By now, it will be pretty clear to all of you who watch television, or YouTube, that the first key move of all modern propaganda is to establish within 48 hours of any given significant event, who 'perpetrated it,' if it is something superficially negative - like for instance, the events of 9/11.
And then, second-up, as fast as possible, numerous astro-turfers go into play, laying down suppressive narratives or making derisory comments about whichever important or expert figure they want to switch the narrative away from.
For example, when retired General Stubblebine went into the media to say that according to his analysis of vision and photographic after-shots, no 'plane' went into the Pentagon, immediately thereafter a tremendous amount of the American media went into trying to discredit Stubblebine. Within ten years, George Clooney featured in a sarcastic representation of Stubblebine's career, in the 2009 film 'The Men Who Stare At Goats.' The movie itself was made both with the technical assistance and later, the public approval, of propaganda arms of the US Military and various active military commanders.
Stubblebine's last mission command, was as global military director and head, of all high altitude (by that time it was more than just 'high altitude') photographic analysis.
He retired at age, decorated, and with honors.
One of those under his direct command earlier on, was Major Ed Dames, who had been engaged in programs and projects which to this day I cannot - and nor can others - actually detail, but which were given various cover stories.
Ed Dames is excoriated widely.
 |
| All yours, Bill. 'Jimmy Brings.' |
As you know, the Covid-19 Relief Funding Budget, had several side-issues that were related to its being passed, one of which is this famous/infamous deadline (looming in the next few months) by which time the DoD and Combined US Intel groups all must render a report on what they hold on ET's, UFO's, and ET Aliens.
Now unless they give you details and make at least some serous references to the 'High Altitude Analysis' Unit and Major Ed Dames actual meeting with an ET Alien, then the reports are not merely 'incomplete' but an outright, outrageous lie.
Ed Dames is still around but his life is in some danger.
Because Ed was told something by the ET Alien and following his report the Military chiefs scattered like hens in a hen-house with a fox in there on the loose.
And they basically split into two camps, with the predominant camp being peopled by those who have since virtually completely taken over the running of the United States.
Now our recent friend to these pages, KittyP, has given us the perspective that he doesn't 'have a view' on 9/11 and although I am sticking words into his mouth, no doubt, if I hadn't already framed things in terms of what the most senior officer in charge of all photographic analysis has already said - he would suggest 'there is no EVIDENCE...'
Yes there is evidence. There is evidence that a cruise missile was targeted at, and flew into, the Pentagon.
And there is top-flight analysis saying so as well.
 |
| I like these, myself, but Jimmy said 'no can do; not for the bush, right?' |
With regard to Major Dames, he was given some very brief but astounding 'information,' you would have to call it, regarding the expansion of the use of satellites orbiting the planet into the thousands (which has happened, of course) and the problems and risks that would ensue from relatively rare kinds of solar flares which would disable those satellites, which the people of the world had by that time all become reliant on in their lives.
Ever since the Dames meeting and that specific 'information,' those who have been on the inside, have created a 'cover story' so that people who were not on the inside, would not be able to maliciously exploit the situation that 'could' eventuate - namely, the destruction of the satellite networks system.
But the real reason some certain people detest Ed Dames, is that his story of the so-called 'Kill Shot' is a cover for something.
And I would be very surprised if you were not able to at least speculate on what that is, KittyP. Go on. Have a go at it.
You're right I would not say "no evidence." There is in fact tons of evidence. No evidence is what you say when you're trying to "control the conversation." What I'm pretty fascinated with right now is the (for me a new thing) thought that everything in the information department arrives with uncertainty. We've told ourselves in a very misleading way that some stuff is within the realm of certainty. What we do have that is important (my opinion) is consensus. But again it all has probabilities connected to it. I feel like the Heisenberg equation is a universal truth and inaccuracy in one of the terms can never complete vanish.
ReplyDeleteYou've pointed out yourself that there is no way to tell a fake from the truth, in the event one of them "materialized" at the foot of my bed.
I hope I have never said and would never say "there's no evidence, therefore you all need to shut up." Yet I do experience frustration when I say to someone "I believe the Ariel school interviews..." and they say "I don't know, I felt a lot of doubt through all of that"
I would really like to be the one sitting in the pub holding his glass of beer while someone says to R. D. "what you call 'certainty in evidence' is actually a psychological bubble you create within which there is an illusion of certainty" but I'm pretty sure he would point out that this argument leads to solipsism. I'd really squirm if I heard that but I'd hold my silence and drink my beer. And yes I'd rather hear Hitchens talk. Too bad he's not gay. When you add the slight lisp to that accent you get a real comedic effect.
ReplyDeleteEd dames is way beyond the pale! Some things are just too far out there. i better be going now. if what he says is true then I will gladly starve with the rest of the poor suffering humans. What I won't do is take his really disgusting advice about what to do to "prepare."
ReplyDeleteMajor Ed Dames. No, what he says in the public is largely NOT true... I will detail the facts more in an up-coming release of something (we're even discussing doing a short film but that is a while off in the works but directly related to this).
ReplyDeleteIn the article I posted above, I mentioned Dames' cover stories... And you have more or less given the need to really make this perfectly clear here. Ed Dames still has some 'compartmentalized original briefing control' files operating that he is in charge of even now. It's pretty tame stuff to do with low-level propaganda so don't over-think it, but his teams have exceptional analysis capabilities, almost none of which is to do with 'remote viewing' but that is the cover story on the whole. I mean it is not much of a secret that there are so-called 'proton beam' technologies (which can be packed inside of a medium-sized van), which can 'see' inside of buildings and do more things than that... And so, I'm just framing the matter in a certain way, d'you see.
Does 'information' ARRIVE to us with uncertainty? Great question, in the sense of our individual human scope to qualify it and filter it from the background of our pre-existing biases, well I suppose in a way yes it must do.
Now I hope you certainly do not take this the wrong way, because I feel this is a perfect example of the 'logical issue' (maybe it's not a 'problem' exactly) with 'shared agency' with super advanced ET Aliens. But I'm going to use one of my earlier jibes as the frame to look at the matter... In a moment.
So in terms of Shannon's model, information arrives, it is decoded. In terms of normal humans understanding their world "decoding" would refer to understanding what you're looking at, for instance, to be an apple on a countertop. That it arrives "with uncertainty" is just (according to Shannon's model) an expression of the fact that it had to travel through space in some way to get to you. The decoding goes on in the mind of the observer, who may not consider the uncertainty of the "transmission channel" and therefore think that "seeing is believing" for example. That's how I'm thinkin' about it right now. Basically, how do you talk to an alien at all, what would that "even" mean to us, and to them?
DeleteSo. Thought experiment. The ET Aliens appear at the foot of your bed, and they hand you a written note (typed note, whatever, let's not be too picky) of a couple of paragraphs saying who they are and what they want, and then ask you to compose your note of a few succinct paragraphs to give to them.
ReplyDeleteTheir note contains 14 'I's' and your note also subsequently happens to contain 14 other 'I's.'
The object, in order to 'reach some consensus' and to atttain 'shared agency' - (you know where we're heading, right?) is to match as many 'I's' as possible that we humans could agree were PERFECTLY compatible with the ET Alien 'I's' in their note...
??
By compatible do you mean compatible in their meaning (in terms of context in the paragraph) or do you mean match in the sense that the ET would appear to have had some kind of prior knowledge about how I would respond to their note?
DeleteAlso I think if I were trying to have this talk with a person like Richard D. he would ask me a few questions and then tell me he's not going down this rabbit hole with someone who doesn't have a clear idea of what he's talking about, because I'm going to try to keep changing the definition. I'm sure you have a lot of interesting things to do. Producing a film about anything would be high up on my list of priorities.
DeleteSo I will try to be really upfront (funny that's a word?) about where this is coming from.
I used to do really poorly dabbling at Kaggle competitions, so I was sort of clued in to the AI field in a basic way, and then Alpha Go happened and my engineering acquaintances were all "hey! this is really big!" At that time I tried to tell them "well the really significant thing is that for the first time we have a demonstration of intelligence and agency being separable things..."
Where and what agency is depends a lot on how you choose to parse the situation. It could be seen as existing in the engineers in one sense, and existing in the software in an other...
Amazing.
ReplyDeleteOh heck - this on-going chat could be easily resolved if they'd just land their damned saucers on the Capitol Mall. (Okay, maybe not - the Dems might accuse them of being insurrectionists!)
ReplyDeleteWe'd definitely see a few bipartisan committees formed up. Joint statements would be issued after initial expressions of doubt. Then there'd be some sort of incident and laws would be passed and the conspiracy theory types would do what they do. Basically nothing would change.
Delete