• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 
Menu

Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Chronaut

#1
Quote from: Dr. MD MD on March 10, 2016, 10:30:34 PM
Hmmm...you assume a lot and in the process make an ass of you and...well, just you, really. Perhaps you joined the conversation late; didn't read far enough back, etc.? If you had you'd see that the conversation started out with people discussing the possibility of reincarnation and psychic resonance and such ideas and I pointed out how I could vacillate between my rational, scientific mind and my more speculative, philosophical mind (they're the same mind, BTW, before you make an issue out of that). The conversation eventually got around to discussing what consciousness might be and the possibility of psychic resonance through some of the gabber's personal experiences of getting specific feelings at specific places. We were then exploring how we might reconcile these two perspectives. However, you've obviously gotta be the smartest guy in the room so have at it! Tare me a new one!  :P

You state, "...one can verify such claims personally.  I think we need to develop a reliable methodology for evaluating mystical assertions through independent personal replication, because in that respect modern science is a few millennia behind the mystical tradition." Aren't you contradicting yourself here? How does one scientifically verify these claims personally? What sort of "reliable methodology" could be developed that wouldn't be considered anecdotal by the standards you claim to uphold?

I never claimed or argued for the veracity of homeopathy. It could be and is, by today's scientific standards, bullshit. However, every once in awhile there are paradigm shifts that occur in science that fly in the face of conventional wisdom and those standards change. I don't have all the answers yet. I'm just curious, unlike you. You're not a scientist. You're just a pompous ass trying to keep others thinking in line with what's comfortable for you.  :P


BTW, you seem to keep wanting to goad me into saying if I'm an actual doctor or not but it's irrelevant here and what good would it do anyway? If I say yes you say I'm a liar. If I say no you say, "See! He was lying." I'd say we're just minds here at Bellgab but we're really just the words our minds left here at a certain point in time. So, it'll have to remain a mystery.  :P


All of this is pointless garbage, except for the questions.  But since you're being such an asshole, I'm not going to waste anymore time on you to answer them.  Funny how to claim to be "open minded," but lash out when somebody cites actual research that disagrees with your "magical water" myth.  Hypocrite.
#2
Quote from: Dr. MD MD on March 10, 2016, 08:35:39 PM
First, I'm not a "new ager" attempting defining any sort of ontology. This is Bellgab, not a peer reviewed scientific journal. I'm just wondering and thinking aloud, so to speak. However, how is what you're saying any different? You say you suspect the universe is imbued with consciousness because some mystics said it? How is that scientific?!

Not one: all.  All of the most highly respected minds in world history, from Saraha to Buddha to Kabir to Christ to Krishnamurti, have all said the same thing.  I find that compelling.  Whenever a significant number of respectable and independent witnesses with no untoward profit motive report the same testimony, a claim merits serious consideration and investigation.  Of course any claims within the realm of subjective consciousness are beyond the physical empirical method, so they can’t be proven by current scientific standards.  But one can verify such claims personally.  I think we need to develop a reliable methodology for evaluating mystical assertions through independent personal replication, because in that respect modern science is a few millennia behind the mystical tradition. 

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on March 10, 2016, 08:35:39 PM
Honestly, I think the jury is still out on some of the things you claim are discredited because Wikipedia told you so. If homeopathy is such a sham why do the richest people in the world use it? And those fuckers (unfortunately) seem to live forever. Science is a process and not just a collection of laws.

Okay this explains a lot.  I assumed you were a doctor or a medical scientist of some kind.  Sure science is a process.  But homeopathy is not a science.  In fact every effort to independently replicate any experimental evidence indicating the validity of homeopathy has failed.  That’s proof that it doesn’t work.  It’s not like it hasn’t been tried; it’s not some virgin territory that science hasn’t reached into yet.  It has been tried, and it didn’t work.  Time to move on.  I don't know if the rich live longer, but if they do it makes more sense that they live longer because they can afford the best nutrition and medical doctors and treatments.

Anyway lots of people around the world, rich and poor, do all kinds of stupid shit.  Popularity is no indication of veracity.  In fact a stronger argument can probably be made that the more people who believe in something, the less likely it is to be true.  Look how many rich people still believe in “trickle-down economics,” for example.  And the recent national scandal of rich people dodging polio vaccinations and such for their kids.  Being rich doesn’t make people smarter.  It has been proven though that it does make people less charitable, paradoxically:

“Why Are the Poor More Generous?” by Dr. Ken Eisold
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hidden-motives/201008/why-are-the-poor-more-generous
#3
 
Quote from: Dr. MD MD on March 10, 2016, 01:36:11 PM
The need to see consciousness as an emergent property is just another way of saying that you think matter is fundamental and consciousness is an epiphenomenon that eventually emerges from more complex arrangements of it.
Not necessarily.  You’re presuming that I’m restricting the idea of consciousness to organic biological systems, but I favor the view that consciousness may take many forms as-yet unknown to us, perhaps in the complex exchange of photons/information among wide dispersions of atoms or subatomic particles, as one speculative example.  I suspect that the universe has always been conscious, because all of the great mystics from Buddha to Krishnamurti suggest this, and they appear to have direct access to this knowledge through a higher form of consciousness.

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on March 10, 2016, 01:36:11 PM
However, if basic forms of memory can be found even in water then  perhaps it's not an emergent property but an intrinsic one that only becomes more explicit through greater complexity. Of course the universe existed before mankind but that doesn't necessarily mean that matter existed before consciousness.
I think it’s a bit flip to base one’s fundamental ontology on a highly dubious experiment with water.  The idea of “water memory” has been discredited by subsequent failures to reproduce the effect in double-blind trials, and when the researchers in the original study were not present:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory

And as a doctor, or purportedly a doctor, doesn’t the idea of homeopathy trouble you?  Would you really want your patients to take water solutions that had been purified of the medicine you’ve prescribed?  Because that’s what this is all about:  homeopathy seeking a scientific basis, and failing to do so:
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-memory.html

I love “out of the box” thinking, and ancient mysticism especially.  But I don’t love New Agers misrepresenting science, physics and chemistry, because that fosters ignorance in the same way that mainstream religion fosters ignorance (of evolution and geology, for example).
#4
Quote from: GravitySucks on March 10, 2016, 01:53:33 AM
About two weeks ago her voice changed noticeably, and was more conversational. She might be slipping back a little.

I'm just starting to catch up on the last few weeks of shows; it's encouraging to hear you say that.  Maybe she should smoke some pot...I can think of one broadcaster who learned quite a bit from the magic weed...  =)

Quote from: SciFiAuthor on March 10, 2016, 01:53:37 AM
WB Chronaut, I always enjoyed your posts.

Thanks SciFi - I've always thought of you as a key member of "the inner sanctum" around here - thoughtful, informed posts, and a good attitude.  It's nice to drop in and chat with you again.
#5
Quote from: GravitySucks on March 10, 2016, 01:57:35 AM
Night y'all. Thanks for the campfire stories. Enjoyed it more than the show.

Quote from: TigerLily on March 10, 2016, 01:57:35 AM
Good show tonight. Very enjoyable conversations. Thanks fellow Gabsters

Yeah I think it's the good folks here that keep me tethered to the show, good times =)

Quote from: 21st Century Man on March 10, 2016, 02:00:00 AM
That is one of the main reasons I stopped posting on this thread and the Art Bell thread  for a while. Trolls, trolls everywhere.  Thank God, most of them are gone.

It took a Lot longer than I expected...I guess there are a lot of very bored trolls out there.  If those folks spent half the energy on studying, as they spend on being assholes, this would be a nation of geniuses.

Quote from: Faustina on March 10, 2016, 02:01:08 AM
You're not the only one.

I hope that sooner than later, the message will get through:  "Just talk to us like your friends Heather - you can leave the 'show voice' in the circular file."
#6
Quote from: TigerLily on March 10, 2016, 01:50:00 AM
Hi Chronaut. Very nice to see you, Buzzkill.  TigerLily still recommends the movie and suggests watch with healthy skepticism.  Still love ya

It's always lovely to see my favorite TigerLily ;)  I'm all for a walk on the wild side to limber up the neurons and see things from a different perspective, which this film is good for.  But unfortunately it's mostly wrong.  But if it gets people to check the facts and learn about -why- it's wrong, then a lot of good can come from it.  I've had similar hopes for religion, but most people don't bother to look under the hood so now the world is on fire.

Quote from: Dr. MD MD on March 10, 2016, 01:51:37 AM
I understand what you're saying my time traveling friend but even though reductive materialism is persuasive idealism is not so easily dismissed if examined. Consciousness is the one thing we know exists for sure. I think therefore I am is the starting line for any further understanding. I think some of us are just trying to explore how these things could be true from a perspective beyond dualism, where we're not thinking of consciousness and matter as two different things necessarily.

Don't get me wrong Dr. MD MD - I think the universe is conscious...dualism is an illusion in that sense.  But we get into trouble when we conflate fire with ashes:  consciousness is a phenomenon, not the matter that it utilizes...trying to equate them seems a bit much.  I feel as confident that the universe existed before mankind, as I do that I'm experiencing consciousness - in fact the former is much easier to prove.
#7
Quote from: GravitySucks on March 10, 2016, 01:44:59 AM
Hey Cronaut!!! Missed ya dude

Thanks GS - I dropped by and noticed that my favorite gabbers were at it so it seemed an opportune moment to poke my head in.  Suddenly realizing that sounded dirty, lol.

I'm sitting here listening to MitD downloads as I work on stuff, and it occurred to me that Heather hasn't eased up with the "entertainer voice" yet.  I hope she'll just chill out and sit back and -talk to us like people-.  That's the only thing that bugs me about her show, but it's important because it sounds patronizing, like she's talking to children.  Or am I the only one who feels that way?

Anyway I hope you all are having a good time around here; it's good to see humans back in the driver's seat, in this thread at least ;
#8
Quote from: TigerLily on March 10, 2016, 01:27:18 AM
Have you seen "What the Bleep Do We Know?" TigerLily recommendation

You might want to be careful about this one TigerLily - that film misrepresents quantum mechanics on all kinds of key points, most notably as purported support for the filmmaker's crazy ideas about a mystical link between consciousness and the manifestation of reality (which, if you think about it, is an incredibly self-centered perspective...the universe was doing just fine long before we magnificent humans rose up out of the brackish slime, and will do just fine after some bellowing retard presses the red button).

"What the (Bleep) Were They Thinking?"
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html
#9
Radio and Podcasts / Re: Art Bell
February 19, 2016, 06:06:00 PM
DaFuck.  Did MV just disable everyone's Ignore Lists, or am I just special?
#10
Radio and Podcasts / Re: Art Bell
February 19, 2016, 04:00:30 PM
Quote from: norland2424 on February 19, 2016, 03:44:24 PM
My only " concern " with the whole youtube thing for his daughter is that people will end up using her to troll him, as in sending her lewd comments or messages etc, but over all i wont be losing any sleep over it.

I understand that â€" after reading this thread for the last couple of months it’s clear that the moral turpitude of many people in our society knows no bounds.

It’s just sick that this is “the new normal.”  I feel like we’re the frog in the slowly boiling water â€" nobody seems to notice that over the last 50-60 years our society has gone from “basically decent with an occasional psychopath making trouble” to “basically psychopathic with an occasional act of decency sparking in the darkness.”

And our reaction isn’t “wow this is fucked up,” it’s “hide your face and don’t speak too loudly then maybe the monsters won’t get you.”
#11
Radio and Podcasts / Re: Art Bell
February 19, 2016, 03:33:58 PM
The creepiest part of this thread right now is seeing all of these people outraged that a kid would have a YouTube channel, because we’re all so brain-washed to accept the fact that our society has become so dangerous/malignant that simply having an online presence is considered to be an imprudent invitation for disaster.

Isn’t anyone else troubled that we live in a nightmarish dystopia where we all feel like we have to cower with our heads down like a bunch of whipped slaves?

Orange Alert!  Some guy let his kid make the egregious error of reaching out to our twisted dystopian nightmare of a society!

“Land of the Free”…what a joke.
#12
Quote from: TigerLily on February 19, 2016, 02:02:54 AM
Thanks, Chronaut.  Love you too

Awww...good night sweet TigerLily  :-*
#13
Quote from: TigerLily on February 19, 2016, 02:01:39 AM
Thanks for me too. I'm almost vegetarian and docs are always trying to get me on statins

This new approach may be exactly what you need too - a sort of "genetic patch" to fix the problem at the source.  Fascinating and exciting stuff.
#14
Quote from: TigerLily on February 19, 2016, 01:32:03 AM
I'm glad I chose a troll free night to show up

Me too, it was nice here tonight.  Even nicer that you showed up ;
#15
Quote from: TigerLily on February 19, 2016, 01:42:50 AM
That is great news. My family is basically skinny, high cholesterol, die of heart attacks. But no cancer

Mine too - my dad was a fit 30yo when he had his first attack.  I told my big brother about it over Christmas, and now maybe he'll never have an attack =)

Glad I could pass on some news to share with your kinfolk ;)
#16
Quote from: Showroom Dummy on February 19, 2016, 01:29:47 AM
Repatha (evolocumab) is a monoclonal antibody targeting PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) for the treatment of patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, or patients with atherosclerotic heart disease who require additional lowering of LDL-cholesterol.

Yep, a whole new strategy to treat the problem.  The way they figured it out through genetic analyses of a town in Italy where nobody died of heart disease, then engineered a fix for the rest of the world, was amazing science at work.
#17
Quote from: akwilly on February 19, 2016, 01:23:29 AM
Heather is earning her money tonight. This guest is not very good in my opinion.

He co-hosts The Paracast.  I guess he's tired of talking about it.
#18
Quote from: TigerLily on February 19, 2016, 01:18:12 AM
Don't let her come near you with a home cholesterol testing kit

There's a new med called "Repatha" that basically fills in for the genetic defect that causes arteriosclerosis - could cure most of the heart disease epidemic
#19
Quote from: Jackstar on February 19, 2016, 01:20:01 AM


I need to charge my blaster...

"Dolphin mutilations"...damn, sorry SciFiAuthor...
#21
Quote from: akwilly on February 19, 2016, 01:06:29 AM
rods can't get mutilated

This woman begs to differ


Lorena Bobbitt
#22
Quote from: SciFiAuthor on February 19, 2016, 01:01:50 AM
Kind of nice to have a positive, fun thread tonight.

Indeed it is...I wonder where all the people on the ignore list got off to...good riddance.
#23
Quote from: ShayP on February 19, 2016, 12:44:07 AM
The prions only live in nervous system tissue...and you can get it.  The muscles (steaks) are perfectly fine.

I chuckle at your last comment.  Cheers to you!  ;)

Always happy to provide a chuckle, Señor  =)

I wouldn't be so sure about eating steaks of an infected animal though (and god only knows what's in burgers):

"The disease may be most easily transmitted to human beings by eating food contaminated with the brain, spinal cord or digestive tract of infected carcasses.[3] However, the infectious agent, although most highly concentrated in nervous tissue, can be found in virtually all tissues throughout the body, including blood."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy
#24
Quote from: ShayP on February 19, 2016, 12:28:46 AM
I get that he is recognizing the animal as a living being before slaughter...along with all the pathogens, etc.

If the meat is cooked you don't get that stuff.  Even with his theory that it changes your blood there's no need to worry.  After cooking...the cells are killed.  Be concerned if you eat rare or raw.

Well, that won't protect you against prions, if the cow is infected.  If I heard right, if you reduced a steak infected with prions to ashes, the ash could give you mad cow disease.  Freaky.

I like that he seems to favor prosaic explanations of cattle mutilations.
#25
Quote from: FearBoysWithBugs on February 18, 2016, 09:26:02 AM
All that may be true, but just try to get his help when buying a spacetime crystal from some dude in the Tenderloin.

Haha...I  tried bartering for some dilithium crystal down there and the savages stonewalled me; so now I have to construct an antimatter regulator using stone knives and bearskins.

Quote from: area51drone on February 18, 2016, 10:19:35 PM
I'd love to see a video/animated gif of what a candle would look like to an outside observer if it were suspended in an increasing gravity field.   Get on that shit, boys.

You say there is no chance it wouldn't be color shifted, but by how much?  What happens once the photons reach the regular gravity field of earth and return to near the speed of light (in a vaccuum)?   Why wouldn't they shift back since they are then increasing in speed?    I know there was an experiment where someone "stopped" or slowed light significantly down in a medium.   What happened to the color of that light when was released?  Hoping you are familiar with that experiment...

A candle seen from outside a gravitational field would just look Doppler shifted - redder and dimmer...and a strong enough field would also create a visible gravitational lens.  All of those effects would come into play as time approached a stop at the center of the field, at which point the candle would disappear completely from view.  The time dilation and the gravitational redshift are proportional, and dependent on the intensity of the field.

In free space, and the air is pretty close to free space for this consideration, the speed of light is constant.  Gravity just shifts the frequency of light, not the speed.  You can think of the photons (for example a blue photon) losing energy to escape the gravity well, so it drops in frequency as it climbs out of the well toward your eye, arriving at your retina red-shifted.

Your last part refers to "slow light" experiments in various media, but that's an unrelated phenomenon requiring special mediums and/or waveguides for the light to pass through:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light
#26
Quote from: area51drone on February 18, 2016, 02:07:04 AM
I don't know if I'm using the right terminology here, but can one of you explain how a large mass can collapse to a single point in terms of a quantum field?   As AO expressed early on in this thread, we should really think of everything in terms of fields.   Mass, as far as I understand, is just a fluctuation in this field, when great enough there is quanta that becomes say a proton (or a quark whatever). 
In 2D terms, I think of an oscilloscope, and maybe this is the wrong way to think about it, but let's say you have a particle (a bit of mass) when the scope reads 5 volts at a wave crest.   Is that a fair, albeit overly simplistic analogy?  In that example, would a lot of mass close together be a higher frequency in the field? 

Some of this is pretty good, but our current model is a little more complicated than your description.  Quantum field theory describes photons as excitations in an underlying electromagnetic field, where the energy is proportional to the frequency:  smaller waves have more energy than bigger waves.  But each type of quark has its own quantum field, and electrons have their own quantum field.  And then there’s the Higgs field which gives the quarks mass.  We don’t have a quantum field theory for gravity yet. 

Oddly, it appears that most of the mass of a proton is in the kinetic energy of the quarks and the enormous binding energy of the gluons they swap back and forth constantly.

In concept a singularity would be a point-like excitation in all of the quantum fields.  It’s not so far-fetched when you consider that an electron has mass, and it’s point-like.  But we don’t really know what quantum rules apply to matter under black hole singularity conditions; I think a lot of physicists suspect that a true point-like singularity is unlikely, but the ultimate arbiter will be the data.

Quote from: area51drone on February 18, 2016, 02:07:04 AM
I have another question for you Chron, as it relates to Bob Lazar.  Do you recall his comments about the candle flame?   What do you think about what he said in terms of his claims of a gravity generator?  What brings this question to mind is this:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/time-changed-inside-a-black-hole/

I’ve always thought that candle story was one of the biggest problems with Bob Lazar’s cover story.  Because for one thing, the reactor isn’t containing the gravitational field if it can time dilate a candle outside of it, but more crucially, time and frequency are dependent on each other, so if the candle became time dilated close to a standstill as he describes, the frequency of its light should be deeply red-shifted, and it would be much fainter.  It makes no sense to have a region of slowed time without changing the color or intensity of the light emitted from it.  Unless it's not a time effect at all, but some kind of acoustical standing wave effect holding the air in that region very still...that's just speculation though.

But again, I think that all of Lazar’s stuff about ufos and the gravity generator etc, is just cover story, fiction:  a fanciful tale to capture the public’s imagination so that the real “payload” of information â€" the military’s interest in funding superheavy element research, would get out to budget committees and other compartmentalized black budget programs.  With his actual background, which we know from a slew of public records, a guy like Lazar couldn’t get a job as a janitor at Area 51 or S-4, imo.  But he could certainly get a job as cut-out: a non-government shill employed to tell a story.
#27
Radio and Podcasts / Re: Art Bell
February 18, 2016, 04:42:18 AM
Quote from: norland2424 on February 18, 2016, 04:31:18 AM
he means this

The FBI is a step above the State Troopers, of course they don't have access to the NSA's classified and compartmentalized decryption resources.  Crikes, I wonder how many other Americans don't know the difference between law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
#28
Radio and Podcasts / Re: Art Bell
February 18, 2016, 04:14:55 AM
Quote from: Value Of Pi on February 18, 2016, 03:52:52 AM
You sound genuinely offended that I would ask you about this news development, Chronaut.

I have no idea what you’re talking about, and honestly I could care less about some story about a cell phone.  The leaked Snowden documents make it clear that there’s practically no such thing as network security, online privacy, or a trustworthy popular social media platform.  Part of the problem with compartmentalization is that useful intelligence resources aren’t available to every agency that needs them, when they need them.  And yes, that should concern US citizens.

But I’m not going to waste any more time with someone who tries to characterize me as some kind of cult thinker, when I’ve offered all the credible evidence that any rational and intelligent person would need to see the logical basis of my concerns:

Quote from: Value Of Pi on February 18, 2016, 03:52:52 AM
when people emerge from whatever cult-like influences cloud their vision (or maybe, North Korea) and see the world through glasses not covered in some form of Bulldooky.
/click
#29
Radio and Podcasts / Re: Art Bell
February 18, 2016, 03:24:27 AM
Quote from: Jackstar on February 18, 2016, 03:11:42 AM
I don't necessarily go all the way out on that limb here on this guy--he could just be acting that way because that's what passes for training in critical thinking in U.S. education today.

In either case, Value of Pi demonstrably acts like a corporate fascist shill. That's on record now. It's vaguely adorable.

That's my default assumption, but it was just a totally bizarre and unwelcome post to get after it seemed like we'd settled this yesterday.  I hate to think that sincere, well-meaning people could be so conditioned to reject the idea that our government agencies are involved in manipulating online discourse, that they can't even recognize incontrovertible evidence when they see it.

Troubling.
#30
Radio and Podcasts / Re: Art Bell
February 18, 2016, 03:07:23 AM
Quote from: Ciardelo on February 18, 2016, 02:21:53 AM
?

Yeah, me too:  wtf?

Quote from: Value Of Pi on February 18, 2016, 02:20:19 AM
Chronaut, are you out there, Chronaut? I demand an explanation. How come these all-powerful covert government spy agencies don't have the know-how to get into one lousy smartphone? How is anybody supposed to take all the government conspiracy theories seriously, or believe in the plot to control the Internet, if a judge has to order Apple to cooperate?

I know this is bad, but sometimes you have to get out there and face the music. Especially when the government can't even get the music to play on iTunes.

What an unexpected and inappropriate post you’ve made here Value Of Pi.

I’ve already provided ample evidence (credible reports and links to the relevant leaked documents) of actual covert government infiltration of the internet using paid shills to manipulate social media like facebook and chat rooms like this one, and now out of the blue you’re mocking the subject again, and carrying on about things that haven’t been mentioned on the board nor have we ever talked about.

Maybe Jackstar’s right about you; this is exactly the kind of weird noise I’d expect from a disinformation agent.  It reminds me of this video about the campaign to discredit anyone and everyone who calls attention to the creepy shit the government has been caught red-handed doing:

The Conspiracy "Theory" Conspiracy, Adam Green, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuQTtw_nLoA

If you have any rational objections to the information I’ve cited, I’m willing to discuss it in a civil and sincere manner.  But if your only agenda is to make people who follow the facts seem foolish, then don’t waste my time.  Thanks.

Here are the citations I provided.  If you have specific rational arguments against it, then let’s hear it:

“NSA's phone spying program ruled illegal by appeals court,” Jonathan Stemple, May 7, 2015
“Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Democrat, said ‘the NSA is out of control and operating in an unconstitutional manner.’”
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-idUSKBN0NS1IN20150507
 
“How Covert Agents Infiltrate The Internet to Manipulate, Deceive And Destroy Reputations,” Glenn Greenwald, Feb 24, 2014
“One of the many pressing stories that remains to be told from the Snowden archive is how western intelligence agencies are attempting to manipulate and control online discourse with extreme tactics of deception and reputation-destruction. It’s time to tell a chunk of that story, complete with the relevant documents.”
https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/
 
“U.S. Military Launches Spy Operation Using Fake Online Identities,” Amy Lee, May 25, 2011
“According to the contract between US Central Command (Centcom) and California company Ntrepid, the software would let each user control 10 personas, each "replete with background, history, supporting details, and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographically consistent." The software would also be able to let personas "appear to originate in nearly any part of the world" and interact through "conventional online services and social media platforms," while using a static IP address for each persona to maintain a consistent online identity.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/17/online-persona-management_n_837153.html
 
“Exclusive: Snowden Docs Show British Spies Used Sex and 'Dirty Tricks,’” Matthew Cole, Feb 7, 2014
“British spies have developed "dirty tricks" for use against nations, hackers, terror groups, suspected criminals and arms dealers that include releasing computer viruses, spying on journalists and diplomats, jamming phones and computers, and using sex to lure targets into ‘honey traps.’”
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/snowden-docs-british-spies-used-sex-dirty-tricks-n23091
 
“Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media,” Nick Fielding and Ian Cobain, March 17, 2011
“The project has been likened by web experts to China's attempts to control and restrict free speech on the internet. Critics are likely to complain that it will allow the US military to create a false consensus in online conversations, crowd out unwelcome opinions and smother commentaries or reports that do not correspond with its own objectives.
The discovery that the US military is developing false online personalities â€" known to users of social media as "sock puppets" â€" could also encourage other governments, private companies and non-government organisations to do the same.”
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/mar/17/us-spy-operation-social-networks
 
“The Real War on Reality,” Peter Ludlow, June 14, 2013
“What has received less attention is the fact that most intelligence work today is not carried out by government agencies but by private intelligence firms and that much of that work involves another common aspect of intelligence work: deception. That is, it is involved not just with the concealment of reality, but with the manufacture of it.”
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/the-real-war-on-reality/
 
“Controversial GCHQ Unit Engaged in Domestic Law Enforcement, Online Propaganda, Psychology Research,” Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Fishman, June 22, 2015
“Though its existence was secret until last year, JTRIG quickly developed a distinctive profile in the public understanding, after documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the unit had engaged in “dirty tricks” like deploying sexual “honey traps” designed to discredit targets, launching denial-of-service attacks to shut down Internet chat rooms, pushing veiled propaganda onto social networks and generally warping discourse online.”
https://theintercept.com/2015/06/22/controversial-gchq-unit-domestic-law-enforcement-propaganda/
 
Wikipedia article about reporter Glen Greenwald:
“In June 2013 Greenwald became widely known after The Guardian published the first of a series of reports detailing United States and British global surveillance programs, based on classified documents disclosed by Edward Snowden.[21][22] The series on which Greenwald worked along with others won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.[23][24]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Greenwald
 
Leaked Documents:
 
The Art of Deception: Training for a New Generation of Online Covert Operations
https://edwardsnowden.com/2014/02/25/the-art-of-deception-training-for-a-new-generation-of-online-covert-operations/

Behavioural Science Support for JTRIG’S Effects and Online HUMINT Operations
https://theintercept.com/document/2015/06/22/behavioural-science-support-jtrig/

Cyber Integration "The art of the possible"
https://edwardsnowden.com/2014/02/07/cyber-integration-the-art-of-the-possible/

National Initiative Protection Program â€" Sentry Eagle
https://theintercept.com/document/2014/10/10/national-initiative-protection-program-sentry-eagle
Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod