|
One of the saddest lessons of history is this:
If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the Truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back. Carl Sagan It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. Mark Twain |
Contact: [email protected]
|
In 2014, randomly and unsuspectingly, I clicked a link in Facebook to the 3.5 hour film on YouTube by British historian, Francis Richard Conolly, JFK to 9/11: Everything is a Rich Man's Trick. (Search to get link as the film is constantly removed and just click the warning button if there is one.) This awakened me to the Emperor's New Clothes / Hitlerian Lie world we live in. I want to do my bit against the massive resistance from all sides to getting the truth out, especially as I have no desire to live in the global fascist state we are inexorably moving towards.
Recently, I wondered how I came to be a staged event analyst. Generally, I'm shamefully clueless about politics and history and it puzzled me that - at a macro level at least - I seem to understand these events better than other people. I've come to the conclusion that I possess a quality I wasn't even aware of and would have expected to be quite common but, apparently, isn't. The quality is that my respect for the evidence is absolute. I'm not swayed by my emotions nor am I unwilling to change my beliefs or recognise that I've been duped - I feel no sense of shame at being duped where others, I think, do, which makes them resistant to recognising it. Nor do I feel investment in my beliefs. I don't particularly want something to be true or false for whatever reason. Obviously, I don't think any of us likes recognising that quite prevalently among those who rule us are people engaged in heinous practices related to children, that's quite painful, but other than that kind of thing I do not care what the truth is. If astronauts accomplished the astounding achievement of landing on the moon in 1969, fantastic! (I think the evidence clearly says they did) but if it proved they didn't, so be it. That's it in a nutshell. I may have believed something for years but in almost an instant I'll turn on a dime to believe something else if the evidence indicates I should.
Another thing I do which I quite honestly have not seen in anyone else I've debated (although from what I've read of Gerard Holmgren's writing he certainly would have) is instinctively maintain constant reference to my mental database of all pieces of available evidence to ensure they support and favour my chosen hypothesis so that whenever a new piece of evidence appears that may seem to contradict all those seeming pieces of evidence in my mental database I'll do a complete review to see where the problem is - for four years of study of 9/11 I believed death and injury were real but the egg started to crack 3 years in and finally shattered after 4 years. It utterly astounds me how people will latch onto one item, cherry-picking style, and debate its significance with zero consideration of all the other related items bobbing around in the sea of evidence in which it swims. Assuming one of the hypotheses under consideration is correct, it and it only can be correct and all the evidence must support and favour it. That is how you get to the truth - ensuring that every single solitary piece of available evidence supports and favours your chosen hypothesis. Of course, you may be missing important evidence that means none of the hypotheses under consideration are correct or that another hypothesis under consideration is, in fact, the correct one but if there are a significant number of pieces of evidence available, chances are you should be able to determine the correct hypothesis. Another thing people are guilty of is refusing to recognise certain facts that can be used as cornerstones in determining a correct hypothesis. There is overwhelming evidence in psyops that the perpetrators give us clues above and beyond any naturally occurring anomalies. I haven't looked at a single event that was a psyop where this hasn't occurred and yet people will argue it's a "theory" or simply pretend this cornerstone doesn't exist when not only is the evidence very clear, it's been identified as a phenomenon known as "revelation of the method" aka "hidden in plain sight".
After watching JFK to 9/11 it took a little while to accept that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy because my initial awakening was only to the "inside conspiracy" part of the event not the key "staged death and injury" part (which took 4 years of study to get to). Had the awakening been to both truths at the same time it would have happened more quickly because the evidence of fakery of the plane crashes and controlled demolition is very clear - it was just the extreme cognitive dissonance required to accept that the US government callously killed the people in the buildings which set me back (the pretence of which was so cleverly suppressed by their truther-targeted propaganda campaign) but then - as I learnt four years on - they didn't kill those people (of course, that would never be their MO), no cognitive dissonance required (at least in that regard)! Once over the initial 9/11 hurdle, my mind was set to be open to whatever evidence came my way. Other people judge by what seems plausible and implausible, their emotions or invested-in beliefs or other reasons. When you're analysing events perpetrated at the behest of the power elite you must be ruthlessly detached in your analysis. Being swayed by emotions or beliefs and not holding the evidence as paramount is a massive impediment and will block the truth from view. The counterintuitive thing is that these events are not so difficult to analyse as no one could accuse the power elite of not being most generous with their clues. It's really only by wilfully discounting these clues that the truth is not apparent.
Perhaps another, less virtuous, reason I'm drawn to these events is the fact the necessary information is at our fingertips which means that you don't have to go into the bowels of a library digging out archival material or visit sites to question the locals (not that that wouldn't help although it's amazing how close to an event the propaganda still works like magic) to figure out what's what. The media stories themselves, the work of others on the internet, Wikipedia (what a great source of clues!) and general Google searching are sufficient to get all the information you need. I cannot picture myself doing the research required if these events were staged in as realistic a way as possible and they weren't munificent with their signs and symbols.
My name is Petra Liverani and I live and work as a technical communicator and UX designer in Sydney.
Published
Why do self-styled "skeptics" believe in their own brand of miracles?, OffGuardian, February 27, 2018
Analysis of the sophistry of Noam Chomsky on 9/11, OffGuardian, October 11, 2016
Australia – renewable energy superpower, OpenForum, November 20, 2015
Solar is good for humanity, OpenForum, October 30, 2015
Other webpages
16th Anniversary - Women on 9/11
Occam's Razor on the moon landings - yes, it was an amazing achievement
Recently, I wondered how I came to be a staged event analyst. Generally, I'm shamefully clueless about politics and history and it puzzled me that - at a macro level at least - I seem to understand these events better than other people. I've come to the conclusion that I possess a quality I wasn't even aware of and would have expected to be quite common but, apparently, isn't. The quality is that my respect for the evidence is absolute. I'm not swayed by my emotions nor am I unwilling to change my beliefs or recognise that I've been duped - I feel no sense of shame at being duped where others, I think, do, which makes them resistant to recognising it. Nor do I feel investment in my beliefs. I don't particularly want something to be true or false for whatever reason. Obviously, I don't think any of us likes recognising that quite prevalently among those who rule us are people engaged in heinous practices related to children, that's quite painful, but other than that kind of thing I do not care what the truth is. If astronauts accomplished the astounding achievement of landing on the moon in 1969, fantastic! (I think the evidence clearly says they did) but if it proved they didn't, so be it. That's it in a nutshell. I may have believed something for years but in almost an instant I'll turn on a dime to believe something else if the evidence indicates I should.
Another thing I do which I quite honestly have not seen in anyone else I've debated (although from what I've read of Gerard Holmgren's writing he certainly would have) is instinctively maintain constant reference to my mental database of all pieces of available evidence to ensure they support and favour my chosen hypothesis so that whenever a new piece of evidence appears that may seem to contradict all those seeming pieces of evidence in my mental database I'll do a complete review to see where the problem is - for four years of study of 9/11 I believed death and injury were real but the egg started to crack 3 years in and finally shattered after 4 years. It utterly astounds me how people will latch onto one item, cherry-picking style, and debate its significance with zero consideration of all the other related items bobbing around in the sea of evidence in which it swims. Assuming one of the hypotheses under consideration is correct, it and it only can be correct and all the evidence must support and favour it. That is how you get to the truth - ensuring that every single solitary piece of available evidence supports and favours your chosen hypothesis. Of course, you may be missing important evidence that means none of the hypotheses under consideration are correct or that another hypothesis under consideration is, in fact, the correct one but if there are a significant number of pieces of evidence available, chances are you should be able to determine the correct hypothesis. Another thing people are guilty of is refusing to recognise certain facts that can be used as cornerstones in determining a correct hypothesis. There is overwhelming evidence in psyops that the perpetrators give us clues above and beyond any naturally occurring anomalies. I haven't looked at a single event that was a psyop where this hasn't occurred and yet people will argue it's a "theory" or simply pretend this cornerstone doesn't exist when not only is the evidence very clear, it's been identified as a phenomenon known as "revelation of the method" aka "hidden in plain sight".
After watching JFK to 9/11 it took a little while to accept that 9/11 was an inside conspiracy because my initial awakening was only to the "inside conspiracy" part of the event not the key "staged death and injury" part (which took 4 years of study to get to). Had the awakening been to both truths at the same time it would have happened more quickly because the evidence of fakery of the plane crashes and controlled demolition is very clear - it was just the extreme cognitive dissonance required to accept that the US government callously killed the people in the buildings which set me back (the pretence of which was so cleverly suppressed by their truther-targeted propaganda campaign) but then - as I learnt four years on - they didn't kill those people (of course, that would never be their MO), no cognitive dissonance required (at least in that regard)! Once over the initial 9/11 hurdle, my mind was set to be open to whatever evidence came my way. Other people judge by what seems plausible and implausible, their emotions or invested-in beliefs or other reasons. When you're analysing events perpetrated at the behest of the power elite you must be ruthlessly detached in your analysis. Being swayed by emotions or beliefs and not holding the evidence as paramount is a massive impediment and will block the truth from view. The counterintuitive thing is that these events are not so difficult to analyse as no one could accuse the power elite of not being most generous with their clues. It's really only by wilfully discounting these clues that the truth is not apparent.
Perhaps another, less virtuous, reason I'm drawn to these events is the fact the necessary information is at our fingertips which means that you don't have to go into the bowels of a library digging out archival material or visit sites to question the locals (not that that wouldn't help although it's amazing how close to an event the propaganda still works like magic) to figure out what's what. The media stories themselves, the work of others on the internet, Wikipedia (what a great source of clues!) and general Google searching are sufficient to get all the information you need. I cannot picture myself doing the research required if these events were staged in as realistic a way as possible and they weren't munificent with their signs and symbols.
My name is Petra Liverani and I live and work as a technical communicator and UX designer in Sydney.
Published
Why do self-styled "skeptics" believe in their own brand of miracles?, OffGuardian, February 27, 2018
Analysis of the sophistry of Noam Chomsky on 9/11, OffGuardian, October 11, 2016
Australia – renewable energy superpower, OpenForum, November 20, 2015
Solar is good for humanity, OpenForum, October 30, 2015
Other webpages
16th Anniversary - Women on 9/11
Occam's Razor on the moon landings - yes, it was an amazing achievement
Proudly powered by Weebly