Youtube & Blog Shut Down By The Feds

[charlesfrith]

Dear Avalon Friends

I had a my blog and Youtube account closed earlier this morning, and I've explained why in an update to my post here.

I've managed to get my blog back, however on the basis that openness and transparency are my best defence, I'd be most grateful if you could visit the above post as it establishes the facts, and I figure that is my best defence to both reclaim my Youtube account and ensure whoever is targeting my blog doesn't succeed.

Many thanks and I wish you all a peaceful and restorative Christmas. I would be grateful if those with nothing constructive or helpful to say would remain silent.

Thank you

Charles/Bangkok

[Candor]

Charles, thank you for your good work so far, I was jsut getting familiar with your many good Videos,.. I made a space in my computer for your work this morning. Then I got some sleep and came back to find I must have really good taste--the Feds shut you down. That's a hard way to get a compliment, but I'm sure you will get your account back with U-tub.

One of your first steps is to OBJECT to every step they take to attempt to act against you. And question every process brought about. It's work, but if they realize you are going to fight back, along with others, they will back off.

Good luck Buddy, There are many ways to deal with this. Bee Imaginative. God will work behind the scene to help you.

[Valley]

Posted by charlesfrith (here)
Dear Avalon Friends

I had a my blog and Youtube account closed earlier this morning, and I've explained why in an update to my post here.

I've managed to get my blog back, however on the basis that openness and transparency are my best defence, I'd be most grateful if you could visit the above post as it establishes the facts, and I figure that is my best defence to both reclaim my Youtube account and ensure whoever is targeting my blog doesn't succeed.

Many thanks and I wish you all a peaceful and restorative Christmas. I would be grateful if those with nothing constructive or helpful to say would remain silent.

Thank you

Charles/Bangkok

Thanks for letting us in on this one.
I'm wondering what kinds of videos specifically you've been putting up recently, especially just before the incident.
Best of luck with getting it back online soon.

[Candor]

Comment withdrawn.

[Candor]

Charles, I am trying to download your file from plus.google.com right now. but it's not coming in (yet)... still waiting.

[Candor]

It came in. So you have lived in big citys. Try the country side away form Big, before you retire.

[Elixer]

Hi Charles.

Sorry to hear about the efforts to shut you down.

I don't think this documentary is particuarly good. It has too much potential to be disinfo.
For instance, when Rumsfeld is talking about 'this one man in particular that could do it', he is about to say the name and then the voice-over takes over and fills in that it is Stanley Kubrick.
So we never hear Rumsfeld actually saying it, or even that it was about this particular topic (around 30 minutes into the documentary).
The entire thing is like this. It takes small quotes from people and frames them into the context, while it could all have been out of context.
So the documentary at the very least, is manipulative and therefore suspect. This has been pointed out by others as well, btw.

I'm not disagreeing with the idea that there might have fakery going on, or that Kubrick was involved, but this documentary is not making the point to a sceptic.

One film I did find very compelling was 'Appollo zero'.
They go into a lot of the technical details and make it quite clear that going to the moon, especially back in those days, would have been a technological impossibility, also and especially in light of the fact that we have not gone above 400 miles from the Earth since.

Them trying to shut you down would shed another light on 'them', in light of this documentary's potential for disinfo. 'They' might be considered to be doing good work, trying to limit or curtail any actual disinfo...
The fact that you haven't discerned that this documentary could mostly be out-of-context quotes, or haven't even mentioned this, would reflect poorly on you.
Since I believe you are a respected figure in the Alternative Media (though I must say, I'm unfamiliar with your work), I'm curious as to what your thoughts really are on this 'Dark side of the Moon' documentary.

Love this image from your blog though:

[CeltMan]

The link was working ok earlier when I clicked through

[mojo]

Hi,
I've read your blog. Did they give a reason? Copyright infringement or something about the content? Youtube has a 3 strike rule about copyright. I'm not sure what they do about content.

[charlesfrith]

I didn't upload any. However I posted the video in the link and wrote a piece about it's purpose as disinformation.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Hello, the answers to the questions are the post update I wrote. Thanks for your interest.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Hi There,

The documentary is meant to be bad. It's purpose is to ridicule the notion that they are telling the truth. I wrote about it quite extensively in the post. Thanks for your interest.

c.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Many thanks for your reply. I'll be protesting as the video they objected to is from Google. Evidently it's a sensitive subject.

[Elixer]

Charles,

Ah, so you did see this documentary as a mockumentary disinfo piece, possibly planted by the CIA.
If so, I must say, this was not obvious from the blog post. On first reading the only thing that gave me pause was the phrase 'preposterous honesty'.
Other than that, it did not become clear to me.
I'm sure this has to do with the general expectation that a conspiracy researcher(?), would point others to see arguments that convince them the moonlandings were faked. You took it to a deeper level and I missed it.

On second reading, I do get it, but that is because now I read it with the perspective in mind that you did find it a piece of disinfo and then I guess it's pretty clear.
I suppose for a reader that doesn't know you, or your perspective on this, it seems a little confusing.
Your mentioning of Weidner in support of the general idea of the doccumentary contributed to this confusion, for instance.
When you point out that the real reason Kubrick died was not because of his contribution to the faking of the moon landing, but for 'Eyes wide shut', it seemed to be saying that this was merely one of a few things the documentary got wrong, but that otherwise it was a good piece, sort of.

I'm sorry I misrepresented your viewpoint here. I must look like a fool in your eyes. If so, that's okay. I know I am and that I'm not.
Maybe my error in judgement can serve as an interesting point of feedback on your writing style?

I'll look into some more of your stuff, because I can't believe that I so totally misunderstood it.

Thanks for the courteous response.

[charlesfrith]

It's probably one of the most sophisticated pieces of disinformation out there and I find it hard to convey easily it's subtlety and nuance. I'm just pleased you went back and reread it. Nice to meet you

[charlesfrith]

I've done a little edit of the Jay Weidner point you make. I'm very grateful for that kind of feedback as I want to communicate clearly so please let me know of any bits and pieces like that if you read any other posts. Thanks again matey