Demands for evidence continue on Duncan O'Finioan thread

[we-R-one]

[ Mod-edit: The first 14 posts in this thread began life on the thread Just in from Duncan, for those who follow his work. "2013 ... A New Year, or a Nightmare ...pt 1 " . The demand by some posters for evidence, statistics, or explanations from other posters had successfully derailed the Duncan thread. These posts were 14 posts in a row that had nothing much to say about Duncan's comments, rather almost entirely dealing with the demands, and the reaction to the demands. - Paul. ]

===

Posted by Paul (here)

Posted by we-R-one (here)
Very concerning that you won't answer the question Amzer Zo....

That's Amzer's right, we-R-one. We don't get to choose where other's focus their attention. Expressing annoyance at someone else's choice risks coming across as badgering, which can create a distracting emotional cross current to the main topic(s) of discussion on a thread.

Posted by we-R-one (here)
I want answers enfoldedblue, cause something isn't smelling right and all the alarm bells are going off. IF people are going to use stats I want to know the source, pure and simple.

Ditto ...

Then I say his stats aren't legitimate if he's not going to divulge the source. People are allowed their opinion, but when the supposed "resident scientist" as he's been called, can't provide the source of his stats, I see that as a huge problem. This is the second time I believe there has been reference to these stats on this forum...If they're legitimate "super", than lets divulge the source.

You see what's concerning is we have a scientist here that many like to use as a source. What he's saying to me is that the work of other scientists isn't applicable and that I'm suppose to take his word for the stats that he's provided without a source. And "pssst", his response on post #114 is not an answer.

Getting to the truth is not badgering. If people are going to quote stats, then they should be expected to divulge their source if they want their claim to be accepted. And since two people have now quoted these stats, to me, than surely, they're getting the info from somewhere. So if they're confident in divulging the info, there should be no problem in sharing the source, should there?

I'm asking for the source to be provided, or I'm crying fowl. "The Solutions" thread has legitimate science, and why the "resident scientist" doesn't support the studies on that thread, especially when one of the organizations was brought to my attention through him, ....well what can I say.....something is very, very wrong. And when the reasoning behind him not wanting to support scientific studies, is based on stats that he can't provide the source for......welll sh*t howdy, we have a problem, imo?

Total crap! I'm gonna call 'em out. Haven't we had enough bunk? And if that's not acceptable, then I will gladly leave this forum, but I think enough know my intentions and stance to know that I'm all about the getting to the truth....just sayin. This is nothing personal.

Let the record show, as of this moment, no source has been provided and therefore, the proposed stats are rendered unverifiable. Just my opinion.

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
The stats?

Plain observation: where are we now and in what state?

2000 years of Christianity;

2500 years of Budhism;

10,000 years of invoking various gods and ancestors;

Back to: Where are we now?

Has any of it ever worked to change the "where are we at, now?"

[we-R-one]

PS I will glady remove part of my comments from post #120, if a proper source can be provided........

[Flash]

Posted by we-R-one (here)
Yep, ...... I was kinda thinking the same thing, but didn't want to say it for fear of backlash as Music mentioned in an earlier post......it appears that her opinion seems to supercede others....I don't get it.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Sigh...so many conversations going on at once......oh by the way, in case anyone was following....still waiting for an answer from the "resident scientist"......

it is just when there is direct individual attacks, judgments or other comments that are clearly negative towards one person, this has to stop for the thread, and i would personnally say evolution towards a sustainable earth, to have this work.

Reread the posts in this optic, you will see.

Edit:

Usually stats are easy to find on google. So i thought if Amer Zo does not supply the stats, I will find them and supply, this stats topic will be over, and I want to know anyhow. So I read Amer Zo posts and tried to find the stats.

What I found is that these are not statistics. There cannot be any specific sources since they are what is called in research "common knowledge".

When we know history, we know that monotheism started around 2,000 years ago.
we also know that Buddhism started 2,500 years ago and is the proponent of meditation (although Indian religions are much older and probably did use meditation)
We know that prior to monotheism, the Greeks, Roman, Egyptians, Hitites, Maya, name it were praying and giving offers to multiple gods. (in Fact maya never had monotheism).
And this is what Amer Zo gave in a later post, as shown below.

There is no stats to give because this are not stats, they are history, years in human history.


What I found is this:

Has any of the above ever worked?

2000 years of prayers to that one god?

2500 years of meditations?

10,000 years of prayers to various gods to ending slavery and suffering?

Time to clearly discover the actual target and the actual, effective, efficient methods to do away with it.

The this

Looka here for a good synopsis of what Duncan is expecting to occur in the course of 2013: Chicago: Next Big False Flag?

then this


Have 10,000s of years of denial ever helped this planet and ALL her inhabitants get out from under the yoke of its controllers?

See post # 89 above.

then this

Enjoy your impressions!

Do visit Chicago: Next Big False Flag? Since it is always better to consciously confront what's about than let it unconsciously control one and, since you are a proponent of "we are all one" then, at some unconscious level, you have some buried knowledge of what's cooking.

then this


The stats?

Plain observation: where are we now and in what state?

2000 years of Christianity;

2500 years of Budhism;

10,000 years of invoking various gods and ancestors;

Back to: Where are we now?

Has any of it ever worked to change the "where are we at, now?"

Psssttt... I did answer, see post # 114 above.

then this


Meanwhile and for those same amount of years the "Programming of a Planet" and its 3D equivalent of fostering satanic mind-controlled zombies have been stealthily and relentlessly at work and expanding = "Where we are at, now."

Hence my Post # 9 conclusion:




Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
[...]

Time to clearly discover the actual target and the actual, effective, efficient methods to do away with it.
Unfortunately, this unravelling of the programming cannot be done "en masse" but only on an individual basis... and for that I'll refer the reader to 9eagle9 posts or Truman Cash's thread as well as the Horus Ra thread or Steve Richard's thread.

I must add that something has really gotten into that thread that is bizarre. My gosh, 9Eagle9 is right. Whatever should not be talked about following the manager of the planet is being disrupted.

This is the third most probably involuntary personal attacks in one thread, from 3 different people.

Open your eyes guys to what is happening, right now, right here. Where is the heart???

[Arrowwind]

I call it as I see it.... and Im waiting for a reply from Carmody.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by we-R-one (here)
Getting to the truth is not badgering.

That depends on how it's expressed. We're all trying to get to the truth ... we should each make an effort to distinguish between our own view of what we're up to, and how it appears to and affects others.

[we-R-one]

Show me the source....show me the source....

[modwiz]

[Flash]

Posted by we-R-one (here)
Show me the source....show me the source....

Please read my edit post 122. There is no stats, those are human history dates they are not stats and are what is called in reseach "common knowledge" for which precise sources do not exist, because the knowledge is everywhere.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by modwiz (here)

LOL absolutely

[modwiz]

Posted by we-R-one (here)
Yep, ...... I was kinda thinking the same thing, but didn't want to say it for fear of backlash as Music mentioned in an earlier post......it appears that her opinion seems to supercede others....I don't get it.

In the marketplace of ideas, the good fruit sells.

[we-R-one]

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by we-R-one (here)

Yep, ...... I was kinda thinking the same thing, but didn't want to say it for fear of backlash as Music mentioned in an earlier post......it appears that her opinion seems to supercede others....I don't get it.

In the marketplace of ideas, the good fruit sells.

Not when her comments aren't backed by science. Her stance is the same as Amzer Zo....UNVERIFIABLE, and only an opinion. She made the same attempt to debunk "The Solution" thread with no legitimate sources. Please see here, though I'm sure you all ready have: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post607179

Have a super sparkley day!

[music]

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by we-R-one (here)

Yep, ...... I was kinda thinking the same thing, but didn't want to say it for fear of backlash as Music mentioned in an earlier post......it appears that her opinion seems to supercede others....I don't get it.

In the marketplace of ideas, the good fruit sells.

No, the shiny fruit sells. It's probably GMO, laced with insecticides, and of little nutritional value, but it appeals to the ego to have a shiny apple, rather than Joni Mitchell's spotty apple.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Flash (here)
I must add that something has really gotten into that thread that is bizarre. My gosh, 9Eagle9 is right. Whatever should not be talked about following the manager of the planet is being disrupted.

This is the third most probably involuntary personal attacks in one thread, from 3 different people.

Open your eyes guys to what is happening, right now, right here. Where is the heart???

Indeed - bizarre - well said - thanks.

[we-R-one]

Posted by Flash (here)

Posted by we-R-one (here)
Show me the source....show me the source....

Please read my edit post 122. There is no stats, those are human history dates they are not stats and are what is called in reseach "common knowledge" for which precise sources do not exist, because the knowledge is everywhere.

That's exactly my point Flash! Thank you for your efforts! I think you might not be understanding what I'm getting at, but that's ok.

[Hervé]

Posted by Flash (here)

Posted by we-R-one (here)
Show me the source....show me the source....

Please read my edit post 122. There is no stats, those are human history dates they are not stats and are what is called in reseach "common knowledge" for which precise sources do not exist, because the knowledge is everywhere.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

Posted by modwiz (here)

LOL absolutely

Thank you Flash,

It definitely appears like some people are totally blind to the fruits of observation. Presuming that, at least, some observation has taken place... which may be too optimistic.

[ThePythonicCow]

This thread is reopen for business. It's origins are explained both in a Mod-edit to Post #1 above, and in Just in from Duncan, for those who follow his work. "2013 ... A New Year, or a Nightmare ...pt 1 " (Post #117).

[modwiz]

Posted by music (here)

Posted by modwiz (here)

Posted by we-R-one (here)

Yep, ...... I was kinda thinking the same thing, but didn't want to say it for fear of backlash as Music mentioned in an earlier post......it appears that her opinion seems to supercede others....I don't get it.

In the marketplace of ideas, the good fruit sells.

No, the shiny fruit sells. It's probably GMO, laced with insecticides, and of little nutritional value, but it appeals to the ego to have a shiny apple, rather than Joni Mitchell's spotty apple.

Well, I only buy organic fruit and it has to smell like what it is. You have a valid point with the majority. It makes me want to cry.

[we-R-one]

Here's my problem and why I'm pitching a fit in regards to this situation. Often I'm seeing too many opinions passed as fact when there's no substantial data to back what the poster is declaring, as if getting to the truth is not confusing enough, and I'm tired of it. This happened to me recently when a "popular" poster took my concept and twisted my words to fit their agenda and tried to pass the information as fact, when the thread they were referencing was littered with legitimate science which they refused to acknowledge as was apparent in their response. So I am and will continue to call "bull" when I catch this taking place. Driving the point further, because many of the readers do not necessarily understand the context of the material, moderators included, my concern is they're being fooled by the poster's comments. This is not meant to be a slam, it's meant to open your eyes a little wider and recognize what's going on, nothing more. There's a ridiculous amount of material on this forum and unless someone participates 24/7 it's almost impossible to keep up, so I do understand that dilemma.

In conclusion, if there's legitimate science that backs the material being discussed, I would hope that the reader would take that into consideration and there-by recognize the poster's comments as just that, comments and not fact, which we're all obviously allowed to do. IMO if a poster is going to list data it would be wise to include the source, especially if they happen to catch me frequenting that thread, lmao, because if it's relevant I will ask as should others.

Again, IMO, if there is not a legitimate source to back the data that one might be proposing as fact(and we know sometimes it's not always legitimate), we can't consider the material to be relevant, and personally in my mind, then why the hell would you even post it? If you do post it, a disclaimer would make sense to me clarifying that the information could be "iffy".

There is nothing baffling or "fascinating" about what I'm requesting. It's basic common sense. I'm not trying to beat up a fellow forum member, this is not meant to be personal, but it is concerning to me that someone who has been noted to be the "resident scientist" seems to be ignoring legitimate studies, and I want to know why. It has nothing to do with being right, I'm just trying to get to the truth. And what I'm seeing is not making sense in the least, which is why I'm bringing this issue to the forefront.

PS I am all ears for explanations and I have no problem changing my stance if legitimate info is introduced.

[Belle]

I've just got to ask...what do you consider legitimate science?

There are many 'proven', 'legitimate', 'scientific' conclusions (many found in highly regarded 'scientific' journals) that I don't believe for a second...information has a way of getting skewed and twisted to serve a purpose...and imo we are not among the privileged few who get the truth.

Why do you value it so highly?

[Shade]

The 'stats' that you asked for referencing weren't stats, they were just regular pieces of common knowledge and about things common enough that most people can see that it isn't quite right anyway (monotheism has been around since the old testament which goes back further than 2000 years.. I'm not an expert but I think I can say that makes sense). Those particular words are meant to be more a poem or a philosophical statement about something rather than a claim to facts... it doesn't need referencing.
Things which need referencing are genuine stats or study claims or scientific facts. And yeah ask for those cool but these particular ones, I would not agree that referencing is required.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by we-R-one (here)
There is nothing baffling or "fascinating" about what I'm requesting. It's basic common sense. I'm not trying to beat up a fellow forum member, this is not meant to be personal, but it is concerning to me that someone who has been noted to be the "resident scientist" seems to be ignoring legitimate studies, and I want to know why. It has nothing to do with being right, I'm just trying to get to the truth. And what I'm seeing is not making sense in the least, which is why I'm bringing this issue to the forefront.

You've made your point ... again and again and again.

Your point is not so much more important than the rest of the discussion that you get to pitch a fit until your demands are met.

Make your point, succinctly, then leave it be for a while. You may or may not persuade others to agree or respond as you demand ... that's their call. Do not derail threads trying to brow beat others into submission. Those who are unable to show this much respect for their fellow forum members don't belong here.

... and if it isn't personal, why do you keep referring to another particular member as the "resident scientist"? I don't know where your use of that phrase began, but your repeated use of it has taken on a mocking, and quite personal, tone.