERN has the number of video cameras and other security as stated, one could assume their "internal investigation" has more information and may know the who and why by now.

CERN has every reason to want the event to fade away.

guruilla » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:27 pm wrote:@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.

You're making it personal. You aren't attacking an argument, you are going directly after the poster. Your impatience is caused by the fact that someone is disagreeing with you and, since you have a high opinion of yourself, this vexes you and you lash out. YOU are taking every counterpoint as a personal insult to your own brilliance.

Did it hurt your ego that I stated a group of post-grad students could pull this off with a little bit of money and planning? That's all I said and you react by stating how "obviously" I must be out of my league and unable to spot professional play actors (or whatever). How did I reduce your arguments to personality flaws? I didn't even realize I was addressing one of your arguments.

Shake some sense into me? Thanks, Dad! No, that's not patronizing at all. As much as you might try to be an alpha male on this board, you are not. You are a bunch of text printed across my screen, and that text can sometimes make a good argument or bring up an unexpected argument, but that text in no way commands authority or patriarchy. Quit being so thin-skinned that you have to comment on people's beings/experience/intelligence in order to defend your own arguments. Then take a walk.

My only comments to @Mac are that you must not understand what ad hominem means. You, too, are probably the thinnest skinned poster on this board, meeting any opposition or questions with vitriol. (by the way, that was ad hominem of me, just so you can recognize it) It's funny because I didn't read any of Mac's posts on here because I didn't want to get into another (yawn) tit-for-tat argument, and yet here we are . . .

Despite the new vs. old RI flamewar that is brewing (I'm pro-WOO myself, admittedly sometimes to the point of gullibility), I'll dip my toes in the water and say that this piece of news is one of the most quintessentially "RI" since maybe the George W. Bush administration. I agree that even the potential prankery/fuckery involved merits close attention. And yes, the guy with the camera is mos def a very accomplished actor dedicated to the project, if this is not genuine in the sense that he is in on it.

Burnt Hill » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:09 pm wrote:

brainpanhandler » Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:04 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:01 pm wrote:

brainpanhandler » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:52 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:29 pm wrote:

guruilla » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:10 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » Sun Aug 21, 2016 1:04 pm wrote: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:

guruilla » Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:47 pm wrote: 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.

The context is that Guruilla is not an idiot.

It was deliberately posted without comment to see how people would respond. It was bait of a sort.

Really.
So its gamesmanship/trolling rather than legitimate discussion.
And Guruilla is aware you are speaking for him/her?

Trolling? No, I don't think so.

Upon rereading what I wrote I perhaps sound too certain of Guruiila's intentions. Let me rephrase: I think it was deliberately posted without comment to see how people would respond. It was bait of a sort.

Again, that last post by Novem5er is the very epitome of The New RI. That whole post, plus all of Burnt Hill's in this thread. I'll comment on just one line, since it mentions me by name:

Novem5er wrote:I didn't read any of Mac's posts on here

And yet you felt perfectly entitled (and perfectly well qualified) to reply to them. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

As for the rest of it: To analyse Novem5er's "argument" in any detail would be to open myself to accusations of cruelty. So let's leave it at that.

Maybe we can draw a line here:

_______________________________________________________

...and get back on-topic.

RI is the same as its always been. So is Mac.



Initial reaction:

a) low budget prank. Intended for lulz at expense of cameraman. I personally own all of the requirements. Personally I could provide for more realistic violence, having had some association with theater and stage magic.

b) I assume CERN's official confidence that it can handle what it obviously considers an internal matter is likely justified. The facility appears constucted in such a way that clearances would be required for the cameraman to be "on location". Which means that it is unlikely that they don't know exactly who was involved and are therefore keeping it to themselves to curtail any risk of losing valuable employees with international credentials. Even a misdemeanor could see someone deported. I'm having trouble being more certain of the layout because of an apparent lack of overhead details available for CERN that would clearly show where security checkpoints lie.

If there was a chance of an actual murder having occurred I would imagine them using more circumspect language.

c) the unsourced material that talks about supposed Russian intelligence reports uses the word "allegedly" far too many times. If the Russians had material evidence of an illuminati satan killing at CERN, Putin would be tweeting about it.

MacCruiskeen » Sun Aug 21, 2016 12:38 pm wrote: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.

The more I look at this statement the stranger and more strikingly evasive it looks. A load of waffle, in fact. It starts with the way they choose to formulate the question (from some hypothetical Worried Citizen):

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

Why such a weak and crappily ambiguous formulation? Because it leaves CERN so much wiggle-room, presumably. (QED.) I'm guessing both the question and the "answers" were formulated by a team of lawyers. (Sue, Grabbit & Runne.)

And that, I guess, is why the questions aren't simpler, clearer, and more specific. For example, like this:

"I have seen a video of what purports to be a human sacrifice at CERN. Exactly what was happening there and who was responsible? Did it take place with CERN's permission? Where were your security guards? Was the incident captured on your surveillance cameras? Who was the young woman, and is she alive and well? Was anyone actually hurt?"

Those are questions that can't so easily be wiggled out of. They're the obvious questions, and they're not hard to formulate. (It ain't rocket science.) Nor are those questions hard to answer unambiguously, as long as you have nothing to hide.

Suppose you could call them to ask?

The article was not meant as bait. But, as BPH deduced, and as anyone who'd been reading my posts carefully could have deduced, it was shared as a piece of evidence relating directly to my prior question as to whether this event was being picked up by conspiratainament industry; and b) as a possible source of evidence that the video might have some veracity to it (i.e. worth reading at least, if not following up). Dismissing all the material in the articles because of their source is an actual ad hominen attack, as opposed to some of the straw man ones that have just been charged at this thread. I've never heard of that author and while it sure looks like a dodgy site, my experience with conspiratainment, and disinfo in general, is that the majority of the material is factually accurate, which is exactly what makes it so pernicious. It is the spin & context of it that makes it worse, i.e., more disruptive of reasoned analysis, than fiction.

That Burnt Hill & others are not able to tell the difference between a willingness to look at the evidence presented by various media and analyze it with taking a position of belief is further proof, if proof were needed, of the false dichotomizations that proliferate in times of liminality, when ideology takes over feelings, feelings pass for opinions, opinions get presented as facts, and facts pose as truth. There's nothing to be gained by arguing logically with emotional ideology, as the current back & forth shows. The only thing to do is ignore.

For the record, I do not believe the video shows an actual murder; I simply know that I don't know what it shows and think that its significance, in terms of a recent artifact relating to various themes that have been explored at RI since its inception, makes it worthy of attention.

I wasn't around in the early days of RI or very active in the middle period; but that there has been a reduction of genuine inquiry here is something I have heard so often, and from so many disparate sources, that it seems beyond question.

The fact this thread has become more about smoothing people's egos, or attacking them, than about exploring the questions that have been raised here, isn't that kind of proof of that?

guruilla » Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:27 pm wrote:
That Burnt Hill & others are not able to tell the difference between a willingness to look at the evidence presented by various media and analyze it with taking a position of belief is further proof, if proof were needed, of the false dichotomizations that proliferate in times of liminality, when ideology takes over feelings, feelings pass for opinions, opinions get presented as facts, and facts pose as truth.

All that presumptuousness because I took issue with your posting of a Sorcha Faal article and think the video is a hoax?
When I even said other aspects of the discussion were worthy.
Again you are doing what you deride in others.
Come down off your high horse.

Considering the topic, why empower a very questionable source?

Burnt Hill » Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:38 pm wrote:

guruilla » Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:27 pm wrote:
That Burnt Hill & others are not able to tell the difference between a willingness to look at the evidence presented by various media and analyze it with taking a position of belief is further proof, if proof were needed, of the false dichotomizations that proliferate in times of liminality, when ideology takes over feelings, feelings pass for opinions, opinions get presented as facts, and facts pose as truth.

All that presumptuousness because I took issue with your posting of a Sorcha Faal article and think the video is a hoax?
When I even said other aspects of the discussion were worthy.
Again you are doing what you deride in others.
Come down off your high horse.

The proof of the insincerity of this latest accusation is that you did not choose to focus on the aspects of the discussion that you consider worthy, so I, for one, don't even know what they might be. Why don't you try doing that, as an experiment, and see what sort of results you get? (Just a suggestion)

I haven't watched the video. Joke or not, the way it's been handled stinks. I'm detecting the stench of plain old rotten garbage. There are fishy overtones, but then, rotten garbage can have a fishy smell, but just be garbage. Tough to tell, here.

But it makes me wonder about the quality of work coming out of CERN. I'm trying to fight the picture in my mind of a bunch of adult children playing scientist games with very expensive toys, in an academic atmosphere akin to Animal House. Good work, scientific community.

Really I'm posting because I want to throw my two cents into the Crowley blood sacrifice discussion. What I get out of it is he's speaking purely symbolic metaphor here, and always. If you don't get it, you misunderstand him, and he's not going to explain it to you. 'Magick' is seeing through appearances to the substance, and acting with a firm grounding in that clear view. 'Blood sacrifice' is cutting down cherished wrong ideas.

The Rosy Cross stuff is both sex, and also interaction between the self and other. Also the continuous act of falling in love, like Rumi and his beloved. It depends on how you look at it. These are poetic concepts, they make 'sense' when looked at poetically.

Reading 'the formula of the rosy cross' as sex with someone you love is particularly insightful, I think. Throws a passage like this in a very different light:

"It is unwise for him to attempt it until he has received regular initiation in the true Order of the Rosy Cross, {97} and he must have taken the vows with the fullest comprehension and experience of their meaning. It is also extremely desirable that he should have attained an absolute degree of moral emancipation, and that purity of spirit which results from a perfect understanding both of the differences and harmonies of the planes upon the Tree of Life.

For this reason FRATER PERDURABO has never dared to use this formula in a fully ceremonial manner, save once only, on an occasion of tremendous import, when, indeed, it was not He that made the offering, but ONE in Him. For he perceived a grave defect in his moral character which he has been able to overcome on the intellectual plane, but not hitherto upon higher planes. Before the conclusion of writing this book he will have done so."

Here's some relevant material, I think. I googled 'Borges blood as symbol,' then clicked through to The Mythmaker: A study of the short stories of Jorge Luis Borges, by Carter Wheelock at google books.

https://books.google.com/books?id=fmOsA ... ol&f=false

Personally, I apply this blood sacrifice thing to writing. The knife is the editing blade. Edit what I cling to as the 'good ideas.' The energy released is the substance beneath the ideas, which I incorporate into better writing. Because I'm growing, what I write now is always better than what I wrote last week. When I wear my editor hat, I have to be dispassionate, brutal.