Hired Government Internet Disinformation Trolls

**Universal Mind** · 03-01-2014 07:02 AM

I have done a lot of arguing about Sandy Hoax and gun control on YouTube, and I started noticing that a lot of the same characters were popping up under videos about those topics. They are silly characters who are obviously there to insult people for expressing certain opinions. A lot of them ended up posting comments on my YouTube discussion page, and some people commented to me that those are hired government shills who spread disinformation by character smearing people who spread information that goes against shady government agendas. The screen names that seem to be very commonly used and are fairly well known among conspiracy theorists and gun rights advocates include 911sausageman, Twoofers Lie, Stu3100, ctcole77, and LudicFallacies. They are all over the YouTube videos about Sandy Hoax, 911 inside job, and gun rights. Most of them have revealed that they are very pro-Israel. I was on YouTube a little while ago to see if there are any videos about these characters, and I found this video:

The comment at the top said that ctcole77 is one of them. People have told me that the account has been at it for about 10 years. I think these people really are professional propaganda trolls, and now there is evidence that the job does exist. However, the news story goes very lightly on them. The trolls are not there to correct false information. They are just there to push an agenda.

**splodeymissile** · 03-01-2014 10:35 AM

Perhaps, they're watching this.

Honestly, it doesn't surprise me much. I don't think we'll be a big brother government any time soon, though.

**Universal Mind** · 03-01-2014 10:52 AM

Originally Posted by splodeymissile

Perhaps, they're watching this.

Honestly, it doesn't surprise me much. I don't think we'll be a big brother government any time soon, though.

I don't either, but there is a very strong push in that direction. What's scary is that most of the country doesn't seem to care. I think they eventually will.

I'm sure people in the spy on citizens wing of the government have read just about every public internet comment there has ever been. I wonder if I have changed any of their minds about what they are doing. I can only hope.

By the way, your screen name is hilarious.

Edit: DTD110865, John Mather, and DreadNaught2 are also major ones. I encourage people to find their comments on YouTube and argue with them. It can be hilarious. It's fun to call them out repeatedly for using the ad hominem fallacy.

**Alric** · 03-02-2014 03:49 AM

I have had people accuse me of that before. Usually it is a sign that they are losing a debate and so people grasp at any straw possible to try to discredit the people against them. I am not going to say there couldn't possibly one but most likely a person isn't one just because they disagree with you. I would say all those people are just regular users and have nothing to do with the government, and you are probably just being more paranoid.

You are following the natural progression for the paranoid conspiracy theorists. First you notice some things that don't seem right to you personally(but are usually normal when taken with the proper context or with all the facts), then you think some conspiracy is true, then you think a bunch of conspiracies are true, then you think the government is doing shady stuff all the time and the new world order is trying to combine all the nations into one single super country so the powers that be can rule over us all.

Also, it is funny you mentioned ad hominem fallacy, since that is what this is. This idea that they are paid shills is an ad hominem attack to try to discredit them. In fact, the idea that a person is working for the government is entirely irrelevant to whether they have a valid point or not. If I point out something that is a fact, then it is a fact and if I was paid to say it or not doesn't change it from being a fact. You only care about that, because you need a reason to ignore them. You want a reason to be able to hear a fact they say, and reject it without any good reasoning. Such things allow the poor logic that is included in most conspiracy theories to continue on unexamined.

**~~DeletePlease~~** · 03-02-2014 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

You are following the natural progression for the paranoid conspiracy theorists. First you notice some things that don't seem right to you personally(but are usually normal when taken with the proper context or with all the facts), then you think some conspiracy is true, then you think a bunch of conspiracies are true, then you think the government is doing shady stuff all the time and the new world order is trying to combine all the nations into one single super country so the powers that be can rule over us all.

A tad condescending and trite, no?

@ bolded: That's generally how one's understanding of the world expands. You take in one new idea, cross-reference it with what you previously believed or understood to be true, and then arrive at new conclusions... which inevitably causes you to further question the rest of your belief system. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. The process isn't exclusive to "conspiracy theorists."

Once an individual realizes that their government has gone to great lengths to police the political discourse of the nation in the past, the logical thing to do then is to question everything you previously thought to be true in regards to that system of governance.
-------
I don't know if it these are government spies on Youtube, I personally don't care, but certain government agencies have gone the "extra mile" in the past (eg. the FBI's black-bag jobs, "poison pen" letters, student surveillance, and even coloring books [look up COINTELPRO's Black Panther Party coloring book, an attempt to slander and discredit the Black Panther Party]).

**Universal Mind** · 03-02-2014 08:18 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

I have had people accuse me of that before. Usually it is a sign that they are losing a debate and so people grasp at any straw possible to try to discredit the people against them. I am not going to say there couldn't possibly one but most likely a person isn't one just because they disagree with you. I would say all those people are just regular users and have nothing to do with the government, and you are probably just being more paranoid.

You are following the natural progression for the paranoid conspiracy theorists. First you notice some things that don't seem right to you personally(but are usually normal when taken with the proper context or with all the facts), then you think some conspiracy is true, then you think a bunch of conspiracies are true, then you think the government is doing shady stuff all the time and the new world order is trying to combine all the nations into one single super country so the powers that be can rule over us all.

Also, it is funny you mentioned ad hominem fallacy, since that is what this is. This idea that they are paid shills is an ad hominem attack to try to discredit them. In fact, the idea that a person is working for the government is entirely irrelevant to whether they have a valid point or not. If I point out something that is a fact, then it is a fact and if I was paid to say it or not doesn't change it from being a fact. You only care about that, because you need a reason to ignore them. You want a reason to be able to hear a fact they say, and reject it without any good reasoning. Such things allow the poor logic that is included in most conspiracy theories to continue on unexamined.

You are way, way off. An ad hominem attack involves merely insulting people without countering their arguments on the issues. When did I ever do that? You and I argued about Sandy Hook a ton, and I never did that. I debate the issues. My post is not some substitute for logical debate, and I never said that anybody who disagrees with me on conspiracy claims is a government shill. I showed you a news report which claims that there are government shills on the internet. Those people's comments are about 95% ad hominem. Some shills are 100% ad hominem. The dedication some people have to absurd babble in defense of the indefensible, coupled with their inability to retort, brings their sincerity into question, especially when they are all over YouTube with it. Some of them have been at it for more than a decade. It doesn't mean that I don't debate the issues with them. They are the ones who fall short on that. Did I ever accuse you or anybody else on this site of being a government shill? No, I didn't. That should tell you that I have noticed other factors with the people I am calling shills. Do you know anything about the individuals I am referring to? Why do you behave as though you do?

Yes, Sandy Hoax really called into question for me what else the government has been up to. It inspired me to do a lot of research, and that research taught me about Project MK Ultra, Operation Northwoods, Operation Mockingbird, Project Bluebird, and the Tuskegee Experiment. What do you know about those programs? What is your opinion of them? If you know about their details, how much do you trust the government? Talk to me.

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

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

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

http://www.wanttoknow.info/bluebird10pg

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskege...lis_experiment

**Alric** · 03-02-2014 09:04 AM

I am not saying you are using ad hominem attacks, but the that the idea that people are going around calling others paid shills is an ad hominem. The people who were suggesting those ideas to you are using ad hominem. Their goal is to basically say, "Some of the people arguing against me are paid shills, so you can't really trust anyone who shares similar positions as them." And they think that, even if those other people give valid, well thought out reasons for what they believe.

I don't really need to see anything from those specific posters, because we all know there are people like that all over the internet. People just randomly show up and make stupid comments on places like youtube and stuff. That is just how things are and there is a million people like that. If you were a paid professional, and your position is correct and there is data to back up your position, there is no reason for ad hominem attacks. You are better off just posting the data that proves your point. So if they are just going around saying random stuff, they are probably not being paid for it.

**Universal Mind** · 03-02-2014 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

I am not saying you are using ad hominem attacks, but the that the idea that people are going around calling others paid shills is an ad hominem. The people who were suggesting those ideas to you are using ad hominem. Their goal is to basically say, "Some of the people arguing against me are paid shills, so you can't really trust anyone who shares similar positions as them." And they think that, even if those other people give valid, well thought out reasons for what they believe.

I don't really need to see anything from those specific posters, because we all know there are people like that all over the internet. People just randomly show up and make stupid comments on places like youtube and stuff. That is just how things are and there is a million people like that. If you were a paid professional, and your position is correct and there is data to back up your position, there is no reason for ad hominem attacks. You are better off just posting the data that proves your point. So if they are just going around saying random stuff, they are probably not being paid for it.

It's only ad hominem if they are not also refuting the relevant claims. Most of the shills say stuff to the effect of, "You are a sicko. How dare you question tragedy! You are mentally ill. Do you realize that? Please get help!" When people are doing that all over YouTube every day under videos about government shadiness, it calls into major question what their real motives are. It's interesting that there was a news report claiming that such government shill activity has been confirmed.

What is your opinion on the actual government conspiracies I posted links about? Am I just following some conspiracy nut path for believing they happened? The documents on them are declassified now. You can see them on the internet and in Jesse Ventura's latest book, as well as other places.

63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read: Jesse Ventura, Dick Russell: 9781616085711: Amazon.com: Books

**Alric** · 03-04-2014 02:05 AM

Their motives are clear. I want you to consider for a moment that those people are right. If they are correct and you are wrong, then you would be tormenting and making fun of people who lost loves one in a tragic incident. You would be slandering innocent people, and your actions would be consider cruel by most people. In that case, it is entirely reasonable that some are upset by your actions, and thus call you out on them.

Jesse Ventura is a lying scumbag. I wouldn't trust a thing he said, and he has been caught lying in the past. For example, his tv show where he went to an outdoor warehouse for coffin liners manufacturer. He lied and said it was a government place that was storing coffins for when the government tries to kill everyone. He said that, knowing that the company has nothing to do with the government, and that they weren't coffins, and that it was an entirely normal amount of liners that are sold by the company each year.

Any way, the government does shady stuff all the time, however you have to be able to determine truth from fiction. 9/11 and Sandy hook wasn't done by the government and all the facts back that up.

**Universal Mind** · 03-04-2014 05:46 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

Their motives are clear. I want you to consider for a moment that those people are right. If they are correct and you are wrong, then you would be tormenting and making fun of people who lost loves one in a tragic incident. You would be slandering innocent people, and your actions would be consider cruel by most people. In that case, it is entirely reasonable that some are upset by your actions, and thus call you out on them.

Jesse Ventura is a lying scumbag. I wouldn't trust a thing he said, and he has been caught lying in the past. For example, his tv show where he went to an outdoor warehouse for coffin liners manufacturer. He lied and said it was a government place that was storing coffins for when the government tries to kill everyone. He said that, knowing that the company has nothing to do with the government, and that they weren't coffins, and that it was an entirely normal amount of liners that are sold by the company each year.

Any way, the government does shady stuff all the time, however you have to be able to determine truth from fiction. 9/11 and Sandy hook wasn't done by the government and all the facts back that up.

I would believe in trumpet playing unicorns on the moon before I would believe that.

Think about how you have debated me on Sandy Hook. Also think about the bazillion arguments I have made that have nothing to do with supposed family member reactions. People who join discussions on those and have practically no debate points to make and just insult people and are all over Sandy Hook and gun control video threads doing that are driven by something other than the will to debate or to stand up to what they believe is injustice. They are propagandists who use almost pure emotion to push their causes. They put a great deal of time into it.

Never mind Jesse Ventura. Look at the documents he put in his book. You can look at them on the internet, and you can do all of the research you feel like you need to do to learn that the documents really are declassified government documents concerning actual government deception conspiracies.

I don't know about 9/11. It's fishy, but it's fuzzy. Sandy Hook, on the other hand, was obviously a hoax.

**Original Poster** · 03-04-2014 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

Their motives are clear. I want you to consider for a moment that those people are right. If they are correct and you are wrong, then you would be tormenting and making fun of people who lost loves one in a tragic incident. You would be slandering innocent people, and your actions would be consider cruel by most people. In that case, it is entirely reasonable that some are upset by your actions, and thus call you out on them.

Jesse Ventura is a lying scumbag. I wouldn't trust a thing he said, and he has been caught lying in the past. For example, his tv show where he went to an outdoor warehouse for coffin liners manufacturer. He lied and said it was a government place that was storing coffins for when the government tries to kill everyone. He said that, knowing that the company has nothing to do with the government, and that they weren't coffins, and that it was an entirely normal amount of liners that are sold by the company each year.

Any way, the government does shady stuff all the time, however you have to be able to determine truth from fiction. 9/11 and Sandy hook wasn't done by the government and all the facts back that up.

I saw that episode, he didn't really say anything to the affirmative, it was Alex Jones making all the claims you're putting on Ventura because Jones was given the space to make those statements on Ventura's show. This is stretching into apologism but Ventura had the interest of presenting ideas he believed were being swept under the rug by the mainstream media, and so he made a compromise with a mainstream network to make his show thinking he could still give these ideas publicity even if it required he occasionally hand off the soap box to David Icke and Alex Jones. David Icke he discredits, Alex Jones he doesn't question, rather he validated Jones claims via lack of fact checking. It's not the same as lying but it's misinformative. It happens in documentary style shows a lot, some conjecture is taken without the preface of "this is my belief." Ventura certainly holds some responsibility for utilizing this tactic, but it's a stretch to call him a lying scumbag because of it. He seems authentic enough to me. Granted, your glibness reveals the black hole this confrontation leads to, claiming all the facts back up that 9/11 wasn't done by the government. The 9/11 commission rejected their own report after they discovered they were lied to so the official story is discounted even by the people that wrote it.

**Alric** · 03-04-2014 10:21 AM

He is a lying scumbag. If you have a guy come on and say they have coffins for the government and then you say, "Hmm why would anyone need so many coffins unless there is going to be mass murders?" And then the guy you have on says, "Yeah, they want to kill everyone." And then you say, "Look they even have it near an airport and a rail line so it would be perfect for secretly shipping people in." You could say, yeah he never 'technically' lied, but that is just semantics. Most people would agree that those sort of lies, half truths and misdirection are still lies.

Any way, I did debate a lot on that Sandy Hook stuff, and honestly, most of the reasons you give are pretty stupid. Most of the 'evidence' was minor video glitches and personal opinions on how you think people are acting strange, while most disagree with you and find their behavior normal for the circumstances.

**Universal Mind** · 03-04-2014 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Alric

Any way, I did debate a lot on that Sandy Hook stuff, and honestly, most of the reasons you give are pretty stupid. Most of the 'evidence' was minor video glitches and personal opinions on how you think people are acting strange, while most disagree with you and find their behavior normal for the circumstances.

That is a dishonest assessment. The issues you wanted to discuss the longest were the green screen videos, but that doesn't mean they are the primary evidence. I challenged you to find one tear in an interview, and you never did. I posted a lot of long documentaries that go light years beyond anything you just mentioned, and I discussed a great deal of it.

My challenge to you to find a tear in an interview still stands. I also challenge you to find just one comment from a supposed family member of anger toward the supposed shooter. I also challenge you to find a picture of Adam Lanza at the school, and I challenge you to find a picture of an ambulance in front of the school. I don't mean the pictures of ambulances blocked in at the firehouse. Find me something that serves as good evidence that there was a shooting.

**Original Poster** · 03-05-2014 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

He is a lying scumbag. If you have a guy come on and say they have coffins for the government and then you say, "Hmm why would anyone need so many coffins unless there is going to be mass murders?" And then the guy you have on says, "Yeah, they want to kill everyone." And then you say, "Look they even have it near an airport and a rail line so it would be perfect for secretly shipping people in." You could say, yeah he never 'technically' lied, but that is just semantics. Most people would agree that those sort of lies, half truths and misdirection are still lies.

Any way, I did debate a lot on that Sandy Hook stuff, and honestly, most of the reasons you give are pretty stupid. Most of the 'evidence' was minor video glitches and personal opinions on how you think people are acting strange, while most disagree with you and find their behavior normal for the circumstances.

Like I said it stretches into apologism but you should already know that a television show on a mainstream network about secrets being hosted by a guy who's already said mainstream networks will never let the truth out is going to be wrought with bullshit. Shows like Conspiracy Theory and Decoded regularly discredit themselves and follow outlandish Red Herrings to make good, excitable television and have little to do with informing the public. Alex Jones, likewise, cares little for informing the public and more about his own ratings. I wouldn't disagree with your scumbag assessment if you pointed it at him, but I don't think Ventura genuinely falls into that category. I think his pursuit is authentic, most of what he does in the fringe is authentic research and that his short lived television series was a compromise for him, forced to partially discredit himself in order to gain a voice on a mainstream network. Shows like Ancient Aliens, etc, follow the two truths and a lie formula, giving out good information then poisoning their own well with radical and baseless conjecture because it makes better television and keeps their ideas laughable and oriented toward the ridiculous so no one takes any of the credible information very seriously. It also serves to discredit the original two truths; if you mention them you're suddenly an ancient astronaut theorist even if that evidence doesn't necessarily imply ancient astronauts.

I'm personally on the fence regarding Sandy Hook, it's a quagmire of police panic and the media going into a frenzy of presumptuous and contradictory commentary. It's more of a show of how incompetent the media is than anything else. But I find it interesting that two shootings were orchestrated by the children of two expert LIBOR witnesses. Peter Lanza, father of Adam Lanza, was the tax director for GE and scheduled the testify on the LIBOR scandal. Robert Holmes, father of the Batman shooter James Holmes, is a fraud scientist for FICO and was also scheduled to testify and name names. Information from either of these men would have put some of the wealthiest thieves in this country in prison for a long time, of this there is no doubt. We know the LIBOR scandal happened, after all, and these witnesses had the evidence to link the individuals to the crime.

In my opinion, the pro gun base in this country is far too large and adamant to ever be challenged by a couple shootings, but propping up an anti-gun conspiracy is the perfect way to discredit investigation into a conspiracy to silence LIBOR Scandal witnesses. It's impossible to talk about potential Sandy Hook/Batman conspiracy without the conversation being flooded by pro-gun conspiracy theorists, using the conspiracy theorists themselves to dig the quagmire and create for themselves the Red Herring. Red Herring > Ad Hominem, just look at this thread, it was made to talk about government funded internet trolls and instead we're talking about a quagmire conspiracy. Well played, Agent Alric. Well played.

**Alric** · 03-05-2014 08:31 AM

I pointed out several times where people are clearly crying in the videos you posted and you flat out ignored me. You made the moronic claim that even though the peoples faces were red, their shoulders were shaking, their voice was cracking, that they couldn't possibly be crying because you can't see visible tears. Which I pointed out that tears are transparent and thus hard to see on camera from a distance, and you made another stupid claim, which was that tears are always easy to see on film.

The people are clearly crying, you are just choosing to ignore reality.

As Ventura, I don't really see how any of that is relevant. Comprising your values to get more influence isn't a valid reason to lie to people. In fact, that would fulfill the scumbag part. He is lying for profit.

**Original Poster** · 03-05-2014 09:24 AM

I feel like you should address which "you" you are referring to, Agent Alric. But I digress, I argued he's compromising with the network to publicize his conspiracies, and he's gone as far as admitting that about his show and explaining he had to play ball to get it aired. You're now claiming I argued that he compromised his values and lied for profit. So you're attacking a straw man but feel free to try again.

**Alric** · 03-05-2014 01:51 PM

No, I am saying that there is no difference between lying to get publicity for other stuff he wants to say, and lying for money. He is getting paid for all that stuff, so I am not sure how you can pretend like he isn't profiting off it. He is selling books on conspiracies isn't he? Sure looks looks like lying for profit to me. I fail to see how your argument says anything else.

**Original Poster** · 03-05-2014 05:25 PM

So you can't even conceive of the possibility that Ventura was lied to about the coffins and then perpetuated that lie unknowingly?

**Universal Mind** · 03-05-2014 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Alric

I pointed out several times where people are clearly crying in the videos you posted and you flat out ignored me. You made the moronic claim that even though the peoples faces were red, their shoulders were shaking, their voice was cracking, that they couldn't possibly be crying because you can't see visible tears. Which I pointed out that tears are transparent and thus hard to see on camera from a distance, and you made another stupid claim, which was that tears are always easy to see on film.

The people are clearly crying, you are just choosing to ignore reality.

As Ventura, I don't really see how any of that is relevant. Comprising your values to get more influence isn't a valid reason to lie to people. In fact, that would fulfill the scumbag part. He is lying for profit.

No, you have not posted that. Post it here and tell me the minutes and seconds. Your personal insults are worthless. You cannot back up what you are saying. Tears can be seen on video, but not in the Sandy Hook interviews of supposed family members. The only Sandy Hook people crying are the family members of kids who were not supposedly killed. Watch this at 4:20.

Did you see the tears? We've been over this. By the way, check out the news report at 1:05. Compare that madness to what is now the official story.

I still challenge you to find me footage of a Sandy Hook supposed family member of a supposed victim expressing anger toward the shooter. I haven't heard it yet, and I've watched tons of interviews. Let's see what you can find.

**Alric** · 03-06-2014 12:11 AM

Originally Posted by Original Poster

So you can't even conceive of the possibility that Ventura was lied to about the coffins and then perpetuated that lie unknowingly?

Didn't you just say he was seriously into this stuff, and does a ton of research? If that is true, then how could he not know? How come he still hangs out with people like Alex Jones and push similar things? It might be believable if he showed any regret at all, or if he didn't know about this sort of stuff but that isn't the case. He seems well informed and is still pushing these ideas.

As for Universal Mind, you are still being dishonest. If I post videos of people crying you are just going to claim that you can't see their tears and thus they are not crying, even if they show all the other signs of crying that are easier to see on film. You purposely picked the hardest thing to see and make that the only requirement to determine if someone is crying or not.

I post a dozen examples of them crying, if you are willingly to accept the other signs that people are crying, such has red faces, puffy eyes, cracking voices, sobbing sounds, shaking shoulders and all that stuff. Otherwise you can even see tears on that woman in the video you just posted but I know for a fact you will say, "I can't see them, those are not tears." And I don't want to argue over transparent water drops on someone's face that is hard to see. Even if I find them you are going to say you can't see them.

**Universal Mind** · 03-06-2014 12:39 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

As for Universal Mind, you are still being dishonest. If I post videos of people crying you are just going to claim that you can't see their tears and thus they are not crying, even if they show all the other signs of crying that are easier to see on film. You purposely picked the hardest thing to see and make that the only requirement to determine if someone is crying or not.

I post a dozen examples of them crying, if you are willingly to accept the other signs that people are crying, such has red faces, puffy eyes, cracking voices, sobbing sounds, shaking shoulders and all that stuff. Otherwise you can even see tears on that woman in the video you just posted but I know for a fact you will say, "I can't see them, those are not tears." And I don't want to argue over transparent water drops on someone's face that is hard to see. Even if I find them you are going to say you can't see them.

I want to see tears, like what I showed you. They show up just fine in interviews. There have been tons of interviews of alleged family members of Sandy Hook alleged victims, and many of the interviews took place within 48 hours of the supposed shooting, so show a tear. Just talking and acting funny don't cut it. Anybody can do that stuff with the voice and shake their shoulders. If a massacre of first graders really happened, you can find tears in interviews. There have been lots of interviews. I also want to hear one of the alleged family members expressing anger toward Adam Lanza. Surely you can find tears and expressions of anger toward the shooter if there really was a massacre of first graders.

**Original Poster** · 03-06-2014 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by Alric

Didn't you just say he was seriously into this stuff, and does a ton of research? If that is true, then how could he not know? How come he still hangs out with people like Alex Jones and push similar things? It might be believable if he showed any regret at all, or if he didn't know about this sort of stuff but that isn't the case. He seems well informed and is still pushing these ideas.

The television business is nothing but compromise and filling a season with new theories each year puts precedence from the network to have finished episodes over accurate episodes. Alex Jones has been pushing the eugenics thing for a long time, so I think in the end Ventura just gave him reigns to practically write the entire thing since that whole theory is Jones' brainchild to begin with. I'm not really sure if a staff even exists to fact check shit for that show, that'd be like fact checking Ancient Aliens. You want to call him a scumbag, you have to call every person who ever produced a show a scumbag, too. That's the television business, and if you watch shows like Conspiracy Theory or Ancient Aliens or Mermaid: The Body Found, you're going to find a lot of conjecture and a lot of assessment taken out of context. It goes back to the two truths and lie formula I mentioned in post 14, but I don't think you even read that.

I wouldn't call the Ancient Aliens dude, Giorgio A. Tsoukalos a scumbag either, just a loopy guy with some loopy theories. Science survives off creativity, and it's unfortunate that fringe ideas aren't given the respect necessary to properly analyze and dispute them. I think you're vilifying people for thinking outside the box. Shame on you, special agent.

**Universal Mind** · 03-06-2014 10:07 AM

I Was a Paid Internet Shill: How Shadowy Groups Manipulate Internet Opinion and Debate : Conscious Life News

**Original Poster** · 03-06-2014 10:25 AM

I don't know why I love pictures like these so much, but I do

**Alric** · 03-06-2014 11:53 AM

If you actually believe in something, then that is fine. If you are putting forth a hypothetical theory, that is fine. If you make a fictional show, and it is known to be fictional, then that is fine. Lying to people's face isn't fine though. Lying to people isn't an acceptable method to promote ideas. I don't know where you get this idea that creativity equals lying. You can be creative and think outside of the box, and look into different theories, without lying to people.

Also, he isn't even lying for entertainment reasons. Ancient Aliens is a bunch of lies but it is for entertainment purposes. Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones are actually pushing for political change and stuff. They are lying but it isn't for entertainment reasons. Telling people that the government wants to kill you, and then given fake proof isn't a "Haha this is just for fun and entertainment" type thing.

As for Universal Mind, this is exactly why those people make fun of you. There are hundreds of pictures and videos of people crying, but you have some absurd level of requirement to consider it crying. If the person wipes the tears away that doesn't count. If the camera is to far away or the lightning isn't correct even if they are crying it doesn't count. If a person sobs but they put their hands over their face, or look away from the camera, it isn't crying.

To you, someone could post a video of a woman with her face red, and mascara all smeared over her face from crying, and snot running down her nose, holding a soaked tissue and you would reply, "I can't see the actual formation of a tear drop, it is fake. She isn't really crying!" It is far easier to call you an idiot than it is to look for some picture that meets some arbitrary and absurdly high level requirement that you just pulled out of your ass. Everyone else knows those people are crying, your the only one not living in reality. That is why people insult you. You are asking me why a person just insults you instead of giving a real reply, and that is the reason. When you say you never seen people cry when there is hundreds of videos and images of people crying, you sound like an idiot. The easiest thing to do is just insult you and move on.

There is no real reason to argue over it, since anyone can look at the videos and see people crying. It is extremely easy to tell they are crying. You can keep saying they are not, but you are living in a fantasy world.