PDA

View Full Version : Wikipedia and the Abuse of Truth



Omni
19th October 2014, 11:36
I've been engaged in a wikipedia edit war for a few days now. I was about to give up this time, since the shills seem to have no end in sight to their intellectual dishonesty. The wiki I am editing is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_auditory_effect

I keep editing the conspiracy theory section. This is the section I'm editing(my edit in bold):

Numerous individuals(according to mainstream health sources) suffering from auditory hallucinations, delusional disorders[9] or other mental illness have claimed that government agents use microwave signals to transmit sounds and thoughts into their heads as a form of electronic harassment, referring to the technology as "voice to skull" or "V2K".[10] There are extensive online support networks and numerous websites maintained by people fearing mind control. California psychiatrist Alan Drucker has identified evidence of delusional disorders on many of these websites[9] and other psychologists are divided over whether such sites negatively reinforce mental troubles or act as a form of group cognitive therapy.[11]

I am looking for a source that reports a court case by John St.Clair Akwei VS the NSA. He reported microwave hearing(electronic telepathy), and won his court case in I believe 1992. This would be a big thing for that page. However I can only find a bunch of fringe sites with any info on it. It seems all the "official" sources stay away from news like this. Perhaps it is societal engineering by TPTB, to(one reason) make sure wikipedia remains firmly on the side of the establishment.

If anyone has an official source for the John St.Clair Akwei case, please do post it. Although I would bet it gets deleted from the wiki page if I do find an official source... That is how rabid these shills are. I make the edit and within 12 hours it is edited back by the rabid pack of shills. I have had my first bout of anger/rage for years from this. I guess I should be happy the wiki page is allowed to exist at all. I guess I am learning first hand what I heard a long time ago, that wikipedia is totally controlled, minus things they just can't deny.

Atlas
19th October 2014, 12:58
Editor’s Note:

I tried ringing Mr Akwei to find out what was the out-come, if any, of his court case. He firmly but kindly told me that he could not speak about anything to do with the case over the phone and hung up. A subsequent conversation of similar length resulted in the information that he did not wish his address or phone number published with this article. So, if we hear of any developments, we’ll let you know.




[...] The lawsuit filed by John St. Clair Akwei against the National Security Agency in 1992 was quickly disimissed by then Judge Stanley Sporkin, in efforts to prevent a jury from learning about the NSA’s domestic spy operations.

Sporkin was a very corrupt judge who as a former general counsel to the CIA has a history of perverting the criminal justice system in the United States in order to conceal treasonous crimes that the U.S. Intelligence community is perpetrating against the American people.

Now retired from the bench Sporkin is involved with the payouts being made by British Petroleum to the victims of its recent oil spill. In reality, stonewalling these payouts is a better illustration of what Sporkin is being used for. [...]

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20111215201507/http://wemustknow.net/2010/12/national-security-agency-nsa-covert-operations-of-the-u-s/

----------------------------------------

Related thread: projectavalon.net/National-Security-Agency-NSA-Covert-operations-of-the-U.S. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?9533-National-Security-Agency--NSA-----Covert-operations-of-the-U.S.)

Omni
19th October 2014, 13:12
Editor’s Note:

I tried ringing Mr Akwei to find out what was the out-come, if any, of his court case. He firmly but kindly told me that he could not speak about anything to do with the case over the phone and hung up. A subsequent conversation of similar length resulted in the information that he did not wish his address or phone number published with this article. So, if we hear of any developments, we’ll let you know.




The NSA’s Signals Intelligence EMF Scanning Network has been used to secretly brain fingerprint the United States population. The lawsuit filed by John St. Clair Akwei against the National Security Agency in 1992 was quickly disimissed by then Judge Stanley Sporkin, in efforts to prevent a jury from learning about the NSA’s domestic spy operations.

Sporkin was a very corrupt judge who as a former general counsel to the CIA has a history of perverting the criminal justice system in the United States in order to conceal treasonous crimes that the U.S. Intelligence community is perpetrating against the American people.

Now retired from the bench Sporkin is involved with the payouts being made by British Petroleum to the victims of its recent oil spill. In reality, stonewalling these payouts is a better illustration of what Sporkin is being used for. [...]

Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20111215201507/http://wemustknow.net/2010/12/national-security-agency-nsa-covert-operations-of-the-u-s/

----------------------------------------

Related thread: projectavalon.net/National-Security-Agency-NSA-Covert-operations-of-the-U.S. (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?9533-National-Security-Agency--NSA-----Covert-operations-of-the-U.S.)
Thanks buares. Odd there would be so many articles about him winning his case if he lost it. I guess I was wrong about that bit.

Atlas
19th October 2014, 13:27
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Docket-Case-92cv00449-1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Docket-Case-92cv00449-2.jpg
Download PDF (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Docket-Case-92cv00449.pdf)

Atlas
19th October 2014, 13:48
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-3.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-4.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-5.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-6.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-7.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-8.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-9.jpg

Atlas
19th October 2014, 13:49
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-10.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-11.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-12.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-13.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-14.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File-15.jpg
Download PDF (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Akwei-v-NSA-Case-File.pdf)

Atlas
19th October 2014, 13:55
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1679009642/My_AIIM_Photograph_400x400.JPG

John Akwei on Twitter: http://twitter.com/JohnAkwei/

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/v/t1.0-9/10400636_77330697624_5001_n.jpg?oh=2a3bf6d149d0376 543813ff96212aa21&oe=54E8F6D8&__gda__=1424631841_e00c73f1083f4a116bbdd56e230e3b0 d

And on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/john.akwei.1

https://scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/v/t1.0-9/10033_10151915807162625_1847674665_n.jpg?oh=09e9f7 1577b22219aca3531e5c1915cf&oe=54E8FF6E




Thanks, +Author Renee Pittman M.:

In 1991, I visited over 20 libraries in the Washington DC area in order to investigate ESB, and often encountered the research of Jose Delgado:
http://io9.com/5871598/the-scientist-who-controlled-peoples-minds-with-fm-radio-frequencies

Also, Robert G. Heath's research into psychological control of society is very interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Galbraith_Heath

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--8GXTdqEK--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18lp4ezw6bf32jpg.jpg
Source: https://plus.google.com/100282149721455636558/posts

Atlas
19th October 2014, 14:33
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Covert-Operations-of-the-US-National-Security-Agency-1.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Covert-Operations-of-the-US-National-Security-Agency-2.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Covert-Operations-of-the-US-National-Security-Agency-3.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Covert-Operations-of-the-US-National-Security-Agency-4.jpg
Download PDF (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/44908464/avalon/docs/nsa/Covert-Operations-of-the-US-National-Security-Agency.pdf)

Hervé
19th October 2014, 14:41
Hi Omni!

Did you check if Dr. Robert Duncan (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?56002-Must-Read-The-Matrix-Deciphered-by-Dr-Robert-Duncan)'s research and publications/books are "respectable" and "reputable" enough for Wikipedia's acceptance criteria?

Carmody
19th October 2014, 15:31
Yes, wiki is controlled and reverses any 'forward thinking' additions into things that tow the party line.

I tried to edit their alchemy section once or twice, to include modern data on it's connection to nanotechnology and how alchemy is actually achieved, etc. It was changed in less than a day back to calling alchemists 'confused nutcases'.

Gaia
13th August 2015, 13:27
The brilliance of Wikipedia is that:

a) it’s free slogan ''The Free Encyclopedia''

b) the editing is supposed to be done by dispassionate volunteers, so the content is presumably neutral and trustworthy.

Because Wikipedia is such a great, quick, incredibly accessible source for the world, much is at stake for the companies, products, and people catalogued on the site, which has nearly 5 million articles in English and millions more in dozens of other languages.

And sometimes, as an investigation by The Atlantic reports, those with interests in how they’re described on Wikipedia resort to paying freelance writers, PR firms, and assorted Wikipedia experts to make adjustments to the site. For example, there are celebrities and politicians who would prefer that scandals they have been tied to would disappear, or at least be toned down in Wikipedia entries. Businesses understandably want to have their products and services painted in the best light too.

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/

I never use Wikipedia for anything but the most mundane, noncontroversial, fact based searches, like how far is Mars from the Sun or how to calculate the volume of a cone. Anything with the slightest bit of controversy that goes against the Official Narratives I assume has been doctored. That's just the way it is. It is open source censorship.

Gaia

Rex
13th August 2015, 14:32
I have some first hand limited experience with the heavy handed wiki "editors". I had tried to correct some facts on Lloyd Pye's wiki and never got them to stick. They kept reverting them back with one excuse or another. If I remember correctly, they wanted references and I believe I gave them, but they were never good enough. Other fans of Lloyd had tried unsuccessfully as well.

TrumanCash
13th August 2015, 16:01
I have some first hand limited experience with the heavy handed wiki "editors". I had tried to correct some facts on Lloyd Pye's wiki and never got them to stick. They kept reverting them back with one excuse or another. If I remember correctly, they wanted references and I believe I gave them, but they were never good enough. Other fans of Lloyd had tried unsuccessfully as well.

I have had a similar experience with them, too! Wikipedia, from my own observation, is controlled by "the establishment"; it is no longer credible. You can especially see this when it comes to "alternative" health therapies vis-a-vis government/Big Pharma propaganda.

I wonder if this is evidence of or a result of what people like Bill Clinton said regarding there needs to be "fact checking" on the internet. Of course, one can simply substitute the word "propaganda" for "fact checking".

TLC

Gaia
13th August 2015, 17:09
There's no question Google and Wikipedia have some sort of arrangement. Doesn't matter what topic you search for with Google Wikipedia is almost always number 1 in search results. Coincidence? Hardly!

Wikipedia is a bogus source of information. There's nothing grass roots about them at all. The line they give you about their users being able to edit the thing is utterly false. Wikipedia is here to uphold and reinforce the governement/corporate media narrative on any and all events/issues that may threaten the Powers That Be should the alternative view get traction eg Vaccines, Fluoride, Alternative médicine ''Homeopathy is a pseudoscience according to Wikipedia'' 9/11 etc.

Any attempts to edit the thing for a bit of balance eg include the non governement/corporate media version of events in their entries are immediately crushed.

Cjay
14th August 2015, 01:18
It is obvious to many that Wikipedia is heavily manipulated by people who don't want truth to be known.

boolacalaca
1st July 2018, 07:02
38402

It's quite amazing - even as evidence piles up that Wikipedia has become a raging information battleground of competing agendas, memes, PR-bots, and magicians of manufactured reality - a true "fake information" compatriot to fake news - more people rely on it, more professionals default to it, and more social networking behemoths plug into it. Has critical thinking become so lazy as to surrender to WikiSpin? What do you think?

Who Is Philip Cross?
"Philip Cross" has not had one single day off from editing Wikipedia in almost five years. "He" has edited every single day from 29 August 2013 to 14 May 2018. Including five Christmas Days. That's 1,721 consecutive days of editing. 133,612 edits to Wikpedia have been made in the name of “Philip Cross” over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for “Philip Cross’s” Wikipedia activity is astonishing if it is one individual. - Craig Murray

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/

Artificial intelligence service “ORES” gives Wikipedians X-ray specs to see through bad edits
Today, we’re announcing the release of a new artificial intelligence service designed to improve the way editors maintain the quality of Wikipedia. This service empowers Wikipedia editors by helping them discover damaging edits and can be used to immediately “score” the quality of any Wikipedia article. We’ve made this artificial intelligence available as an open web service that anyone can use.

Wikipedia is edited about half a million times per day. In order to maintain the quality of Wikipedia, this firehose of new content needs to be constantly reviewed by Wikipedians. The Objective Revision Evaluation Service (ORES) functions like a pair of X-ray specs, the toy hyped in novelty shops and the back of comic books—but these specs actually work to highlight potentially damaging edits for editors. This allows editors to triage them from the torrent of new edits and review them with increased scrutiny.

ORES is not the first AI to be designed to help Wikipedians to do better quality control work. English Wikipedians have long had automated tools (like Huggle and STiki ) and bots (like ClueBot NG) based on damage-detection AI to reduce their quality control workload.

https://blog.wikimedia.org/2015/11/30/artificial-intelligence-x-ray-specs/

Seeing Corporate Fingerprints in Wikipedia Edits
Since Wired News first wrote about WikiScanner last week, Internet users have spotted plenty of interesting changes to Wikipedia by people at nonprofit groups and government entities like the Central Intelligence Agency. Many of the most obviously self-interested edits have come from corporate networks.

Last year, someone at PepsiCo deleted several paragraphs of the Pepsi entry that focused on its detrimental health effects. In 2005, someone using a computer at Diebold deleted paragraphs that criticized the company’s electronic voting machines. That same year, someone inside Wal-Mart Stores changed an entry about employee compensation...In 2004, someone using a computer at ExxonMobil made substantial changes to a description of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, playing down its impact on the area’s wildlife and casting a positive light on compensation payments the company had made to victims of the spill...And The New York Times Company is among those whose employees have made, among hundreds of innocuous changes, a handful of questionable edits. A change to the page on President Bush, for instance, repeated the word “jerk” 12 times. And in the entry for Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, the word “pianist” was changed to “penis.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/technology/19wikipedia.html

CIA and Vatican edit Wikipedia entries
A US hacker's homemade program to pinpoint origins of Wikipedia edits indicates that alterations to the popular online encyclopedia have come from the CIA and the Vatican. Virgil Griffith's "Wikiscanner" points to Central Intelligence Agency computers as the sources of nearly 300 edits to subjects including Iran's president, the Argentine navy, and China's nuclear arsenal.

Wikiscanner's roster indicates a Vatican computer was used to remove references to evidence linking Ireland's Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams to a decades-old double murder.

Someone at the US Democratic Party's Congressional campaign committee changed a description of conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to replace "comedian" with "bigot" and dub his listeners "legally retarded."

A Republican Party computer purportedly was used after the US invasion of Iraq to change "occupying forces" to "liberating forces" in a Baath Party entry. A United Nations computer is identified as the source of an edit that calls a respected Italian journalist a promiscuous racist. Someone using a US Senate computer altered a profile of veteran White House reporter Helen Thomas to complain she "interrupts" and is annoying. An edit traced by Wikiscanner to the BBC changes causes of former prime minister Tony Blair's heart palpitations from strong coffee and vigorous gym workouts to vodka and exertion in a bedroom. Wikiscanner also identified a BBC computer as being used to change US president George W. Bush's middle name from "Walker" to "Wanker" at Wikipedia. A computer belonging to Reuters news service is listed as adding "mass murderer" to a Wikipedia description of Bush. Griffith said it appears common for political figures to "whitewash" entries by replacing negative adjectives with flattering ones and that corporations seem inclined to insert criticism of competitors.

https://www.smh.com.au/news/Technology/CIA-and-Vatican-edit-Wikipedia-entries/2007/08/18/1186857828993.html

A lie about Mike Pompeo's Gulf War service started with an anonymous Wikipedia edit
US Central Intelligence Agency director and Army veteran Mike Pompeo never served in the Gulf War. But that's not what prominent members of the US Congress and major media outlets have said in articles and in public statements in recent months. Pompeo was never deployed there, the CIA says. The fake claim seems to have first appeared in public in a Wikipedia biography of Pompeo, which was changed anonymously in December 2016. Pompeo has never repeated it himself, but he and the CIA have never corrected the prominent error...The user who made the changes on Wikipedia made them from a mobile phone, the site's history shows. Because phone IPs can change as users move between locations, it's impossible to know if the user had made other edits previously or since.

https://qz.com/1258418/mike-pompeos-gulf-war-service-lie-started-on-wikipedia/

The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia - for Pay
Even minor changes in wording have the potential to influence public perception and, naturally, how millions of dollars are spent. What this means for marketers is that Wikipedia is yet another place to establish an online presence. But what this means for Wikipedia is much more complicated: how can a site run by volunteers inoculate itself against well-funded PR efforts? And how can those volunteers distinguish between information that's trustworthy and information that's suspect?

...the way people answer their everyday questions today means that a lot of research does end on Wikipedia. The site's pages are regularly among the top links that search engines turn up - among the general public, the site's medical articles are estimated to have a larger readership than WebMD. Google has even started embedding excerpts from Wikipedia pages alongside its search results. Wikipedia isn't just the final destination of typical denizens of the Internet; sometimes it's where professional researchers end up as well. Fifty to 70 percent of physicians have been found to consult it as a source of medical information...

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/

Wikipedia Co-Founder Blasts "Appallingly Biased" Wikipedia Entry on Intelligent Design
"As the originator of and the first person to elaborate Wikipedia's neutrality policy, and as an agnostic who believes intelligent design to be completely wrong, I just have to say that this article is appallingly biased. It simply cannot be defended as neutral. If you want to understand why, read this. I'm not here to argue the point, as I completely despair of persuading Wikipedians of the error of their ways. I'm just officially registering my protest." - Larry Sanger

https://evolutionnews.org/2017/12/wikipedia-co-founder-calls-wikipedia-entry-on-intelligent-design-appallingly-biased/

Study reveals bot-on-bot editing wars raging on Wikipedia's pages
Over time, the encyclopedia's software robots can become locked in combat, undoing each other's edits and changing links, say researchers.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/23/wikipedia-bot-editing-war-study

Wikipedia: Our New Technological McCarthyism, Part 1
Today, the internet, often thought of as our world's "final frontier" for free thinkers and the flow and exchange of ideas and information, is seriously ill. It has been systemically infected by ideological viruses, memes of information intent on poisoning freedom of expression that we take for granted every time we use Google or visit Facebook, Youtube and now the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. Censorship is not limited to the governments' attempts to silence dissent. Yet when it succeeds, society is greatly hindered because people no longer have easy access to the whole truth. Censorship is one of the most effective ways to lessen people's freedoms and numb the faculties for critical thought. And because the media, and having access to news and a wide variety of interpretations and opinions is at our finger tips, it has become a critical part of our daily lives.

A censored society is an uneducated society. It destroys progress and can even destroy careers, reputations and personal lives. Over the years we have witnessed a slow and emerging awakening to the falsehoods behind government and corporate interests. The internet and its technologies have been largely responsible for this gradual awakening, evidenced by thegrowing distrust and suspicion towards an oligarchy wishing to control what and what we cannot view and read. This suspicion is healthy even if it means that many find themselves increasingly confused. Yet this sense of freedom, the allowance to be dubious about fake news and manicured knowledge being fed to us is fragile, and even in peril.

In effect, the subconscious script behind Facebook, Google and other multinational internet media is designed to convert our lives into commodities, and then convert commodities into dead money. Lanier would consider this to be a severe threat to our species. "We cannot have a society," Lanier said during a TED talk, "if two people wish to communicate with each other and the only way it can happen is if it is financed by a third party who wishes to manipulate them."

In 1954, the late great French sociologist, philosopher and Christian anarchist Jacques Ellul foresaw that every form of technology would end up becoming a form of control, power and a means to achieve efficiency.

In his blog "Wikipedia We Have a Problem" Viharo describes the immensity of the problem:"There is a disturbing pattern of behaviors evolving across Wikipedia – a number of skeptic activists on Wikipedia believe that only they are qualified to edit a large swath of topics and biographies on Wikipedia, and they seek to purge other editors from those articles or Wikipedia itself. Skeptic activists take this very seriously and treat Wikipedia like a battleground for their activism, where online harassment, slander, bullying, character assassination, and public shaming are all used as tactics to control editing permissions on the world’s largest repository of knowledge."

http://www.vaxchoicevt.com/2018/05/06/wikipedia-our-new-technological-mccarthyism-part-1/

spade
1st July 2018, 10:25
Needs a name change to NWOpedia

Bill Ryan
1st July 2018, 11:13
Yes. :thumbsup: Thanks, Michael... this is important.

See also these threads:


YouTube wants to add Wikipedia Links to Conspiracy Theory Videos (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102101-YouTube-wants-to-add-Wikipedia-Links-to-Conspiracy-Theory-Videos)
Wikipedia Edit Wars (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?76147-Wikipedia-Edit-Wars)

Richard Dolan posted his excellent interview with abduction researcher Kathleen Marden this last week (see this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?97768-Live-Richard-Dolan-s-Feeds-of-Interest&p=1231989&viewfull=1#post1231989)), and described Wikipedia as 'pernicious'.

Richard rightly expresses his disgust at Wikipedia's dishonest policy of smear and ridicule in the face of rigorous, serious research and solid, scientific data (including a ton of 100% authentic FOIA documents showing how very seriously the US military has always taken the subject). The little extract, specifically about Canadian scientist Wilbert Smith (http://www.presidentialufo.com/old_site/smith.htm), is in the audio (http://kgraradioarchives.com/Shows/richard-dolan-show/2018/RDS062518KGRA%20-%20The%20Richard%20Dolan%20Show%20-%20Kathleen%20Marden%20Interview.mp3) from 1:45:13—1:46:40.

Pernicious is the perfect word. We should really use it much more often.

Richard says:



Wikipedia is pernicious when it comes to UFOs. It's absolutely unconscionable how the editors of that website think that they can simply trash the entire UFO subject, and they do at every single opportunity. It's so hamfisted and obvious. I often ask myself, have they no shame whatsoever, like they are just so blatant in how they treat the UFO subject, in every facet of Wikipedia. And yes, they treat Wilbert Smith just terribly.

But they do that with everybody. Everyone associated with the UFO field gets the hardcore... it's not even the skeptic treatment, it's the debunker treatment, that you would expect out of Philip J. Klass's playbook. Smear, don't deal with the facts, just smear the opponent. And that's what they do.

norman
1st July 2018, 11:24
Wikipedia should stay out of science and all things arguable.

It should stick to being a listing service.

It's great for finding song titles etc.

Kryztian
20th March 2019, 00:12
I am starting this thread to document examples of abuse on Wikipedia by fundamentalist “skeptical” zealots. Since Wikipedia only shows account names for the people who edit, it is impossible to know exactly who is doing this work, and one can only speculate about what their mind-set is and what intentions they have. I am assuming that most of these people are well intentioned but have such strong biases about what truth is and what disregard what is “encyclopedic” and put their dogmatic agenda first behind reason and fairness first.

Some examples of this type of abuse.


Overuse of the word “pseudo”, “so-called” and other inappropriate and derogatory terms applied to topics and people only because it offends their “science” based belief-system and their inability to reconcile evidence and information from their fundamentalist beliefs.


Automatic deletion of researched information because it does not come from “reliable” authorities. (Meanwhile anything stated by magician James Randi is treated as gospel truth. There are approximately 900 links to his page as of this writing.)


Character assassination of researchers that have nothing to do with the topic at hand or factual reality.


An unwillingness to accept information that is ambiguous or contradicts official and academic explanations.


Wikipedia is “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” and I do not doubt that there are frequent incidents of people erasing well researched information and replacing it with their own personal epiphany they may have had after ingested mind altering substances, or that there are those who views are absolutist and narrow and feel entitled to broadcast there unique ideas and delete those they disagree with, when in fact an encyclopedia is supposed to be a reflection of the entire intellectual work of humanity.

The problem on Wikipedia is that one school of thought has been given the power to proclaim their superiority over the other, and proclaim their disdain for many hard working researchers in fields such as parapsychology, archeology, ufology, conspiracy, alternative healing, etc.

Kryztian
20th March 2019, 00:18
Wikipedia article on Sam Osmanagich (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semir_Osmanagi%C4%87&oldid=884906450) (article titled Semir Osmanagich (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semir_Osmanagi%C4%87&oldid=884906450))


Semir Osmanagić ... also known as Sam Osmanagich, is a Bosnian businessman... He is best known for promoting his pseudo-archaeological project in central Bosnia (near the town of Visoko) related to the so-called "Bosnian pyramids". Osmanagić claims that a cluster of natural hills in central Bosnia and Herzegovina are the largest human-made ancient pyramids on Earth. He has conducted extensive marketing about the site and promoted tourism there.



It’s amazing how many times people can insert “pseudo” and “so called” into a sentence. Is there any clear distinction as to what constitutes the difference between a “pseudo-archeologist” and a real one? If you want a list of all the archeologists on Wikipedia, you can locate them starting at this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeologists_by_nationality). You will find in here many archeologists who 1) didn’t get a university degree, 2) proposed ideas that were controversial in their own time or discarded by future generations. Osmanagic is involved in study and excavating a site. Why can he not be called an “archeologist”?


In a nutshell, the first paragraph describes Osmanagic as a businessman engaged in promoting tourism to Bosnia. The author(s) is/are saying: he’s just in this for the money folks so he can sell pyramid tchotchkes at his store (not that he has one).. And yet there is absolutely no evidence (at least not in this page) to support this insinuation. Skeptics will tell you they are out to fight unsubstantiated claims, and yet that is exactly what they are trying to convey in this one short paragraph.


Wikipedia almost always lists people by the name that they are commonly known by (e.g. the article is titled “Lady Gaga” and not “Stefani Germanotta”.) Almost all the English speaking world knows him as Sam Osmanagic. Why do Wikipedians insist on listing him as “Semir”?



the hills are common natural formations known as flatirons with no signs of human construction

The above is the simple quick refutation of Osmanagic’s idea. Yes, flatirons are a common geological formation. What they neglect to mention is that this Bosnian formation is four flatirons, all sloping at about the same rate, all at 90 degree angles from each other. Also, the article neglects to mention what has been the focus of Osmanagic’s work - the discovery and excavation of a tunnel system found under the pyramid.




Personally, I am not convinced by Osmanagic’s theory on the pyramid, but I have no reason to believe that he is nothing but completely sincere, honest, hard working and dedicated to uncovering the truth. Just the first paragraph alone is evidence that the powers that be at Wikipedia have given reign to a group of people who have no interest in a fair and balanced representation of the truth and harmfully attack and personally insult people whose work they disagree with.

Bill Ryan
20th March 2019, 00:32
In Richard Dolan's recent interview with Russell Targ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqqcAJXtw00), a well-established mainstream physicist who's done important work with lasers, Targ describes his dispute with Wikipedia.

The problem was that Targ also worked with Hal Puthoff on the famous SRI Remote Viewing research project in the 1970s, which Wiki trashed (of course). That was all that was on Targ's Wiki page.

They would NOT mention his laser work, which was well-known and well-acknowledged. He was published in his field, and had done a bunch of important stuff. They just wanted to make Targ look like a kook.

In the end, Targ asked his friend and colleague, Nobel Prizewinning physicist Brian Josephson, to please step in to intervene. Only then did Wiki appear to concede the point and give Russell Targ at least a partially honest page.

Daozen
20th March 2019, 00:51
I noticed overuse of pseudo and so-called. They are also kind of scathing and patronizing towards Linus Pauling + Iodine therapy.

And this on St Germain:

In order to deflect inquiries as to his origins, he would invent fantasies, such as his being 500 years old,[6] leading Voltaire to sarcastically dub him "The Wonderman".[7]

It doesn't matter if you think St Germain is for real or not. The use of "fantasy" is biased editorializing. "Claimed to be" is more neutral. Even far-fetched claim would be better. "Fantasy" is downright bad writing.

EDIT: I just changed the St Germain article. Made the following comment:

Changed "invent fantasies"" to "far-fetched claims" -- Invent fantasies is biased editorializing.

New article here. Lets see if they roll it back:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_of_St._Germain

*

Here they are BSing over Linus Pauling.

In his later years he promoted nuclear disarmament, as well as orthomolecular medicine, megavitamin therapy,[11] and dietary supplements. None of the latter have gained much acceptance in the mainstream scientific community.[7][12]

A re-evaluation of the claims in 1982 found that the patient groups were not actually comparable, with the vitamin C group being less sick on entry to the study, and judged to be "terminal" much earlier than the comparison group.[153] Later clinical trials conducted by the Mayo Clinic also concluded that high-dose (10,000 mg) vitamin C was no better than placebo at treating cancer and that there was no benefit to high-dose vitamin C.[154][155][156] The failure of the clinical trials to demonstrate any benefit resulted in the conclusion that vitamin C was not effective in treating cancer; the medical establishment concluded that his claims that vitamin C could prevent colds or treat cancer were quackery

*

Quakery. Wow.


Someone could set up a better wiki.

onawah
20th March 2019, 00:59
This just shows how effectively Wikipedia convinces people of the half-truths they post. He is hardly just a businessman. Here is Dr. Semir Osmangich's bio:
"Semir Osmanagich was born on June 1st, 1960 in Zenica.

His father Professor Muris Osmanagic obtained first PhD in mining exploration in former Yugoslavia, was holder of highest scientific award “Nagrada AVNOJ-a”, member of Yugoslav Parliament, minister in Government, and author of number of books and scientific articles. His grandfather Munib Osmanagic moved from Visegrad to Sarajevo between two World Wars and became a director of “Merhamet Bank” in Sarajevo and a member of Parliament of Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Semir Osmanagich completed elementary school in Sarajevo, graduated high school (“Druga gimnazija”) in Sarajevo as a top student in his class in City of Sarajevo (“student of generation”) and completed college diplomas, Masters and PhD at the University of Sarajevo.

His business career started in mid-1980s at UNIS (United Metal Industry of Sarajevo), a huge 55.000-employees corporation where he was working as a research fellow in UNIS-Institute on strategic planning. In 1989 he started his own export-import and construction business in Sarajevo (Bosnia) and Split (Croatia) as the owner of the “Meteorit, Inc.” and “Meteorit 2, Inc.”.

After he moved in Houston, Texas he was working for the manufacturing company “Houston Protectors, Inc.” as a general manager. He started his own business “Met Company, Inc.” (est. 1995.), a manufacturing company with the customers in Oil&Gas, Construction and other industries. He’s presently President of the Met Company, Inc. which employs over 120 employees and owner of “Met Holding Group, LLC”. He was a long-time member of the Board of Directors of non-profit “Alliance for Multicultural Activities” in Houston." "
http://semirosmanagic.com/en/biography.html



Personally, I am not convinced by Osmanagic’s theory on the pyramid, but I have no reason to believe that he is nothing but completely sincere, honest, hard working and dedicated to uncovering the truth. Just the first paragraph alone is evidence that the powers that be at Wikipedia have given reign to a group of people who have no interest in a fair and balanced representation of the truth and harmfully attack and personally insult people whose work they disagree with.

I think if you read the posts from Truthseeker512 (who was there in Bosnia for quite awhile as part of the excavation team) and me (who was following the whole development and posting about it frequently, including my accounts of Dr. O's presentations at several Conferences that I attended) on the thread about Dr. Osmanagich and the Bosnian Pyramid, you may change your mind about the authenticity of the scientific evidence that has been presented by Dr. O. and other reputable scientists. Though that thread is rather jumbled now, you can use the advanced search engine to find those posts.

And here is a list of books he has authored :"PUBLISHED BOOKS:

Dr. Sam Osmanagich, ‘Energy Points of the Planet’, publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia (language: English), 2017., ISBN 978-9958-674-07-5
Dr. Semir Osmanagić, ‘Energetske tačke Planete’, publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia (language: Bosnian), 2017., ISBN 978-9958-674-07-5
Sam Osmanagich, ‘Piramidi Perdute in Bosnia e Piramidi Nel Mondo’, publisher: Uno Editori, Torino, Italy (language: Italian), 2017., ISBN 978-88-99912-27-7
Sam Osmanagich, ‘Das Geheimnis Der Anasazi’, izdavač: Amra Verlag, Hanau, Germany (language: German), 2016., ISBN 978-3-95447-158-4
dr.sci. Semir Osmanagich, ‘Sve piramide svijeta i Bosanska dolina piramida’, (Sixth Edition), publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: BOsanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, (language: Bosnian), 2016., ISBN 978-9958-674-00-6
Dr. Sam Semir Osmanagić, ‘Pyramidy Sveta A Bosenske Udoli Pyramid’, publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, (language: Czech), 2016., ISBN 978-80-260-9489-0
Dr. Sam Osmanagich, Ph.D., ‘A Boszniai Piramisok’, publisher: Angyali Menedek Kiado, Budapest, Hungary, (language: Hungarian), 2016., ISBN 9786155647055
Dr. Sam Osmanagich, Ph.D., ‘Unexpected Archaeological Locations of Israel and Palestine’, publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, (language: English), 2016., ISBN 978-9958-674-06-8
Dr. Semir Osmanagić, ‘Neočekivane arheološke lokacije Izraela i Palestine’, publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, (language: Bosnian), 2016., ISBN 978-9958-674-06-8
Sam Osmanagich, ‘Die Pyramiden Von Bosnien & Auf Der Ganzen Welt’, publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, (language: German), 2015., ISBN 978-9958-674-04-4
Sam Osmanagich, Ph.D. & Peggy Sue Skipper, ‘Ancient History from Behind the Veil’, (second edition), publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, (language: English), 2015., ISBN 978-9958-674-05-1
Dr. Sam Osmanagich, Ph.D., ‘New Archaeology, Megaliths and Energy of the Planet’, publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia (language: English), 2015., ISBN 978-9958-674-03-7
Dr. Semir Osmanagich, ‘Nova arheologija, Megaliti i energija Planete’, publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park; Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, (language: Bosniani), 2015., ISBN 978-9958-674-03-7
Sam Osmanagich, ‘Bosna’Nin Kayip Piramitleri’, publisher: Arkeopera, Istanbul, Turkey (language: Turkish), 2015., ISBN 978-605-396-354-7
Dr. Sam Osmanagich, Ph.D., ‘Les Pyramides A Travers Le Monde & Les Pyramides Perdues De Bosnie’, publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramdia Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, (language: French), 2014., ISBN 978-9958-674-01-3
Dr. Sam Osmanagich, Ph.D. ‘Pyramids Around the World & Lost Pyramids of Bosnia’, (Fourth Edition), publisher. Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, 2014., (language: English), ISBN 978-9958-674-01-3
S. Osmanagič: ‘Vse Piramidi Mira’, izdavač: Veče, Moscow, Russia, 2014., (language: Russia), ISBN 978-5-4444-2030-0
Sam Osmanagich, ‘Die Pyramiden von Bosnien & Auf der Ganzen Welt (Buch)’, publisher: Amra Verlag, Hanau, Germany, (language: German), 2014., ISBN 978-3-95447-160-7
Dr. Semir Osmanagich, Ph.D., Armando Mei, Monica Benedetti, ‘Visoko: La Scienza Occulta Delle Piramidi’, publisher: Amando Mei & Monica Benedetti, Italy, 2013 (language: Italian), ISBN 978-1493606221
Sam Osmanagich, Ph.D., ‘The Mystery of the Anasazi Civilization’, publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, (language: English), 2013, ISBN 978-9958-674-02-0
Sam Osmanagich ‘Las Piramides Del Mundo Y Las Piramides Perdidas de Bosnia’, publisher: Obelisco, Barcelona, Spain (language: Spanish), 2013., ISBN 978-84-9777-993-7
Dr. Sam Osmanagich, Ph.D. ‘Pyramids Around the World & Lost Pyramids of Bosnia’, publisher: Al-Rashed Center, Kuwait City, Kuwait, (language: Arabian), 2012., ISBN 978-99906-622-3-8
Dr. Sam Osmanagich, Ph.D., "Pyramids Around the World & Lost Pyramids of Bosnia", (Third Edition), publisher: Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, 2012., (language: English), ISBN 978-9958-674-01-3
Sam Osmanagich & Peggy Sue Skipper, "Ancient History from Behind the Veil", The New Era Times, Houston, USA, 2011., (language: English), ISBN 978-0-980061-3-1
dr.sci. Semir Osmanagić, ‘Sve piramide svijeta’, publisher: Omega Lan, Zagreb, Croatia, 2011., (language: Croatian), ISBN 978-953-7764-03-6
dr.sci. Semir Sam Osmanagich, ‘Sve piramide svijeta’, (Third Edition), publisher. Fondacija ‘Arheološki park: Bosanska piramida Sunca’, Sarajevo, Bosnia, 2011., (language: Bosnian), ISBN 978-9958-674-00-6
Semir Osmanagić, ‘Sve piramide sveta’, publisher: Ezotheria, Beograd, Serbia, 2011., (language: Serbian), ISBN 978-86-7348-393-1
dr. sci. Semir Osmanagich, “Pyramids Around the World”, publisher: “Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun” Foundation, www.bosnianpyramidofthesun.com, 2010, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (language: Bosnian), ISBN 978-9958-674-00-6
dr. sci. Semir Osmanagich, “Pyramids from Five Continents Will Forever Change the View of Our Past… And Future”, publisher: “Archaeological Park: Bosnian Pyramid of the Sun” Foundation, www.bosnianpyramidofthesun.com, 2010, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (language: Bosnian), ), ISBN 978-9958-674-00-6
Sam Osmanagich, “Mayalarin Dunasi”, publisher: Arkadas Yayinevi, www.Arkadas.com.tr, 2008, Ankara, Turkey (language: Turkish), ISBN 978-975-509-563-9
Semir Sam Osmanagich, “A Boszniai Piramisok Volgve Bosanska piramida Sunca, publisher: Mauna-Fe Publishing, www.maunagic.ba, 2007, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (language: Hungarian)
Semir Sam Osmanagich, “Die Bosniche Pyramide Der Sonne“, publisher: Mauna-Fe Publishing, www.maunagic.ba, 2007, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (language: German)
Semir Sam Osmanagich, “Bosnian Valley of the Pyramids“, publisher: Mauna-Fe Publishing, www.maunagic.ba, 2006, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (language: English)
Semir Osmanagic, “Bosanska dolina piramida”, Mauna-Fe Publishing, www.maunagic.ba, 2006, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (language: Bosnian), ISBN 9958-9252-1-4
Semir Osmanagić, ‘Otkriće prve europske piramide – Bosanska piramida Sunca’, publisher: Klepsidra, 2005., (language: Bosnian), ISBN 9958-9372-0-4
Sam Osmanagich,”Maiade maailm”, Olion, www.eestikirjstused.com, 2005, Tallin, Estonia (language: Estonian), ISBN 9985-66-438-8
Semir Osmanagic, “Misterija Anasazija”, TKD Sahinpasic”, www.btcsahinpasic.com, 2005, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (language: Bosnian), ISBN 9958.41-116-4
Semir Osmanagic, “Civilizacije prije pocetka zvanicne historije”, TKD “Sahinpasic”, www.btcsahinpasic.com, 2005, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (language: Bosnian), ISBN 9958.41-117-2
Semir Osmanagic, “Kosmicka misija Maja”, TKD “Sahinpasic”, www.btcsahinpasic.com, 2005, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegvoina (language: Bosnian), ISBN 9958.41-115-6
Sam Osmanagich, “The Mayan World”, Gorgias Press, www.gorgiaspress.com, 2005, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA (language: English), ISBN 1-59333-274-2
Semir Osmanagic, “Alternativna historija”, TKD “Sahinpasic”, www.btcsahinpasic.com, 2004, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (language: Bosnian), ISBN 1-59333-274-2
Sam Osmanagich, “The World of Maya”, Svjetlost, www.svjetlost.ba, 2004, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (language: English), ISBN 9958-10-654-X
Semir Osmanagic, publisher: “Svijet Maja”, Svjetlost, www.svjetlost.ba, 2004, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (language: Bosnian), ISBN 9958-10-654-X
Sam Osmanagich, “Alternativna povijest”, publisher: Indrija, 2003, Zagreb, Croatia (language: Croatian), ISBN 953-6906906-10-4
Semir Osmanagić, ˝Meki val’, publisher: Svjetlost, 1987., Sarajevo, Bosnian, (jezik. Srpsko-hrvatski)
Osmanagich has authored many books about pyramids, megalithic sites and ancient civilizations around the World. They were published in the United States, Turkey, Estonia, Croatia, Germany, France, Slovenia, Serbia, Hungary, Italy, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Czech Republic, Spain, Kuwait."
http://www.semirosmanagic.com/en/books.html

Praxis
20th March 2019, 15:26
If you are looking to Wikipedia to find the real truth for almost anything, then I would suggest you are using a Knife to try and observe the stars: It is just not the right tool for that.

I approach Wikipedia as the consensus reality image. If you want to know what most humans think on a subject, then wiki is great. It gives you the straight mainstream view on those topics. This is useful for some things, but if you want to actually understand what is happening then it is only useful for some subject. Most math wikis( not the fringe topics like QED or such topics but rather Geometry or algebra or Chemistry) are actually very informative and you can learn alot, if you can understand the lexical convention of that field which are employed heavily throughout all wikis,


Why are you mad at Instragram for letting people photoshop their selfies and pretend they arent? It is the same thing.

Nasu
20th March 2019, 16:23
As Praxis rightly mentioned, Wikipedia is nothing more than a reflection of the status quo in current thought. As time passes fewer and fewer people are relying on it for serious research. Rather it reflects what the unwashed masses SHOULD think. It is a pseudo encyclopedia, so called, that supposedly anyone can edit, but in reality is a tool to steer opinion and thought.

My own belief is that it is a social experiment in propaganda and is used as a reference point for the masses to re orientate their given opinions within the matrix and hive mind..... N

ExomatrixTV
20th March 2019, 19:43
Wikipedia does NOT tolerate ANY discussion about Health Risks & Health Concerns dealing with mass rollout of 5G Cell Towers Everywhere 2019-2020+ ... They just delete all of them even with proper scientific citations ... (see their edit history). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G)Really Creepy!


PURE CENSORSHIP!

Research Stop5G.net (http://Stop5G.net) ... Join: Fb.com/groups/Stop5G (http://Fb.com/groups/Stop5G) ... Support: Fb.me/Stop5G (http://Fb.me/Stop5G)

Kryztian
20th March 2019, 21:48
Wikipedia is nothing more than a reflection of the status quo in current thought.

Yes, that is what I expect Wikipedia to be, a reflection of human thought, not just academic and institutional, but also what grass roots researchers are doing to, especially when universities and the main stream media are silent on subjects . It is an Encyclopedia, which is a reference book, an outline of human knowledge. It's job isn't to definitively answer complex and controversial questions, it is just a starting place to begin one's inquiry.

The problem is that on certain fringe topics, topics largely ignored by the academics and media, the powers that be at Wikipedia are not just biased, but they employ techniques that are dishonest, slanderous, manipulative and have nothing to do with the real intellectual truth being forged out there, either in Universities or at place like the "Conscious Life Expo". Wikipedia claims that it is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but in fact it has allowed a small band of dishonest, mean spirited zealots to dominate the writing process on certain topics and produce writing that is not worthy of an encyclopedia. This is way beyond bias. This is about reason and honesty. While Wikipedia has done an amazingly job on some topics, on others it has failed and shows a lack of integrity.

I only have one example to support that statement so far in this thread, and I am working on another one (this takes a lot of time and one has to track down hard to find references). I also hope others might start analyzing Wikipedia articles and doing a comprehensive analysis of them.

Nasu
21st March 2019, 00:17
It is only a wiki after all. Wiki just denotes it is an editable website / database, editable by the viewer / user. Surely it will only be time before an alternative emerges. Wikiworld, wikiweard, wikiki, etc! If it is not being conceived right now as we type....x... N

Kryztian
21st March 2019, 02:27
It is only a wiki after all.

Yes, it is only a wiki. It is only the fifth most trafficked website on the internet. It is only the most comprehensive collection of articles (over 5 million in English) that people would turn to when beginning a search on a subject they know little about. It is only a popular resource people would turn to when trying to understand illness and treatment options, both medical and alternative. It is only an essential reference for those who want to understand the institutions and personalities that are making world events happen, like war, economic policies, and human rights. It is only the number one most popular place on this planet where someone would turn to for information when they want an explanation longer than the two or three sentence answer given out by Alexa. It is only a major repository of information that human beings would refer to as they try to create a world that is more healthy, just, peaceful and joyful.

Why would we here at Project Avalon NOT care about passionately and deeply about Wikipedia? They are numerous posts on our forum documenting how the six companies that control most news media are disinforming us to bring about war, financial enslavement, sickness, degradation to this planet, injustice. If we are outraged about the mental pollution that humans passively absorb from Television News and Newspapers, why would we not care about the pollution that people actively engaged in researching subjects would encounter in a place like Wikipedia?

And actually, Wikipedia isn't really a Wiki, even though it claims that is is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." If it were a true wiki, it would reflect only the average strengths and weaknesses of the many who participate in constructing this massive wiki. But Wikipedia has administrators. They are gatekeepers, people who have extra pull in shaping and crafting the overall structure of an article, people who get to remove information if they wish. I think many of these people are well intentioned and make a good effort to be fair minded. However, many of these gatekeepers are not and we tend to find them managing the same topics we are interested in here at Project Avalon. I am not sure who these people are, but I imagine that many of them are part of the same "brain trust" that edits the "Skeptical Inquirer" and goes to events of "CSICOP" and see James Randi as the arbiter of truth on these matters, and are following in the footsteps of people like Philip Klass.

Yes, I don't think it is a stretch for us to say on this forum that Wikipedia has some serious flaws when it comes to reporting on issues that are dear to us here, and we need to work at trying to understand and explain what they are .

ExomatrixTV
21st March 2019, 21:48
How Wikipedia Lies

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Eric-Zuesse_avatar_1519316453-46x46.jpg
Published By Eric Zuesse (https://moderndiplomacy.eu/author/ericzuesse/)
https://moderndiplomacy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/flight93.jpg

The Flight 93 National Memorial near Shanksville, Pennsylvania Did you know that Vice President Dick Cheney admitted that on 11 September 2001 he, as President George W. Bush’s brief stand-in during the 9/11 attacks that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, issued an order (and it was carried out) to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 while it was in the air near Pittsburgh? If what he said at the time was true, then the standard ‘historical’ account of the plane’s having been brought down as a result of action by the passengers, would be concocted, not history at all.
Here is the video-clip of V.P. Cheney on 9/11, making this claim and explaining why he gave that order:

The Wikipedia article on Flight 93 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93) provides the standard account, and fails even so much as just to mention the Vice President’a assertion and explanation that he provided on national TV at the time of the 9/11 events.
So: I edited the Wikipedia article by adding a sentence at the end of its opening paragraph, and by following that sentence with a brief second paragraph, and here is that entire two-sentence addition:

7vV3fjfeb9Q
Vice President Dick Cheney alleged that he gave the order to shoot down Flight 93, and explained why when asked about it by Chris Wallace of Fox News as shown in this film-clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vV3fjfeb9Q)

Consequently, the account given below of what brought the plane down — an account inconsistent with what Cheney said — could be entirely false.

On the web browser that I was using, the addition showed as having been successfully made in the Wikipedia article. However, to be sure, I opened the URL in a different browser, and this time my addition was absent. I then went back to the “Edit” page” and this time to the “View history” page, and clicked there on “(talk)” and found this message, which I saw virtually immediately after I had thought that I had inserted the new information:

Hello, I’m Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to United Airlines Flight 93— because it did not appear constructive.

No other explanation for blocking my addition was provided. “Shellwood” was there saying that mentioning, and linking to the video of Cheney saying, that allegation, which Cheney made on 9/11 about how Flight 93 came down, is not “constructive” to Wikipedia-readers who want information about Flight 93.

Previously, even the BBC published the fact that Wikipedia is edited by the CIA (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6947532.stm).

Anyone who reads the present article is hereby welcomed to try making the same addition to that Wikipedia article, and I hope that one of the readers here will be able to get it accepted by the editors of that site, so that Wikipedia can be made at least moderately trustworthy, on at least that one article. Perhaps if enough people try, then Wikipedia will come to recognize that Wikipedia’s modus operandum isn’t merely a very successful system of propaganda, but that it’s also something of a PR problem for Wikipedia, which they’ll need to do something about, if they’re to be able to survive (or at least retain their credibility) at all. Blocking inclusion in an article, of a fact that disproves part of the ‘history’ (and here the most important part) which is told in that article, is unacceptable in anyone’s eyes.

As of today, April 20th, the Wikipedia article on Flight 93 does make one, and only one, mention of Cheney:

Vice President (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States)Dick Cheney (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney), in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_Emergency_Operations_Center) deep under the White House (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_House), upon learning of the premature crash, is reported to have said, “I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane.”[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93#cite_note-2)

The link there, [2], goes to a CNN article (http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/11/ar911.king.cheney/), likewise published on 11 September 2001, which likewise presents Cheney as saying that he ordered the shoot-down of Flight 93:
After the planes struck the twin towers, a third took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Cheney then heard a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington. A military assistant asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot it down.
“The vice president said yes again,” remembered Josh Bolton, deputy White House chief of staff. “And the aide then asked a third time. He said, ‘Just confirming, sir, authority to engage?’ And the vice president — his voice got a little annoyed then — said, ‘I said yes.'”

The phrase that Wikipedia is quoting from Cheney, “I think an act of heroism just took place on that plane,” appears later in that CNN article, out of context, when one of Cheney’s aides attributes the statement to Cheney, but, since CNN provided no context for it, no reader can intelligently interpret what it had been referring to, if, in fact, the aide did say that Cheney did say it.

Wikipedia grabbed that out-of-context, possibly apocryphal, Cheney-statement, and constructed their ‘history’ of the plane’s crash, upon it, despite the fact that Cheney, on 9/11, clearly stated that he had ordered Flight 93 to be shot down, and that the order was executed — in other words: despite the fact that Wikipedia’s account of what brought that plane down is incontrovertibly false, even on the basis of the most reliable evidence that Wikipedia itself links to on that matter. Such a ‘history’ is fiction.
So: any reader at the Wikipedia article who clicks onto its sources, can easily know that though the Wikipedia article presents a ‘history’ in which actions by passengers onboard Flight 93 caused the plane to crash there, that ‘history’ is fake, not at all real (though some allegations in that Wikipedia article might happen to be true).
This means that only readers who click through to sources can even possibly come anywhere near to knowing anything that’s at all reliable about the history of our time. And, of course, the longer that any event recedes into history, the more immovably fixed the lies become as being ‘history’. We live actually in a world of lies. If modern ‘history’ is fake, then ancient ‘history’ is even more so. What about the Bible? What about even recently written ‘history’ books?

If Wikipedia is the best that ‘the market’ can come up with for ‘a free press’ in a ‘democracy’, then democracy isn’t at all possible. Something vastly better than this is definitely needed. What’s displayed here isn’t democracy at all: it’s merely ‘democracy’ (http://archive.is/aQIzs). This means that all of the military invasions by ‘democratic’ countries (such as America), against other countries, are the actions by dictatorships, not actions against dictatorships (as is always claimed).

So, it’s actually rather easy to document that 1984 — the reality, and not merely the novel — has, indeed, arrived, in our time.

However, at least in our time, we possess — for the very first time in all of history — the ability to access, merely a click away, an allegation’s actual source, at least in articles such as the present one (since all sources here are linked). The people living in ancient times who were not themselves aristocrats (the people making the key governmental decisions) were unalterably 100% vulnerable to being deceived by aristocrats’ and clergies’ lies, deceived into doing whatever those decision-makers wanted to manipulate them into doing — such as “fighting for God and country!” Unfortunately, the percentage of today’s people who care enough to be skeptical of whatever other people are trying to sell, and to dig deeper than the mere assertions, even just to click onto a link, is too tiny for democracy to be able to function. Unless they become the majority, “democracy” will remain merely a word, not yet even near to being the reality, anywhere.



That, for example, explains why, despite common realities such as this (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/israel-shoot-15-yr-old-child-in-the-head-bringing-gaza-death-toll-to-39/), “74% [of Americans] view Israel favorably, vs. 21% for Palestinian Authority” (http://news.gallup.com/poll/229199/americans-remain-staunchly-israel-corner.aspx). In order for the national aristocracy to control its mass of voters, it must first deceive its mass of voters; and, in America, they’re deceived, and have been so, for decades, at least (https://represent.us/action/theproblem-3/).

ExomatrixTV
21st March 2019, 21:57
The 50 Craziest Lies in Wikipedia History:

https://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2012/01/the-50-craziest-lies-in-wikipedia-history/

ExomatrixTV
21st March 2019, 22:02
Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia

Daozen
21st March 2019, 22:11
My edit has stayed for two days, maybe there is some good in this world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Count_of_St._Germain

In order to deflect inquiries as to his origins, he would make far-fetched claims, such as being 500 years old,[6] leading Voltaire to sarcastically dub him "The Wonderman".[7]

I changed "ďnvent fantasies" to "far-fetched claims."

Kryztian
22nd March 2019, 21:54
Ufology (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ufology&oldid=886733665)

Most Wikipedia articles that are more than a few paragraphs long begin with a brief definition or outline of the subject, no more than a few sentences long. The “skeptics” always need to work their thoughts into the essential definition, to brand the topic and the people who work in that world as fundamentally deranged or corrupt, and that they should go else where if they don’t want to end up being a tin-foil hatted woo-woo .

Here’s the three sentence intro on Ufology:


Ufology is the study of reports, visual records, physical evidence, and other phenomena related to unidentified flying objects (UFO). UFO reports have been subject to various investigations over the years by governments, independent groups, and scientists. However, ufology, as a field, has been rejected by modern academia and is considered a pseudoscience.

I’m sure you read the first two sentences without a problem and then did a double take on the third because there are exactly two complete fabrications and misrepresentation about ufology:


As any ufologist knows, academia has been utterly silent on the matter of ufology, ignoring the history, the events, the questions that ufologist asks. If there are any remarks at all, the are either vague or are failed attempts to reduce ufologists and UFO witness and experiencers to delusional simpletons motivated by a need for recognition. The article also failed to note that some significant ufologist have found positions in academia including John Mack (Harvard), David Jacobs (Temple University), David Halperin (UNC Chapel Hill), Andrew Hartley (UNC Charlotte) and Diane Walsh Pasulka (UNC Wilmington) .


The easy way for “skeptics” to defame and demean a formidable and serious topic is to apply the term “pseudoscience”. There is no clear litmus test of what is and isn’t a pseudoscience, never the less and the label is frequently applied without any analysis and consideration of the subject matter and where rational, factual or procedural error lie. The problem with applying the label to “ufology” is that it is not a science, let alone a “pseudoscience.” If universities did embrace ufology, it would be under the umbrella of history. Ufology is about understanding past events and making sense of them. Just as historians might utilize botany to understand crop failure and famine, or nuclear physics to understand the atomic blast at Hiroshima, some ufologists are assisted by a background in subjects like propulsion, radar, material science . Ufologists and historians utilize science to understand events, but their subject matter is not science. Science makes predictions and suggest ways of change outcomes (experiments) which can be measured quantitatively, qualitatively and statistically. Ufology and History are not making predictions, and it is an absurd use of language to construe them as a field of science.


Of course, if you make bold claims in the first three sentences of the subject matter, you have to elaborate on them, with footnotes and documentation. So let us look a bit further down in the article to see how this claim is substantiated.


Ufology is characterized by scientific criticism as a partial[22] or total[23][24] pseudoscience

The numbers are footnotes that reference:


#22 is the book “Science, Action, and Reality”.by Finish philosopher Raimo Tuomela. This book is a work of philosophy and not science. Footnotes frequently refer to texts that are out of print and not easy to obtain, and I have not been able to do so, yet.


#23 is “The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind” by Gregory Feist, a psychologist. Again, a text not yet obtained.


#24 is “Science, technology, and society: an encyclopedia”, Oxford University Press (2005) by Sal Restivo, a professor of sociology. On pages 175 and 176 (the latter being referenced in the footnotes), the author talks about the distinction between grassroots science (done by non academics, mostly unpaid) versus academic science (done at universities), and how the boundary between them is often quite blurry. Often the relationship is friendly, however, in the case of “ufology”, academics often stigmatize ufology as “pseudoscience” to put a boundary between themselves and the grassroots people. The author is talking about semi-conscious bias on the part an academic community, not any thoughtful, academic, analysis of what ufologist actually do. This references does not back up the idea that ufology is characterized by pseudoscience, but rather, that academia is characterized elitism.


Also, footnote #27 used to establish the pseudoscience claim, is Brenda Denzler’s “The Lure of the Edge Scientific Passions, Religious Beliefs, and the Pursuit of UFOs”. Ms. Denler has her degree in Religious Studies and the book seems to lie in that field

* * * * *

The Wikipedia article then continues with a long section on UFO classification, including the Hynek System and the Vallée System. These are long technical, tedious sections, not terribly important to current ufologists and rather obscure (although both J. Allen Hynek and Jacques Vallée have made huge important contributions to the field.) I can only speculate that 8% of the article is devoted to this matter because:

It makes it look like ufology is a science, which our mysterious authors need to establish before applying the “pseudoscience” label.


It is a long, tedious and technical section that would discourage the reader who wasn’t already frightened away by the “seriously unacademic” and “pseudoscience” labels from concluding that ufology is a boring and incomprehensible subject.


* * * * *

What is missing from this article is a history of the events, especially from 1947 onward, that have shaped the popular conscious. Almost nothing about Roswell, Washington D.C. (1952), Barney and Betty Hill, Dexter, Michigan (1966), Travis Walton. Fortunately Hessdalen is mentioned, because academics were present, but no mention that they were ultimately perplexed and unable to explain these phenomena.

Also missing is evidence of any academic debunking of ufology, especially from someone in the hard sciences. While there are passing generalized and not necessarily negative comments from philosophy, sociology, religious studies and psychology, there is no academics work from any scientist (especially physicists, astronomers, engineers) demonstrating any kind of serious intellectual work and researching that would substantiate the absurd claim of “academic rejection” or “pseudoscience” at the head of the article that is supposed to crystallize the perception of ufology.

What if Wikipedia prevented African Americans from participating in writing the introductory summary of the article on “Malcolm X” article, or encouraged atheists to take editorial control on all articles pertaining to religion and theology, or made Tom Cruise the administrator for the article on “Psychology”? It would be an outrage and would cause people to seriously question the validity of their articles and the ethics of creating them. Yet it is obvious that serious ufologists have no part on crafting this introductory sentence on ufology, and the task has been delegated to a small band of “experts” who have spent little time or energy investigating this subject matter. Wikipedia does not tolerate bigotry on other subjects, and they should not tolerate it here in this article or other articles about alternative healing, paranormal research, grassroots archeology and other forms of extra academic research. Until Wikipedia addresses these issues, we should regard it as a project flawed not by it’s democratic policy of allowing anyone to edit it, but by it’s practice of harboring anti-intellectual bigots and giving them priority and power to control the content on certain serious subjects.




.

Kryztian
23rd March 2019, 01:26
Extrasensory perception (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Extrasensory_perception&oldid=886730118)

On November 16th, 2018 at 12:41 pm, a user added a one sentence paragraph to the article on Extrasensory perception:


In the 1990's, social psychologist and professor emeritus at Cornell University Daryl Bem began research that would culminate in the controversial "Feeling the Future"[21] article that described his results, which indicated proof of precognition in test subjects.[22][23]

The user included three very legitimate references to prove their point in the footnotes:



[21] Bem, Daryl J. (2011-3). "Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 100 (3): 407–425. doi:10.1037/a0021524. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 21280961.
[22]"Daryl Bem Proved ESP Is Real. Which Means Science Is Broken". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 2018-11-16.
[23]"Study showing that humans have some psychic powers caps Daryl Bem's career | Cornell Chronicle". Cornell Chronicle. Retrieved 2018-11-16


That's one reference from Slate Magazine, one from a peer reviewed science journal, and one from the newspaper of a famous Ivy League University.

While this entry averages about 6 edits per month, it took all of 8 minutes from someone to completely removed this information from the article. That person who uses the user name "Roxy the dog" cited as a reason: "Results were hotly disputed."

These experiments by Bem are famous, are methodologically sound, and are a landmark event in the history of Parapsychology. But you can't mention them in Wikipedia.

= = = = =

Here's another sourced and sound paragraph that appeared briefly, twice in 2016 in the article. After is was was scrubbed and then someone restored it, only for it to be deleted again.



Proponents of the ESP phenomenon point to numerous studies that cite evidence of the phenomenon's existence: Russell Targ and Harold E. Puthoff, who were physicists at SRI International in the 1970s, as well as J. B. Rhine at Duke University and many others, are often cited in arguments that ESP exists. . In regards to Dr. Rhine's studies, American Institute of Mathematical Statistics examined Rhine's methodology and declared it to be sound[25]. Dr. Rhine challenged one of his critics, psychologist and fellow at Barnard College Bernard Frank Riess, to participate in an ESP experiment for himself. Riess accepted the challenge and was present during the testing of a female participant who scored an abnormally high success rate on the testing. The 70% success rate was well above the statistical average of chance. The results changed Riess from a skeptic to a supporter of studies into parapsychological phenomena[26]. In 1965, two ophthalmologists at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia (Duane and Behrendt) used brain-wave patterns on an electroencephalogram to show a psychic link between two identical twins[27].

One doesn't need clairvoyance to know there are bad people on Wikipedia. Just look on the history tab and you will see who is up to no good.

Sandy123
23rd March 2019, 18:10
It seems there are guard dogs just waiting and alert. If you look up vaccines and 2nd hand smoke you will get zero results on any research against their HUGE money makers. Their own research is paid for by Grant money and will find only what "they" want as results. In 1998 when the whole 2nd hand smoke debate started, a Judge Osteen ruled against the 16 study's saying; that "agency researchers, rather than rigorously proving their case, frequently shifted theories and selected the data they wanted in order to reach a preordained conclusion". They cherry picked data, they changed the confidence levels that science uses as parameters.
And one more issue that gets my goat is in 2017 they took away hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money from CHIP; a program that insured poor children for the past 30 years. Wonder where that money is going now?

Didgevillage
23rd March 2019, 19:56
Manipulating Wikipedia Content: Israeli Program to Train Editors
https://www.globalresearch.ca/manipulating-wikipedia-israeli-program-to-train-editors-to-ensure-that-what-is-written-is-zionist-in-nature/5321059

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY

Rawhide68
24th March 2019, 02:14
Its sad to see brilliant scientists in any in the of academia that stand out & have a true sensation to tell the world. . I'm seeing the big foot from Monty Python's Flying cirus PRRFFF! estinguished, and life goes on as usual.

pluton
24th March 2019, 05:07
Wikipedia does NOT tolerate ANY discussion about Health Risks & Health Concerns dealing with mass rollout of 5G Cell Towers Everywhere 2019-2020+ ... They just delete all of them even with proper scientific citations ... (see their edit history). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G)Really Creepy!


PURE CENSORSHIP!

Research Stop5G.net (http://Stop5G.net) ... Join: Fb.com/groups/Stop5G (http://Fb.com/groups/Stop5G) ... Support: Fb.me/Stop5G (http://Fb.me/Stop5G)

The title 5G strongly implies that the Wikipedia article deals with the rate of data transfer, so anything related to a possible health hazard would be deleted, because there is none.

However, a rather unfair situation develops when a reader switches to Wikipedia article titled Electromagnetic radiation and health. There, in the External links section, is Information page item that is supposed to collect "scientific material on 4G/5G health effect." It actually provides a variety of links, which appear under the introductory article that uses labeling, like "crime against humanity and nature," and claims that "studies show this radiation makes people stupid." No wonder that the Information page ends with a bracketed better source needed superscript. In other words, if you want a person to stop eating apples, offer him only the rotten ones, and that's not fair.

ExomatrixTV
21st October 2019, 00:26
How Weaponized Wikipedia Is Used To Smear People!
bhGDSavk3hs
For believers proof is not necessary ... for non-believers proof is never good enough or "impossible" ... BOTH believers & non-believers suk! ... Because they want everything to be spoon-fed to them! ... It takes more effort to go beyond the conditioning (for or against).

I avoid the use of the word "believe" for a very good reason ... I rather consider ... or I know ... or I am aware ... or I have experienced ... etc. etc. ... (believe systems often begs to be corrected) ... the moment some one asks you: "Do you beLIEve?" it is a MIND TRAP to lure you in to assuming that there is "nothing" to know or to experience.

Am not seeking agreement ... nor the opposite ... as long as I stay in my own integrity and self-honesty ... we all have to deal with (partial altered) perceptions ... with many assumptions that are based upon what has been spoon-fed to all of us in a certain way ... Letting go of the "need for agreement" is very liberating and still respecting other points of view! ... Nobody has "all the right answers" and nobody has all the "wrong answers" either. There a lot people who want to control the narrative fanatically (left & right). This extreme need to force one-sided thinking is often a sign of severe insecurity.


Real Honest Conspiracy Researchers studies Proven Conspiracy Facts and sometimes have "Theories" about KNOWN liars mixed with hard evidence of corruption, colluding, deceptions etc. To label some one "Conspiracy Theorists" is to falsely assume that some one "only" cooks up "theories". This need to control the narrative by MSM is part of mass dumbing down of a nation!

Look up the word "Conspiracy" in any (LAW) Dictionary ... then ask yourself is that "science fiction"? ... When 2 or more people prepare to commit a crime or to do harm is that so "far fetched"? ... What MSM tries to do is you to be associated with certain people that are FAR from being a true researchers or being an honest conspiracy analyst. The reason MSM never can share an honest representation of that what they attack is because they assume most will not verify their own sold claims & judgemental assumptions to them! So they count on you being lazy!

cheers.
John Kuhles aka ExomatrixTV

O Donna
21st October 2019, 02:02
Thank you for the clarity ExomatrixTV.

I often find that important things should never be taken at face-value (the value that is projected). Questioning things, specially mass produced media leads to a realization of the deep rooted tricks the hierarchy of this world uses to keep the status quo. Those that have the most to lose, should the status quo be successfully challenged, have learned that PSYOPs controls the 'herd' better then concrete and metals bars ever could.

Mashika
21st October 2019, 03:41
The reason MSM never can share an honest representation of that what they attack is because they assume most will not verify their own sold claims & judgemental assumptions to them! So they count on you being lazy!


From what we know these days, they don't count on it, they mostly "make sure" we'll be

Sadly for them they kind of fell behind of times, so now people are getting smarter

A friend of my grand father said something kind of like this to me, time ago "new generations are smart and can have a way to learn a lot more than we did, but they'll have to figure out a completed messed up world at the same time. And once my generation is gone, no one but a few will be there to stop your generation from fixing things, if you want"

There will be always people who try to bend reality like that, in the TV and gov mostly, but if people are not there listening at all, who will fall for the fake truth? I know i have not watched a tv for the past 10 years or so, and my friends only use their tvs to play games, we mostly go by reading stuff on the web from people who are not on payroll by the TV companies or the gov (mostly the same group i guess :p )

I can see on my little sis that she already has a notion of "Everything on the tv is fake" and she was raised without a tv on our house, she learns all her stuff through other ways, so she never had a chance to get her mind setup to think what the news people on the tv say is true. Watching the way she thinks of those people is amazing, like she has a very well configured BS radar/detector builtin LMAO :)

An example of that is watching documentaries on tv, and i can see her sometimes looking on the web to read about stuff we watched, just to make sure it's true, and she loves to call people on their BS when she figures out they are lying, sometimes very violently sometimes very funnily, but you can bet she will do either way :P

I guess what i want to say is, there are still people who fall for things like "the official" truth, and this also happens with Wikipedia, if it's there it must be true, right?

But if we focus on making sure new generations are not so gullible and understand that just because it's "official" or looks like it doesn't really mean it is true, then eventually that control tool will have to go away

Some people will not change but awareness for younger people will make sure they don't fall anymore for it

wegge
21st October 2019, 07:10
The question is, where does official truth end?

If you look for example at spiritual systems, they also sell you their version of a truth, which is even harder to analyze.
Is it 12 astral dimensions or 33, etc...? And which kind of beings inhabit these lands? What does scripture, the specific author say?
How can you prove, disprove that for yourself?


And which also goes on to people, often of good meaning, giving you their slant of reality, of how things are.
And once we accept and swallow that, which comes in on the level of hypnotic suggestion, we fall a little bit deeper into a hypnotic trance, which basically means a world is erected for us in our minds, instead of us erecting the world by ourselves.

For example one could think of statements from parents towards their children.

Mashika
21st October 2019, 07:44
The question is, where does official truth end?

If you look for example at spiritual systems, they also sell you their version of a truth, which is even harder to analyze.
Is it 12 astral dimensions or 33, etc...? And which kind of beings inhabit these lands? What does scripture, the specific author say?
How can you prove, disprove that for yourself?


And which also goes on to people, often of good meaning, giving you their slant of reality, of how things are.
And once we accept and swallow that, which comes in on the level of hypnotic suggestion, we fall a little bit deeper into a hypnotic trance, which basically means a world is erected for us in our minds, instead of us erecting the world by ourselves.

For example one could think of statements from parents towards their children.


But that is the thing, right?

If a new generation comes up and hasn't been preprogrammed at all, and has a complete blank slate (tabula rasa), without bias....

You see what i mean, right?

I believe it takes one intermediary generation to completely break apart the cycle. And that's us, if we make the effort

wegge
21st October 2019, 09:50
The question is, where does official truth end?

If you look for example at spiritual systems, they also sell you their version of a truth, which is even harder to analyze.
Is it 12 astral dimensions or 33, etc...? And which kind of beings inhabit these lands? What does scripture, the specific author say?
How can you prove, disprove that for yourself?


And which also goes on to people, often of good meaning, giving you their slant of reality, of how things are.
And once we accept and swallow that, which comes in on the level of hypnotic suggestion, we fall a little bit deeper into a hypnotic trance, which basically means a world is erected for us in our minds, instead of us erecting the world by ourselves.

For example one could think of statements from parents towards their children.


But that is the thing, right?

If a new generation comes up and hasn't been preprogrammed at all, and has a complete blank slate (tabula rasa), without bias....

You see what i mean, right?

I believe it takes one intermediary generation to completely break apart the cycle. And that's us, if we make the effort

Yes I get it!

Another thing to consider is that technology has an programming effect, like small displays entraining your perception on smaller and smaller scales, then also the cuts of the movie, how long a scene lasts until the next one comes - shortening attention span...on and on.

kfm27917
9th December 2019, 23:49
Wikipedia Fraud EXPOSED: Troll farms and the CIA have hijacked the once open platform
12/9/2019 -- Somewhere, USA -- For those who value knowledge, this comes as a sad surprise. Wikipedia once was a free and open source encyclopedia, where anyone could contribute.

It was never perfect, but it was usually pretty accurate, except about controversial topics, current events, conspiracies, and some other unique topics. But starting in 2016 the quality started deteriorating rapidly across the board. We wanted to know how, so we signed up. What we learned was shocking.

We need to get into the weeds here a bit to understand how this scam operates. Wikipedia was a system setup by Jimmy Wales a long time ago, and the rules have evolved over time but still maintain the same guidelines established in the beginning. No one really owns Wikipedia which is perfect for the Elite because there's no one to point the finger at. Best part for them - all the moderators called "SysOps" are anonymous. There is a hierarchy that requires you make 500 edits before having more privileges. At any point, if a SysOp doesn't like an edit or comment you make, the threats start, you can be blocked. They can ban your IP. You can always READ but you cannot EDIT. Of course this can all be circumvented, but here's the point: They are about form not essence.

The good and honest Wikipedia editors that aren't trolls, they are sticklers for rules and are trying to build an open public document about everything which is a monumental task - FOR FREE. Everything is volunteer so no one gets any sort of 'benefit' for editing. Here are the basics of the rules (in summary):
more at

[URL="https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-12-09/wikipedia-fraud-exposed-troll-farms-and-cia-have-hijacked-once-open-platform"]

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/