Who do you trust?

King Mob wrote: »

I don't speak German, and from the comments of the video it looks like there's some debate over the translation.

I do speak German. The translation is (deliberately) awful, to the point where it misconstrues what is said.

Here's the simplest example, which you can verify for yourself:

Go to 1:20 in the video. The subtitle says:

[...] The registers report emissions of contrails at low altitudes [...]

This is faded out word by word as it is replaced by text from a document which says:

[...]Die aufzeichnungen belegen, dass dabei sehr geringen mengen von Düppeln ausgebracht wurden[...]

Use the translation tool of your choice to translate this german. It'll probably have problems with the word "Düppeln", but you can go somewhere like dict.leo.org to confirm that it is, in fact, the german for chaff.

Translated correctly, the statement should read:

[...]The records show, that very low levels of chaff were deployed [...]

For the record, the entire video is about a weather-man complaining about how the military were deploying chaff, which caused meteorological radar to show massive cloud cover that wasn't there at all. The skies were clear, but the meteorological services were reading the rapid formation of a massive cloud-bank.

So no-one was playing with contrails or the weather. Rather, the meteorologist in question was making the suggestion that the military were perhaps testing ways to generate false weather information.

The original article is from RTL - a mainstream, reputable broadcaster in Germany.

So that would make 3 for 3 on the reports quoted coming from mainstream media, but the non-mainstream translation of one being, quite frankly, so wrong that its virtually impossible it was a genuine misunderstanding.

But what about the effects of chemtrails (which I'd love to know) how are they being covered up? Or is every meteorologist, climatologist and doctor as well as every news agency ever paid off?

No one source, but usually an assortment of sites.

Military.com is usually good. And when it's not, it's member will say so.:D

mysterious wrote: »

I consider myself, a cosmic being living a human experience. My path, is to live this reality, and restore more balance in using my gifts. Spread the knowledge that comes via through me.

I believe, reincarnation can happen if your higher power wants to manifest it. I believe that not all of us reincarnate here. Our souls, continue. It's the concious part of the universe, does not take shape or form. But is the knowing part. Its the part of the universe that exist pre big band and after big bang. We all come from the same thing, the same source. Our souls now are just experiencing the human experience. We can maifest anywhere in the cosmos and appear anywhere. But this is form our manifestation is beyond my capability. This taps into interdimensional being.

From an early age, life experience taught me in special ways, that the material world was always just a test and a distraction of our true selves. When the other kids, followed the curriculam

I used to look outside,(I was about 4) and the clouds would pass, the birds flying by, and all that exist out there would speak to me. in away unique way. I'm not saying the birds or clouds would speak. But the cosmos was showing this reality to me and helping me to be aware and remember.

Of what is.

Very mystical altogether.

Kernel wrote: »

Honourable mention for Deep Throat btw. Legend. (not the porno)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat

Interesting choice.

Deep Throat was either:

A man who betrayed his position of trust in order to serve what he felt were more important goals, but who upheld that trust in other conditions.

or

A man who sold a lie so convincing that even the most cynical pro- and anti- establishment types alike are likely to believe it without question - the perfect "disinfo" agent.

So if he told me something today...would I believe him? I don't know. I'd have to consider that he may be telling me a lie because his position demanded it and his morals didn't dand otherwise. His history with the FBI should leave no doubt that he was capable of such.

He may be telling me a lie because his morals demanded it and his position required that I not be told the truth. Given that he didn't go public and always denied being Deep Throat until after his death, this follows logically - he was willing to lie to preserve his position.

He may be telling me a lie because there's some deeper game being played, and none of us should trust anything from anyone who got to the position he did. This has nothing to do with Felt himself, but would be a logically implied possibility from a belief in a "government behind governments", NWO, or other such thing.

He may be telling me the truth.

Would I trust him? No more or less than I trust most other people. I certainly wouldn't just accept his word that something was true because he was in a position to know. I wouldn't accept it because it fitted to my existing world-view, or because the implications appealed to me, nor would I reject it because of the reverse.

Of course, if we accept that Felt was trustworthy to the public, and was willing to expose corruption at the highest levels because his conscience demanded it...then surely this also suggests that there are extreme flaws in the idea that government agencies are corrupt through and through. Felt was a Deputy Director of the FBI - in effect he was second in command. If he was trustworthy, how could the entire Bureau below him be a tool of corruption? If they were, and Felt knew it, then that is another mark against him, for he kept the trust on any amount of corruption that he should have exposed.

bonkey wrote: »

Interesting choice.

Deep Throat was either:

A man who betrayed his position of trust in order to serve what he felt were more important goals, but who upheld that trust in other conditions.

or

A man who sold a lie so convincing that even the most cynical pro- and anti- establishment types alike are likely to believe it without question - the perfect "disinfo" agent.

I read the book as a young teenager, (my old man had been sent a copy from America; that was a bid deal for us at the time ), but I've never watched the film completely.

If I remember correctly (and we're talking about 30 years ago) Deep Throat rarely actually gave any specific information. Woodward and Bernstein were caught up in a puzzle as Deep Throat gave vague pointers to where they should be going. ("Follow the money" and stuff like that). In meetings Deep Throat didn't volunteer much information, he just didn't seem to deny it when certain truths were put to him.

Just an observation.

I was puzzled there for a bit, being a newcomer here.



Note that "Facts" can be checked, be 100% correct and yet can be presented to give the opposite impression to people that don't analyse carefully than what an unbiased, even handed report would give.

The organisational "Agenda" (which may be good or bad, that's not the point) eventually colours the culture of the news gatherers, script writers and presenters. They emphasis what is important to them and leave out what they think is unimportant, and may believe that they are honest and un-biased when they are not. They may also not have a "bigger picture".

It's important thus to be educated, never take things at face value, compare sources and who is funding them (Tea may be healthier than drinking water, but if that is funded by the Tea Council, is the emphasis right?), who is advertising, who they regard as an important "not to be alienated audience" etc..

Learn to think logically. Have some proper understanding of Statistics and Probability.

If a drug in a trial helps 30% of people...

* How big was the trial compared with % of people that get that disease?
* How big was the trial in absolute terms?
* Was it Double Blind?
* What percentage helped by Placebo?
* How did they defined "helped"?
* What sort of "clumping" or clusters of cases can be attributed to random distribution, Random doesn't mean even.
* Do you understand how big a Random Walk can be?
Most media reports involving statistics on their own actually tell you nothing