Tag: 9/11

Dear MAGA: 20190522 Open Topic

This WE ARE ON THE WAY TO JUSTICE WEDNESDAY open thread is VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA world.

Now THAT is a “404” catch and release!

You can say what you want, comment on what other people said, and so on.

Free Speech is practiced here. ENJOY IT. Use it or lose it.

Keep it SOMEWHAT civil. They tried to FORCE fake Orwellian civility on us. In response, we CHOOSE true civility to defend our precious FREEDOM from THEM.

Our rules began with the civility of the Old Treehouse, later to become the Wolverinian Empire, and one might say that we have RESTORED THE OLD REPUBLIC – the early high-interaction model of the Treehouse – except of course that Q discussion is not only allowed but encouraged, and speech is considerably freer in other ways. Please feel free to argue and disagree with the board owner, as nicely as possible.

Please also consider the Important Guidelines, outlined here in the January 1st open thread. Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven.

Remember the 5 words that President Trump and Vice President Pence love to hear:

I AM PRAYING FOR YOU!

AND WHAT TIME IS IT? TIME TO….

DRAIN THE SWAMP

Our movement

Is about replacing

A failed

And CORRUPT

Political establishment

With a new government controlled

By you, the American People.

Candidate Donald J. Trump

Also remember Wheatie’s Rules:

  1. No food fights.
  2. No running with scissors.
  3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.

It’s important to remember WHEN Hillary lost her shoe:

The TIMING of the 9/11 ceremony during one of her Parkinson’s “off days” was key to making this happen. Hillary had managed to schedule, reschedule, and SKIP events very carefully to avoid giving away the game of her Parkinson’s. She appeared on good days, and disappeared on bad days. This was not possible on 9/11. KARMA.

Cernovich and I were among the people who were convinced that Hillary Clinton had Parkinson’s. One of the opinions that I followed very closely on this was Ted Noel, who watched her closely in the news for signs of Parkinson’s. Here is one of his many videos on this:

https://youtu.be/eY5CqjmqWVI

Note that Dr. Noel warns that Hillary might show these eye symptoms in the then-upcoming debates – which SHE DID NOT. It is my contention that she had MUCH practice controlling all her outward symptoms of Parkinson’s. Similarly, the MEDIA was careful to do things and arrange things in a way that covered up for her. Thus, I’m not terribly surprised that she almost completely succeeded in covering things up at that first debate.

One of the things I was most proud of, was discovering (albeit somewhat later) that she was MASKING the classic Parkinsonian “pill-rolling tremor” in the first debate. It was interesting how she did this, with her hand flattened out on the podium. The KEY to seeing this was actually her trolls and shills, who tried to sell the “Hillary analysis crowd” on various extremely cunning bits of disinformation.

One of these disinformation items was to claim that Hillary’s index finger motions on the podium in the debate were some kind of hidden “scrolling mechanism” to look through her pre-prepared answers to questions. As you can imagine, such an idea is highly discrediting if it’s WRONG, and I could tell that I was being shilled VERY HARD on Parkinson’s stuff, so I (1) knew I was on the right track, OVER THE TARGET, and (2) whatever “extreme” things the shills were selling was probably disinformation.

Here is Hillary at the FIRST debate – the debate with Lester Holt and the mysterious podium-paper-snatching man known as “The Cleaner”. There was also some guy who removed a LIGHTING element from Hillary’s podium – presumably the element for the light-box prompter.

You can see that Hillary has her right hand in the air. At many points, she laid her hand FLAT on the wooden surface to the right of her papers, and rubbed her index finger back and forth on the surface in a very subtle way. I believe she was trained to do this whenever she felt a “pill-rolling tremor” coming on.

I do not have close-ups of Hillary’s fingers on the podium, but I did at the time we were analyzing this. They were quite interesting.

Based on the heavy shilling of the idea of a hidden scrolling mechanism, as well as the OBVIOUSNESS of three things that would have supported the bogus idea of the scrolling mechanism: (1) light-box turned on, although no apparent images on it, (2) the “Cleaner”, and (3) the guy removing the lighting element (clearly real), I now suggest the following scenario.

Hillary was NOT terribly worried about the idea that she was getting fed either questions or answers. THOSE IDEAS were not significant dangers for her to lose voters or potential voters. People, frankly, didn’t care if she was fed some answers. THAT is just CHEATING. Most Dems are actually not too bothered by cheating.

Thus, “cheating on questions and answers” – either by the “Cleaner” mechanism or by the lightbox mechanism – was an acceptable “lesser scandal” to promote and NEUTRALIZE the Parkinson’s scandal.

What Hillary WAS afraid of was the idea of Parkinson’s slipping out. THAT had the potential of taking a LOT of votes from her.

THEREFORE her people constructed the RUSE to both DISTRACT and to support the idea that her finger movements, even though well masked, were actually something ELSE. The elements of the ruse were the very obvious “Cleaner” (a distraction), the lightbox being on (likely needed to help Hillary see, anyway, versus Trump, who did not turn his on), and the removal of the lighting element from the podium DURING A TIME IT WOULD BE OBVIOUS. The POINT of all this was to put together a sexy, distracting, and discrediting alternative narrative to the truth – that Hillary was simply hiding her Parkinson’s pill-rolling tremor.

Do you see what we’re up against? And the fake news was ZERO help in this regard.

Nevertheless, justice was served. The Hillary “shoe” event – also known as the “side of beef” event – was when many people realized that Hillary Clinton was NOT WELL – and that she was lying about it. The fake news did its best to cover up, but they failed.

That was the beginning of justice.

Prepare for more.

W

Hillary. They never thought she would lose.

Dear MAGA: 20190404 Open Topic

This LOCK ‘EM UP OR THROW ‘EM OUT THURSDAY open thread is VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA world.

You can say what you want, comment on what other people said, and so on.

Free Speech is practiced here. ENJOY IT. Use it or lose it.

And BROTHERS AND SISTERS – I am using it tonight.

Keep it SOMEWHAT civil. They tried to FORCE fake Orwellian civility on us. In response, we CHOOSE true civility to defend our precious FREEDOM from THEM.

Our rules began with the civility of the Old Treehouse, later to become the Wolverinian Empire, and one might say that we have RESTORED THE OLD REPUBLIC – the early high-interaction model of the Treehouse – except of course that Q discussion is not only allowed but encouraged, and speech is considerably freer in other ways. Please feel free to argue and disagree with the board owner, as nicely as possible.

Please also consider the Important Guidelines, outlined here in the January 1st open thread. Let’s not give the odious Internet Censors a reason to shut down this precious haven.

Remember – your greatest gift to President Trump is FIVE WORDS:

I AM PRAYING FOR YOU.

Our movement

Is about replacing

A failed

And CORRUPT

Political establishment

With a new government controlled

By you, the American People.

Candidate Donald J. Trump

Also consider Wheatie’s Rules:

  1. No food fights.
  2. No running with scissors.
  3. If you bring snacks, bring enough for everyone.

THIS little bit of news about FAKE NEWS does not sit well with me.

Many news anchors in the United States do a terrible job obscuring their true partisan biases. But CNN’s Chief International Anchor Christiane Amanpour does not even try.

The supposed straight newswoman asked former FBI Director James Comey in a recent interview whether federal law enforcement officials should have done more during the 2016 election to punish Donald Trump and his supporters for chanting “lock her up!” about Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

“Of course, ‘lock her up!’ was a feature of the 2016 Trump campaign,” Amanpour said toward the conclusion of her interview with Comey.

She added, “Do you, in retrospect, wish that people like yourself, the head of the FBI, I mean the people in charge of law and order had shut down that language — that it was dangerous potentially, that it could have created violence, that it’s kind of hate speech — should that have been allowed?”

Whoa! The former FBI director politely shrugged off her suggestion that the federal government should arrest people for saying things that upset Christiane Amanpour.

“That’s not a role for government to play,” Comey said.

He added, “The beauty of this country is people can say what they want even if it’s misleading and it’s demagoguery. The people who should have shut it down were Republicans who understand the rule of law and the values that they stand for. Shame on them, but it wasn’t a role for government to play.”

https://twitter.com/EddieZipperer/status/1113162172115357698

Though some have expressed shock that Amanpour would advocate an authoritarian crackdown on free speech, I cannot say I am entirely surprised that she would propose such a thing, especially on behalf of a Democratic politician.

She often plays the role of the arbiter of the moral good, routinely dipping into personal political commentary from her perch as an alleged news anchor. Recall that Amanpour accused Britons of xenophobia and anti-immigrant views in 2016 after they voted to leave the European Union. She made that specific claim no fewer than five times during a single broadcast immediately following the Brexit vote. Later, Amanpour berated one of the Brexit leaders, European Parliament member and Washington Examiner contributor Daniel Hannan, during a post-vote interview, claiming repeatedly, without evidence and falsely, that Hannan was now backtracking after campaigning to “stop the free movement [of people].”

Of course, you could just say she’s a tough news lady, but the problem is that Amanpour is not always so confrontational an interviewer. Let us not forget when she interviewed Hillary Clinton in May 2017, tossing the two-time failed presidential candidate the softest softballs ever lobbed, including when the CNN anchor asked:

[Y]ou’ve just spoken about the sexism and misogyny and inequity around the world, but do you believe it exists here still? … And do you think – were you a victim of misogyny, and why do you think you lost the majority of the white female vote?

The Trump administration is not without its upsides, Amanpour said later that same month. Indeed, she explained, it has caused “a huge rise in necessary activism” to combat what she characterizes as a “grave and existential threat.”

“You know, everybody was getting a little lazy, everyone was taking everything for granted, particularly in the United States. And I think women of have come out, you know, black people have come out. The press have come out,” she said. “Everybody is coming out to defend their profession and their right to exist under the Constitution and the laws of the United States.”

You’ll pardon me, then, for not being even a little surprised to learn Amanpour is maybe a little sympathetic to arresting opponents of the Democratic Party for so-called “hate speech.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/christiane-amanpour-wants-the-fbi-to-lock-them-up-for-chanting-lock-her-up

Well, as far as Ms. Amanpour goes, my motto is “never forget”.

https://twitter.com/Baba9773/status/989886081553305602

Just to clarify….

Now – this gets a bit personal with me. You see…..

Once you realize that MS. AMANPOUR’S desire that THE FBI “lock us up” matches rather well with my run-ins with pesky “lookin’-for-a-reason-to-lock-that-boy-up” “Radium Rod Brand” FEEBS in 2018….

Once you realize that 9/11 was largely a psychological manipulation tool to herd Americans into various configurations required for global socialism – and that THIS is the really big secret they absolutely do NOT want to let get away from them – but it pretty much already has…..

Once you realize that the ACCELERATED TIMING of said “lock up Wolf” operations was shortly after I got religion on the videographic hoaxing involved with 9/11, and linked it to the attempted videographic fraud in the CA3 operation of which I have somewhat more familiarity, and OH that’s not a thing YET….

And once you realize what Americans are going to think when the TRUTH can no longer be suppressed by the FAKE NEWS….

WELLLLLLLLL….

Things all start to make sense.

You know, I’m not completely sold on lockin’ ’em all up.

In fact, I’m not even totally sold on “throwin’ ’em out”.

THE DOORS ARE WIDE OPEN.

AND THE TRUTH IS NEVER, EVER, GOING BACK IN THE BOX.

Do the math, scumbags. While there is STILL TIME.

Flep talks about that nightstand. Well, Wolf is showing you an even easier way out.

It’s a WIDE, WIDE world out there. WHO KNOWS – maybe there is SOME PLACE ELSE where socialism might work.

Because it AIN’T GONNA BE HERE.

Maybe….. New Zealand?

Have not heard of ANY restrictions on flights to New Zealand.

Yet.

*wink*

W

YOUR SOCIALIST DEMORALIZATION PLOT HAS FAILED. THE BACKFIRE BEGINS. SOON.

For Whom The Bell Tolls

I leave this as an open question, although this thread is ultimately concerned with somebody named Barbara Olson, who died on 9/11.

I believe that the method of Barbara’s murder is now demonstrated.

Introduction

The key to solving 9/11 is realizing that it was a CLINTON-centered operation which was launched AFTER the Clintons left the White House, in order to deflect attention from their central role.

9/11 served as a way – a contingency plan – to CONTROL the behavior of the United States, and in particular the Republicans, should Al Gore not win the presidency in 2000. It was a control-of-opposition operation, much like Charlottesville, only much, much larger.

I began questioning the official 9/11 story when Stephen McIntyre reminded me that Robert Mueller’s prosecutions have a PATTERN.

The pattern which McIntyre was primarily demonstrating was the pattern of Robert Mueller indicting a good number of people (13 both times) who were overseas and out of reach of actual prosecution.

(As an aside, this pattern was useful to me later in pursuing the fact that Mueller indicted Russian agents living near Nicholas Cruz. This is critical in understanding what is going on for OTHER reasons.)

A secondary pattern shown by McIntyre was that Mueller seemed to have pursued a WRONG PROSECUTION in the Khobar Towers case, and by implication of incompetence or politics, he might be wrongly pursuing Trump.

Other commenters showed that this pattern of wrong prosecutions by Robert Mueller extended to others, including multiple innocent defendants while informant Whitey Bulger was protected, as well as wrongly accused anthrax researcher Steven Hatfill.

A third pattern was close and purposeful interaction of Robert Mueller with James Comey in the very sketchy Khobar Towers bombing prosecutions, very reminiscent of the sketchy Mueller special counsel.

Thus, I was led to believe that Bill Clinton’s “aw, shucks, missed again” pursuit of Osama/Usama bin Laden (UBL) – typified by the notorious “aspirin factory bombing” – was in fact a fraud, and that the real goal of the Clintons was to set up a major terror event for multiple reasons, including self-enrichment and self-empowerment.

Later, when Q made me aware of Beverly Eckert’s death, and after looking into the death of JFK Jr., I became further convinced that these things were all connected to the Clintons.

A critical connection for me was the idea that videographic hoaxing had been used for the plane strikes on the Twin Towers, with a small group of NYC-based videographers in on the scam. This MATCHED my own knowledge of an off-the-books scandal that I refer to as CA3, in which a reporter/videographer pair from the NYC market attempted to create false videographic evidence as part of LAWFARE being used for Democrat politics (CA3 = Conspiracy to Advance Affirmative Action).

The key slip-up in the 9/11 videographic fraud is Peter Jennings reacting on-air to the primary error, referred to as “Pinocchio’s nose”. This rules out the idea that the erroneous footage is later disinformation. Note also that I have tracked down certain recent anti-NASA “flat earth” disinformation, and connected it to much earlier 9/11 disinformation which was out of the NYC area. The fact that NYC now has a communist mayor is not a coincidence.

The totality of information on the plane-building videography and blatant unphysicality of the filmed strike shows me that there were errors made in terms of the durability of the deception versus crowd perception and reasoning, with the crowd advancing faster than anticipated.

I currently leave open a number of aspects of 9/11, but my theorizing now centers on two ideas: (1) large-scale Potemkin blood hoaxing, and (2) Clinton centrality.

What follows is based on this.

The Question of Barbara Olson

Barbara Olson was a lawyer and persistent investigator of Hillary Clinton during the Clinton administration. She was responsible for several of the most damaging Clinton scandals being revealed.

Olson wrote a book in 1999, as the Clinton administration began to close down, and Hillary Clinton prepared to run for a Senate seat in New York.

Tonawanda asked this question (image followed by text quote):

https://wqth.wordpress.com/2018/12/23/dear-maga-open-topic-20181223/comment-page-1/#comment-29146

Tonawanda
December 23, 2018 at 6:19 am E
The death of Barbara Olson is so suspicious to me. At the time I wondered if she was a Ron Brown type “throw in” for 911, a favor done for Hillary. It sounds like a theory from behind the Tin Foil Curtain, but I think how well coordinated the whole plot was. What would it take to get Olson on that specific flight, trapped in existential terror before her death?
Hillary is in love with unimpeded power, which means she is in love with unimpeded evil. Part of unimpeded power is lust for total revenge.
I have a friend who openly disrespected Hillary in a public forum. My friend was subsequently subjected to protracted, devastating legal proceedings where injustice reigned at every turn. The instigator of the proceedings had a direct connection to Hillary. No one can prove it, but it is hard not to suspect this was Hillary’s revenge.
In part, the persecution Our President is enduring IMO is very personal revenge direct from Hillary.

Tonawanda, December 23, 2018, The Q Tree

I KNEW I had seen that Barbara Olson had an event she had to get to, and that this controlled her schedule. Later, I learned that she had TWO events bracketing 9/11, and this even more tightly controlled her schedule, but based on knowledge of only ONE event, I said this.

wolfmoon1776
December 23, 2018 at 12:33 pm E
“What would it take to get Olson on that specific flight, trapped in existential terror before her death?”
I figured it out. Holy fucking shit. She was MURDERED.
Thread going up.

Wolf Moon, December 23, 2018, The Q Tree

The Event People

The reason I am able to state this categorically, is that I actually have experience with the unit who I refer to as “The Event People”. They are probably CIA or a hidden agency. They work by abusing NSA data – this is key to how they are able to PREDICT what people will do, when they will do it, and then manipulate them in these instances. They are basically trap-layers. They are not the “IMF” – they are REAL and FALLIBLE – which is why I’m telling you about them.

The way to CATCH them is to have some idea when, where, and HOW they will strike – to walk THROUGH their traps – and not take the cheese.

Knowing about one’s own NSA data is key to busting them. Knowing WHEN they have irresistible bait in front of them is very, very helpful.

I have interacted with these people multiple times over my life. Based on those experiences, I can tell what levels of data they need, and what kinds of circumstances “draw them out”. An essential component is when people are CONSTRAINED by something important. If a person is GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE, or GOING TO SEE SOMEBODY – these are critical bottlenecks that are used to attain predictability. Then the key is setting up a scenario in the path of the person.

Knowing that one is IN such a scenario is how to get out.

As soon as I saw that Barbara Olson was flying to LA on 9/11 for taping of an appearance with Bill Maher on “Politically Incorrect”, I realized that this was how she was taken out – by being manipulated onto the flight.

This obeys what I call the “Economy of Events Principle” – the idea that multiple “coincidences” protect each other from discovery as being planned events. It is a particularly efficient way to close out loose ends close to the plot. You know the saying that “truth is stranger than fiction”. This REALLY WORKS as psychological cover. People will psychologically dismiss something as “too weird” when coincidences stack up. They tell themselves that nobody would or could plan this.

WRONG.

I want you to think about this very carefully. Let me ask some questions to demonstrate how easy it is to lead somebody into a trap. Remember – ENTRAPMENT is a thing which law enforcement and intelligence do ROUTINELY. LE tries to do “just less than entrapment” – IC has no such bounds. The Event People are limited only by “what they can get away with without detection”. They seem to be very skilled at not overplaying their hand, and can always fall back to something like “we’re just the FBI” if they get caught.

Sound like Page and Strzok? You betcha. It’s THAT WORLD. Which by now you know REALLY EXISTS.

Here we go.

  • How many calls to how many people do I need to get somebody on a plane?
  • How many calls to how many people do I need to get my favorite critic interviewed by a famous friend, at a particular time, without necessarily involving that friend?
  • How many people’s phones do I need to listen to, to make sure things happen?
  • If I never use the NSA data to go to court, will anybody ever know I abused it?
  • Are there or were there ever any back doors to NSA data in place?
  • Was there ever any abuse of NSA data by Democrats?
  • When people find out that they have “inadvertently” become involved in something shady and utterly unbelievable, what do they do?
  • Would they tell themselves it was coincidence?
  • Would they fear the power of the people who might have arranged things?
  • Would they fear that they would not be believed, or called “crazy”?

Now – I want to give you the story that freaked me out. Read it, knowing what I just told you.

The bolded parts are critical.

Witnessed Event: American Airlines Flight 77


Barbara Olson was a lawyer, author and conservative American television commentator. In 1994, she joined the United States House of Representatives, becoming chief investigative counsel for the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee. In that position, Olson led a number of different investigations into the Clinton administration. She exposed the White House travel office scandal and the FBI files controversy. Olson published a collection of books that examine the history of Hillary Clinton and the actions of Bill Clinton in the final days of his presidency. Some of her accusations include unlawful pardons by Bill Clinton, the looting of the White House and executive orders that were sheer abuses of presidential power. On January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton pardoned 140 people in the final hours of his presidency.


In 1996, Barbara Olson married a man named Ted Olson. Ted successfully represented presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case of Bush v. Gore, which effectively determined the final result of the contested 2000 Presidential election. He subsequently served as United States Solicitor General in the Bush administration. On September 11, 2001, Barbara Olson boarded American Airlines Flight 77 traveling from Virginia to Los Angeles. She was visiting Los Angeles for a taping of Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher.


On September 11, 2001, Flight 77 was hijacked at 8:54. Between 9:16 and 9:26, Olson called her husband. According to him, she reported that the flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers had knives and box-cutters. A minute into the conversation, the call was cut off. Shortly after, Barbara reached her husband again. Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the plane was flying over houses. Ted informed Barbara of the two previous hijackings and crashes. She didn’t display signs of panic over the phone. American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37 EDT. All 64 people on board were killed, including Barbara Olson. Following her death, Politically Incorrect host, Bill Maher, left a panel seat vacant for a week.


The two phone calls Barbara Olson made from Flight 77 are an important factor to the accepted story of 9/11. They provide evidence that American 77 had been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around 9:00 AM. The calls are also the only source of the widely accepted idea that the hijackers had box cutters. The story has been scrutinized by a collection of researchers, who have accused Ted Olson of changing his account. He originally indicated that Barbara used a cell phone to call him, but later said she called using an airline phone. The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude flights wasn’t developed until 2004.

From a source archived here: https://archive.fo/k2XVn

Now – add to THIS constraint (Bill Maher taping) another one, which pinned her down almost with certainty to one specific flight. Link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/ted-olson-on-loss-and-love-in-the-decade-since-911/2011/09/09/gIQAlqKDLK_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.50d31845ae94

Ten years ago, Olson became the most famous person in D.C. to lose a loved one in the terrorist attacks: His wife, conservative commentator Barbara Olson, was on American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. She had delayed a trip to California so she could be in town for his birthday dinner the night before.

Washington Post, September 9, 2011

I make no claims beyond the fact that this woman Barbara Olson was murdered. I do not know when, where, or in what manner. As I no longer accept the “official” explanation of 9/11, that leaves open a lot of possibilities. I suspect there was much evil hoaxing, fooling people at every step of the way, before they were killed. Remains? No problem.

“History books.”

The takeover of America surreptitiously by two foreign superpowers through traitors is not a simple thing.

It is clear that NOBODY was higher on Hillary’s list of enemies than Barbara Olson. Absolutely nobody. And remember Judge Kavanaugh, and his role as a critic of the Clintons, and the HELL that Hillary put him through. Barbara Olson was many times more of a problem for Hillary.

HOWEVER, that is not the most important reason to kill her. Barbara Olson was an extreme risk to the 9/11 plan. She would have INSTANTLY figured out that it was the Clintons behind the operation, and begun to unravel it. She simply had too much knowledge of the Clintons. In the “identification of risks” stage, Barbara Olson would have been identified, without question.

Barbara Olson herself was dangerous to the 9/11 plot. She had to be killed. THAT is the real motive.

The plotters needed to fold the loose end into the plan itself and then CLOSE IT OUT.

Are you with me? Maybe not. But I don’t care.

“It is better to be right, than to be believed.”

-Wolf Moon

W

ALL THINGS ARE MADE NEW IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH.

Dear MAGA: Open Topic 20181223

This SPECIAL PATRIOT QUARTER SUNDAY open thread is VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA world.

Say what you want, comment on what other people said, comment on people’s comments.  Keep it civil.  Treehouse rules, but expect lots of QAnon.

Remember – your greatest gift to President Trump is FIVE WORDS:

I AM PRAYING FOR YOU

Today (Sunday, December 23) is the twenty-second day of Advent.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/advent-2018-what-meaning-how-13663762

The 146th day of next year, which shall be celebrated here as Ma Cankles Uranium Day, is:

SUNDAY, MAY 26, 2019

Today we celebrate all witnesses – living and dead – because they ALL speak to me.

W

Occam's Razor, Tool of Deception

I was originally going to entitle this post something else – something cuter and more grandiose about “my life-long sword-fight with Occam’s razor“.  Hence the opening image.  However, that goal was WAY too big for a blog post.  I could literally write a book on it.

The fact is, I have MANY issues with Occam’s razor in science and other forms of investigation, and most of them don’t deal with deception.  They deal with progress in science, more than anything else.  Although the modern intrusions of leftist deception politics into science are changing that balance very rapidly. 

Some scientists tend to shave too closely with Occam’s razor.  Nothing grows.  There is no imagination – no progress.  It is easier to sit tight on a small set of highly validated principles, and not reach out to try something new.

Others don’t shave at all, and “fluffy” no-way-in-hell theory grows with abandon.   Such theories approach the ad hoc nature that Occam’s razor was specifically intended to prevent.  Instead of angels on pinheads, embarrassing numbers of never-to-be-found particles and whatnot are predicted, proposed, or just rumored.

Those are big topics.  Addressing all of that, plus the use of Occam’s razor for deception, would be a tall order.  Best left for our wonderful commenters, already discussing these things just on the rumor of my finally posting this piece.

While sleeping on this post (earlier), I realized that I needed to keep things simple, and ONLY talk about how Occam’s razor behaves under deception.  Thus, I came up with a much simpler and more powerful statement of the principle at hand.  Then, I decided to pound that statement into people’s heads, by repeating it, over and over.

Occam’s razor is a tool of deception.

Wolf Moon

Actually, that’s not giving credit where credit is due.

Occam’s razor is a tool of deception.

Anonymous author of KGB-CIA manual read by various people Wolf Moon has known

Actually, that’s not big enough.  It needs to be a nice big headline.

Occam’s razor is a tool of deception.

There.  That’s better!  And THAT is why I changed the title.  If I’m going to repeat a headline over and over, why not just make it the title, too?  That way people won’t have to dig for it.  The conclusion is RIGHT THERE.  To review for the big picture, people don’t even have to re-read this post.

Now, I can’t tell you ALL of the reasons why I believe this, but my motto serves as a kind of proof that the opening image and would-be title are justified – that I’ve had to FIGHT Occam’s razor all my life.  Indeed, I chose my motto carefully, after years of fighting my way up from a state of blissful ignorance, to one of satisfied but battle-scarred awareness.

It is better to be right than to be believed.

Wolf Moon

Being right does not come easily in this world, because DECEPTION is everywhere.  And deception is everywhere for a beautiful reason, which a better understanding of OCCAM’S RAZOR makes clear:

Occam’s razor is a protector of deception.

Yeah.  You’re going to hear that a LOT of things linking Occam’s razor not with FINDING truth, but rather with HIDING truth.

So what the hell IS Occam’s razor?  Other than a tool of deception?

OK – that’s not really Occam’s razor.  This is more like it.

When we are faced with more than one hypothesis that explains the data equally well, we choose the simpler explanation.

Occam’s razor

Now, the fact that many CORRECT answers ARE complex, and so many simple ones fail, or at least it sure SEEMS that way, makes the following cartoon funny.

We see in the cartoon an idea that LOOKS like Occam’s razor because it deals with simple versus complex, but also seems to say the opposite.  Yet the cartoon seems to say something intuitively obvious and wearily true – that many answers are simple but wrong, and the fewer that ARE correct, are generally complicated. 

This seems at first to be at odds with Occam’s razor, but it’s not – because it’s NOT Occam’s razor, nor is it a derivative thereof.  It just looks like Occam’s razor.  Stop for a moment and think about that.  The cartoon is talking about the fact that it sure seems to us humans that REAL answers tend to be few and complex – while too-simple and WRONG answers seem to abound.  That is MUCH DIFFERENT from saying that for TWO OR MORE theories that explain the same set of facts, the SIMPLEST theory tends to be correct.

In fact, if you CONFUSE these two principles, then you have just seen why

Occam’s razor is a tool of deception.

That is worth an explanation.  You see, there is an old saw about simple versus complex.  It’s called Occam’s razor.  When people talk about simple versus complex, they ALMOST ALWAYS cite Occam’s razor.  So if a person does a cartoon about simple versus complex, and they say something that seems to be both TRUE and the OPPOSITE of Occam’s razor, it looks like a paradox – like Occam’s razor is “wrong or something”. 

Well, it’s the “or something”.  The cartoon has successfully, without trying very hard, mimicked Occam’s razor.  And MIMICRY is a form of DECEPTION.  You were led into a mistake by a cartoon.

Thus, in a very ironic way, the ubiquity of Occam’s razor ITSELF was used to deceive.  The SIMPLEST answer – “a person talking about simple versus complex is talking about Occam’s razor” – was used to deceive you, and then lead you past deception to paradox, at which point you do a “WTF” and laughed.

Now – there are MANY WAYS to express the principles underlying the fact that

Occam’s razor is a tool of deception.

One of the simplest is the one that our own wheatietoo uses all the time.  This is the idea that

Occam’s razor can fail when you don’t have all the information.

And if somebody WANTS it to fail for you, this is WHY

Occam’s razor is a tool of deception.

As an example, let’s consider the “Bigfoot” example above. 

“A hairy creature in the woods is more likely a bear than Bigfoot.”
-Occam’s Razor

If you see an upright, bipedal, very hairy creature in the woods, you have almost certainly seen a BEAR.   We have an ordinary explanation.  No need to state anything fancy.  THAT is Occam’s razor, right there.

But what if the “hairy creature in the woods” had a flat face and no snout – basically a hominid face – and this was seen with extreme clarity, so there is almost no possibility for error?  If that is the case, then the simple explanation of a bear goes out the window.  There is the possibility of a highly deformed or accidentally de-snouted bear, but such a thing will not live long in the wild.  A truly flat-faced bear is pretty much DOA at birth.  HOWEVER, we can switch to the SIMPLER theory that it’s a GORILLA – possibly escaped from a zoo – and we have basically been rescued by Occam’s razor.

But let’s not stop there.  Let’s say that the thing was seen with extreme clarity.  The witness KNOWS what a gorilla looks like, and it was NOT a gorilla.  Let’s say that we have a clear enough view of it that it looks exactly like “Bigfoot”.

Now – we can believe two things here.

  • It was a “real” Bigfoot.
  • It was somebody in a Bigfoot suit, DECEIVING US.

Which one of these alternatives is the one favored by Occam’s razor?  That is actually a very good question.  To an honest naturalist in the woods of Washington or Oregon in 1910, when “cryptozoology” was still somewhat possible, a “real” animal of some sort would have seemed more likely.  The idea of somebody using a suit to deceive a naturalist would have sounded fantastic, and would require far more explanation than a new species of animal.

But in 2010, with many more “Bigfoot costumes” in existence than reported visual sightings of Bigfoot in all of history, the prediction FLIPS, because we have NEW INFORMATION.  We have to allow for DECEPTION as a kind of additional information.

BIGFOOT DECEPTION is now ORDINARY.  BIGFOOT REALITY remains rather EXTRAORDINARY.

Now – what if you’re a modern person, but your knowledge is like that of a naturalist in 1910?  What if you are not AWARE of what deceptions are POSSIBLE?  In that case you will use Occam’s razor on the WRONG DATA SET.  You will be DECEIVED, and Occam’s razor, operating on insufficient data, will AID THE DECEPTION.

This is how magic works, folks.  The SIMPLE and OBVIOUS explanation is WRONG.  Hidden complexity is used to FOOL YOU.  YOU don’t have all the information.  By HIDING information, you are led to USE Occam’s razor with too little information, and come to the wrong conclusion.

Now with magic, we know we are being fooled.  But then again, nobody has to TELL YOU that you are experiencing a magic show.

Welcome to DISINFORMATION.

And this is the most important part.  It doesn’t have to be something extraordinary like Bigfoot.  I could just be trying to convince you of an ordinary fact.  That is not true.

Let me repeat that.  If I try to convince you of an OBVIOUS, SIMPLE NON-EXTRAORDINARY THING, but it’s really a complicated, deceptive story that benefits me, Occam’s razor just turned into MY advantage, and MY survival tool.

Two words.

Insect mimicry.

The simple explanation is that it’s a THORN.  It’s not.  It’s a LEAF-HOPPER.

The simple explanation is that it’s a LEAF.  It’s not.  It’s a BUTTERFLY.

The simple explanation is that it’s a BEE.  It’s not.  It’s a FLY. 

The simple explanation is that it’s LICHEN.  It’s not.  It’s a MOTH.

The simple explanation is that it’s a FLOWER PETAL.  It’s not.  It’s a SPIDER / MANTIS / ASSASSIN BUG.

If you look MORE CLOSELY at any one of these, you get MORE INFORMATION, and go “OH SHIT, LOOK AT THAT!” and see the coolness of the DECEPTION.  What has happened is that MORE INFORMATION changed the output of Occam’s razor.  You now have MORE FACTS.

One might say that:

Occam’s razor is dependent upon the observer, whereas truth is not.

Now – back to an explanation of Occam’s razor which deals with “ordinary” versus “extraordinary”:

One has to be very careful here.  ORDINARY and EXTRAORDINARY are likely to flip back and forth as FACTS BECOME KNOWN, as our EXPERIENCE with those facts increases, and as the validity of those facts CHANGES.

BLACK HOLES were at one time EXTRAORDINARY.  Now they are NOT.

Relativistic effects in general were at one time EXTRAORDINARY.  Now they are NOT.

Atomic energy was at one time EXTRAORDINARY.  Now it is NOT.

Talking to somebody on the other side of the world was once EXTRAORDINARY.  Now it is ORDINARY.

Aluminum was at one time EXTRAORDINARY and PRECIOUS.  Now it is COMMON and can be used for TIN FOIL HATS. 

There is a reason the INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES try to stay ahead of the curve, BUELLER.  It is so THEY have all the FACTS and YOU DON’T.

Are you starting to see the picture now? 

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER WHEN THE OTHER PERSON DOESN’T HAVE IT.

In other words, it’s not really knowledge that is power.  It’s a DIFFERENTIAL in knowledge that is power.

Now – put this in reality terms.  This point about Ordinary vs. Extraordinary is very important for assisting DECEPTION.  If I can HIDE the formerly extraordinary as MY ordinary, I can almost guarantee that the SUCKER will pick the known ORDINARY explanation.  But if I LOSE the SECRET of my extraordinary, it becomes the TARGET’S ordinary, and they are no longer fooled.

WELCOME TO MY WORLD.

Now – even in deception, Occam’s razor still operates.  If you have all the information, and there are two ways you can be fooled, the SIMPLER ONE is probably the RIGHT ONE.

If you are being deceived about ORDINARY STUFF and there are competing ORDINARY EXPLANATIONS, you are very likely to MISS EVERYTHING.  The same goes for TWO COMPETING EXTRAORDINARY EXPLANATIONS.  If there is deception, you can use Occam’s razor to pick the wrong one, by picking the SIMPLER of the two, if you don’t know all the facts.

And THAT is where we are led into one of the most EXTRAORDINARY events in modern history.

Next time, in:

9/11: From Believer to Skeptic

See you then!

W

“History is a great teacher, but she makes us do a LOT of homework.”

Darkness to Light: Eckert's Law

As I’ve said before in the VLWC series, we discover nothing new, but we do rediscover what has been hidden from us by time and craftier people.  Over and over, the truth is hidden and revealed.

Somewhere, a Soviet KGB analyst rediscovered this timeless principle, marveled at it, and filed it away for his next chapter in their manual.  Or maybe it was CIA.  Hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Today, I (re)name a timeless principle of disinformation not for a DISCOVERER, nor for a USER, but rather for a VICTIM.

Darkness to light.

This is actually a special case of a larger and more general principle involving Occam’s razor, which I am treating in a more extensive post.  But for now, this will do.  I marveled at this special case, awakened to the greater totality of 9/11, and why this operation was undoubtedly felt necessary by OUR adversary – those who plot treachery in the dark and war against God.

When the cause of an operation is too advanced or subtle to be detected by an adversary, Occam’s razor will point them to the most likely known potential cause, and this will be accepted and defended by them as the logical explanation.

Eckert’s Law

Happy Thanksgiving, Beverly.  Justice is served.

W

There is a tribe that would not take their money either, Beverly.  Only the tribes that value Truth over money truly begin to understand the Great Mystery.  Just as that tribe is to be respected, so is yours. -W

Dear MAGA: Open Topic 20181121

This NOW-DAILY  open thread is VERY OPEN – a place for everybody to post whatever they feel they would like to tell the White Hats, and the rest of the MAGA world.  We ask that people NOT duplicate material posted to the Treehouse open threads, unless it’s REALLY IMPORTANT.  We expect things that are more relevant to the Q community to show up here.

Say what you want, comment on what other people said, comment on people’s comments.  Keep it civil.  Treehouse rules, but expect lots of QAnon.

W

James Coburn reading a newspaper in a cafe in France in The Great Escape.
We are getting closer to a direct confrontation – not only the FACT that a significant portion of the people in this country (and world) believe that the end justifies the means – but with those PEOPLE themselves.