Hi there, @topletbomb. Normally, we flair personal testimony threads whose claims are uncorroborated by external sources as Unverified or Accuracy in Question. However, due to material like this
Presidential Models often have been trained by the CIA in special ESP skills like having a photographic memory. Other special CIA spy ESP skills they may have been programmed to have include the ability to speak "in tongues" i.e. in any language, the ability to see and hear at a distance, as in clairvoyance and clariaudience) A/K/A remote viewing, shapeshifting, and forecasting the future, including stock prices, etc.
that really stretch credulity to the breaking point, I am giving this the "Possible Disinfo" flair. Thanks.
I have no idea what "see parent " means @vindicator
However, due to material like this -
"Presidential Models often have been trained by the CIA in special ESP skills like having a photographic memory. Other special CIA spy ESP skills they may have been programmed to have include the ability to speak "in tongues" i.e. in any language, the ability to see and hear at a distance, as in clairvoyance and clariaudience) A/K/A remote viewing, shapeshifting, and forecasting the future, including stock prices, etc.
that really stretch credulity to the breaking point, I am giving this the "Possible Disinfo" flair. Thanks."
Which parts of what you put, stretch credulity? or are you bizarrely claiming all of what you quoted?
It strains your credulity, not people who have investigated it. try reading about remote viewing, try reading about presidential models, try reading about mind control and how it affects the brain and hence photographic memory, try reading about external methods of programming the brain. You bias people due to your lack of knowledge, so sad.
Rather than educate yourself in the issues round the group you moderate you use the jobsworth excuse with the lazy conspiracy angle thrown in.
To put a link for every single word that a moderator might be uneducated on is of course prohibitively time consuming for a poster. Definitive proof of many many claims surrounding abuse of course impossible. Highest common factor rather than lowest common denominator might be the way forward.
Rather than educate yourself in the issues round the group you moderate
This is Voat, garlicbulb. Voat has a long, long history of giving zero shits about mods; they are merely janitors tasked with removing posts that fail to meet the rules. Mod opinion or knowledge does not have much effect on what most goats think. Our ruleset is set up the way it is -- requiring linked support for every claim that is not common knowledge -- so that people can review the evidence and form their own critical opinions. We don't require "definitive proof". We require clear explanations of how things connect and links to supporting evidence for major claims so people can do their own research.
We created our flairs based on the suggestions of the community regarding what might need additional attention. "Possible disinfo" is used when a thread contains questionable material that could be used to discredit v/pizzagate and the excellent research on global elite corruption we have amassed.
You were the one that said "Posts here have to give linked proof of their claims" . How is it possible to give linked proof to everything in an article or second guess what an uneducated mod might not know about or be incredulous of?
It is not the rule that i am complaining about here (though it caters to lowest common denominator not highest common factor) , it is about YOUR interpretation of it and a differential interpretation of it for your own post https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2825814
In the midst of a lot of compelling stuff we have researched and documented thoroughly here about MKUltra, SRS and Dissociative Identity Disorder, garlicbulb, this article claimed:
"Other special CIA spy ESP skills they may have been programmed to have include the ability to speak "in tongues" i.e. in any language, the ability to see and hear at a distance, as in clairvoyance and clariaudience) A/K/A remote viewing, shapeshifting"
Possibilities which have NOT been researched and well documented on this board, are not "commonly accepted facts" and which are exactly the type of speculative claims those involved in information warfare insert with true material to discredit it and slap it with the conspiracy label. We could have deleted this thread completely under Rule 2 and asked that it be reposted in v/pizzagatewhatever, our speculative subverse.
However, for the sake of public awareness about disinfo, we often opt to flair it and leave it on the main board, which is what I did, here. That allows for ongoing discussion and crowdsourced examination of the claims and the possible disinfo pusher.
Flairs can and frequently are changed if new evidence is uncovered by the community.
I think you may be put off by alternatives terms that have been used. If it was written as follows it may be easier for you to acccept, the other names are just to illustrate what some people call them, and no doubt those terms are used to mean other things as well.
"Other special CIA spy ESP skills they may have been programmed to have include the ability to speak in any language, the ability to see and hear at a distance ie remote viewing "
But in fact, contrary to what you say, the article goes on to link to source and reference another "The CIA needed these skills in spies. Shamans had the skills and the CIA did the R&D to get them. (See John Perkins’ “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” [amazon banned domain link?] and “Shapeshifting” books.)"
So this article does give source link but you choose to flair it as possible disinfo, but the one you posted does not and you bend the rule to not flair it.
I would advocate not flairing either with "possible disinfo" with its perjorative connotations. If you have to flair them flair "more research needed" or similar.
If programing people with language skills or remote viewing is not commonly accepted on this sub then it has not got very far.
view the rest of the comments →
Vindicator ago
Hi there, @topletbomb. Normally, we flair personal testimony threads whose claims are uncorroborated by external sources as Unverified or Accuracy in Question. However, due to material like this
that really stretch credulity to the breaking point, I am giving this the "Possible Disinfo" flair. Thanks.
garlicbulb ago
I have no idea what "see parent " means @vindicator
However, due to material like this - "Presidential Models often have been trained by the CIA in special ESP skills like having a photographic memory. Other special CIA spy ESP skills they may have been programmed to have include the ability to speak "in tongues" i.e. in any language, the ability to see and hear at a distance, as in clairvoyance and clariaudience) A/K/A remote viewing, shapeshifting, and forecasting the future, including stock prices, etc. that really stretch credulity to the breaking point, I am giving this the "Possible Disinfo" flair. Thanks." Which parts of what you put, stretch credulity? or are you bizarrely claiming all of what you quoted?
Vindicator ago
See parent means click the button that says "parent" under my comment to see what I was replying to.
And yep, all of that strains credulity.
garlicbulb ago
It strains your credulity, not people who have investigated it. try reading about remote viewing, try reading about presidential models, try reading about mind control and how it affects the brain and hence photographic memory, try reading about external methods of programming the brain. You bias people due to your lack of knowledge, so sad.
Vindicator ago
Not my job. And this isn't v/conspiracy. Posts here have to give linked proof of their claims.
garlicbulb ago
Rather than educate yourself in the issues round the group you moderate you use the jobsworth excuse with the lazy conspiracy angle thrown in. To put a link for every single word that a moderator might be uneducated on is of course prohibitively time consuming for a poster. Definitive proof of many many claims surrounding abuse of course impossible. Highest common factor rather than lowest common denominator might be the way forward.
Vindicator ago
This is Voat, garlicbulb. Voat has a long, long history of giving zero shits about mods; they are merely janitors tasked with removing posts that fail to meet the rules. Mod opinion or knowledge does not have much effect on what most goats think. Our ruleset is set up the way it is -- requiring linked support for every claim that is not common knowledge -- so that people can review the evidence and form their own critical opinions. We don't require "definitive proof". We require clear explanations of how things connect and links to supporting evidence for major claims so people can do their own research.
We created our flairs based on the suggestions of the community regarding what might need additional attention. "Possible disinfo" is used when a thread contains questionable material that could be used to discredit v/pizzagate and the excellent research on global elite corruption we have amassed.
garlicbulb ago
You were the one that said "Posts here have to give linked proof of their claims" . How is it possible to give linked proof to everything in an article or second guess what an uneducated mod might not know about or be incredulous of? It is not the rule that i am complaining about here (though it caters to lowest common denominator not highest common factor) , it is about YOUR interpretation of it and a differential interpretation of it for your own post https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2825814
Vindicator ago
In the midst of a lot of compelling stuff we have researched and documented thoroughly here about MKUltra, SRS and Dissociative Identity Disorder, garlicbulb, this article claimed:
Possibilities which have NOT been researched and well documented on this board, are not "commonly accepted facts" and which are exactly the type of speculative claims those involved in information warfare insert with true material to discredit it and slap it with the conspiracy label. We could have deleted this thread completely under Rule 2 and asked that it be reposted in v/pizzagatewhatever, our speculative subverse.
However, for the sake of public awareness about disinfo, we often opt to flair it and leave it on the main board, which is what I did, here. That allows for ongoing discussion and crowdsourced examination of the claims and the possible disinfo pusher.
Flairs can and frequently are changed if new evidence is uncovered by the community.
garlicbulb ago
I think you may be put off by alternatives terms that have been used. If it was written as follows it may be easier for you to acccept, the other names are just to illustrate what some people call them, and no doubt those terms are used to mean other things as well.
"Other special CIA spy ESP skills they may have been programmed to have include the ability to speak in any language, the ability to see and hear at a distance ie remote viewing "
But in fact, contrary to what you say, the article goes on to link to source and reference another "The CIA needed these skills in spies. Shamans had the skills and the CIA did the R&D to get them. (See John Perkins’ “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” [amazon banned domain link?] and “Shapeshifting” books.)"
So this article does give source link but you choose to flair it as possible disinfo, but the one you posted does not and you bend the rule to not flair it. I would advocate not flairing either with "possible disinfo" with its perjorative connotations. If you have to flair them flair "more research needed" or similar. If programing people with language skills or remote viewing is not commonly accepted on this sub then it has not got very far.