Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 68

Thread: Farsight Institute -- I now have Proof of Disinfo

  1. #31
    Member on Sabbatical Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Outside of Addlepatia
    Posts
    5,781
    Thanks
    34,903
    Thanked 37,387 Times in 5,752 Posts
    Here is some food for thought. First, there is no alternative "community", with few exceptions maybe, there is an alternative audience waiting for the next installment of a view of their future from whatever source. RV, channeling, space brothers/sisters, whistleblowers and whatever else. A real community would be planning their future, discussing what is would look like and come to agreements. Then they would implement that plan. The future is ours to create but, it takes discussion, debate and agreement. An audience sits raptly while listening and watching the plans of others unfold around them. Various agencies have lots of plans and they do what they can to carry them out. Their numbers pale in comparison to the audience but, they strategize and work together. Like the farmer and one or two sheep dogs.

    I could care less what Courtney does. He gives me the creeps but, gotta give him credit for being organized. Something the "audience" is not. A mostly faceless and anonymous audience who would not know each other on the same bus sitting face to face. One thing the RVers do not see is people coming together and creating a future they would like to live in. That is the most chilling report of all from those who peer into our future.

    The video I will be posting in my two main threads will cover some of the unity needed as well as the paucity of real talent and creativity from the controllers. Controllers who listen to the men and women whose paychecks they approve and wait for the ideas to be fed to them. Then they administrate/direct/choose. The real talent would the minions that come from our brothers, sisters and other regular people.

    Do we really like a future where we continue to get shit on? It is a choice and a matter of will.
    Last edited by modwiz, 13th September 2016 at 09:14.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (13th September 2016), Aragorn (13th September 2016), Bob (13th September 2016), bsbray (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Dreamtimer (13th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), lcam88 (15th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  3. #32
    Senior Member Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th December 2014
    Location
    currently USA
    Posts
    524
    Thanks
    2,667
    Thanked 2,942 Times in 517 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    Bob, stop trying to downplay the fact that the man blatantly lied. You make it sound like he just innocently edited the page. Read Innocent Warrior's post if mine don't make sense to you.
    U mean I should comply with another's belief and change my own? hmmm... I can't evaluate for the man's action(s). I don't know him, I can only go on hearsay about his personality his motivation. I think I will stick with my opinion. I'd like to see CB as a member and state his reasoning for doing what he did. Of course that probably won't happen, but that is a wish and desire, something that I would like to understand more about from him what his motivation is. The forum would have a great opportunity to understand from their viewpoint what RV'ing is about, why they do what they do, or don't do.

    I certainly appreciate your wanting to tell us why you feel this man has a problem with the way he goes about persuading the public that his Institute is not about "disinfo". If we don't talk, nobody can benefit from what sharing thoughts means. I value you and I value your opinion. Good job !

    I actually prefer ModWiz's approach which seems pretty darned objective about what's happening and what's not happening.

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Bob For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (13th September 2016), Aragorn (13th September 2016), bsbray (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Dreamtimer (13th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), lcam88 (15th September 2016), modwiz (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  5. #33
    Permanently Banned United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,918
    Thanks
    17,643
    Thanked 12,679 Times in 2,912 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Innocent Warrior View Post
    Yes, it does make you do these ones O_o when the response is to alter the criteria and not just objectively and openly assess the issue and continue on from there. I'm not comfortable with making the leap from that to it being like sociopathic behaviour though. It is what it is and if they make a habit of it then it goes from, "that was silly and unnecessary" to "that's dodgy". Short of that, I agree with Bob on that one.
    If he spent $2000 on giving his website a design makeover, that would be unnecessary. But what Brown did was to go back and "alter the criteria," exactly as you put it, and this by itself is already very dishonest. It gets worse when he doesn't tell you that he did so. It gets much worse when he then goes on video and acts like this new method he's describing has been the same method through the whole time-cross project, when it most certainly has not. The blatant lying, and I really mean a blatant and barefaced lie straight to the camera, a lie which is proven by the Internet Archive cache, is what strikes me as sociopathic. It is intentional and manipulative.

    He even goes so far as to start claiming that the problem of narrowing down one single event is "well known" despite the time-cross project being a few months old already and I've never heard him mention that one time before. Of course he never mentioned it before because previously his website said the exact damn opposite. That makes lie number two that he told.

    I cannot imagine any possible scenario where Courtney Brown did this and it was an accident, or he didn't really mean to, or he was just being "overconfident," which isn't even relevant to anything. The problem is not that the data was wrong. The problem is that he tried to cover it up and then lie about it, which is totally ridiculous.

  6. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (13th September 2016), Aragorn (13th September 2016), Bob (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Dreamtimer (13th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), Innocent Warrior (13th September 2016), modwiz (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  7. #34
    Member on Sabbatical Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Outside of Addlepatia
    Posts
    5,781
    Thanks
    34,903
    Thanked 37,387 Times in 5,752 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    If he spent $2000 on giving his website a design makeover, that would be unnecessary. But what Brown did was to go back and "alter the criteria," exactly as you put it, and this by itself is already very dishonest. It gets worse when he doesn't tell you that he did so. It gets much worse when he then goes on video and acts like this new method he's describing has been the same method through the whole time-cross project, when it most certainly has not. The blatant lying, and I really mean a blatant and barefaced lie straight to the camera, a lie which is proven by the Internet Archive cache, is what strikes me as sociopathic. It is intentional and manipulative.

    He even goes so far as to start claiming that the problem of narrowing down one single event is "well known" despite the time-cross project being a few months old already and I've never heard him mention that one time before. Of course he never mentioned it before because previously his website said the exact damn opposite. That makes lie number two that he told.

    I cannot imagine any possible scenario where Courtney Brown did this and it was an accident, or he didn't really mean to, or he was just being "overconfident," which isn't even relevant to anything. The problem is not that the data was wrong. The problem is that he tried to cover it up and then lie about it, which is totally ridiculous.
    Who is the real CB?

    Pirate? (bandana)

    Shaved head in suit and tie?

    Pencil-thin mustache Max Headroom?

    Guess he thought it was time for a web-site makeover too.

    "Let me entertain you"
    Last edited by modwiz, 13th September 2016 at 08:49.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (13th September 2016), Aragorn (13th September 2016), Bob (13th September 2016), bsbray (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Dreamtimer (13th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  9. #35
    Senior Member Netherlands
    Join Date
    20th March 2015
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    1,369
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4,488 Times in 1,190 Posts
    Perhaps it's an idea to contact Courtney Brown in person and ask him why he did what he's done?

    http://courtneybrown.com/contact75.html
    The Better You Look, The More You See

  10. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Outlander For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (13th September 2016), Aragorn (13th September 2016), Bob (13th September 2016), bsbray (13th September 2016), Dreamtimer (13th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), Innocent Warrior (13th September 2016), lcam88 (15th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  11. #36
    Permanently Banned United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,918
    Thanks
    17,643
    Thanked 12,679 Times in 2,912 Posts
    While we're at it we can ask Simon Parkes and Corey Goode if they are telling the truth too.

    Also I hear that Hillary Clinton is saying that she is in excellent health.

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (13th September 2016), Aragorn (13th September 2016), Bob (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Dreamtimer (13th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), modwiz (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  13. #37
    Senior Member Australia Innocent Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th June 2016
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    1,105
    Thanked 1,191 Times in 164 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    If he spent $2000 on giving his website a design makeover, that would be unnecessary. But what Brown did was to go back and "alter the criteria," exactly as you put it, and this by itself is already very dishonest. It gets worse when he doesn't tell you that he did so. It gets much worse when he then goes on video and acts like this new method he's describing has been the same method through the whole time-cross project, when it most certainly has not. The blatant lying, and I really mean a blatant and barefaced lie straight to the camera, a lie which is proven by the Internet Archive cache, is what strikes me as sociopathic. It is intentional and manipulative.

    He even goes so far as to start claiming that the problem of narrowing down one single event is "well known" despite the time-cross project being a few months old already and I've never heard him mention that one time before. Of course he never mentioned it before because previously his website said the exact damn opposite. That makes lie number two that he told.

    I cannot imagine any possible scenario where Courtney Brown did this and it was an accident, or he didn't really mean to, or he was just being "overconfident," which isn't even relevant to anything. The problem is not that the data was wrong. The problem is that he tried to cover it up and then lie about it, which is totally ridiculous.
    I can think of another possible scenario, it's possible it is a misunderstanding because he didn't discuss the amendment to the target criteria but he is explaining the complexity of viewing one target (and how the complexity lies in the weight of the events in the news) at the beginning of the video, hence why I wrote this -

    So if there's no announcement of that amendment and that's just been slipped in there then that was a silly and unnecessary thing to do.
    When he explains the complexity of viewing one target he addresses specifically the elements of the target criteria that have been affected by the amendment. So it could be a case of Courtney seeing the amendment as an adjustment due to the complexity issue and the video as a clarification. In that case it would be that he didn't communicate that clearly enough and we have a misunderstanding, or you could be right. Until I can see clearly that he's lied and until he's been approached about it so I can hear what he has to say, I stand by what I've written.

    My apologies if I've missed something, I haven't yet got the chance to read the rest of the thread, but I watched the video and I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say he was lying on the video. Could you please point out exactly what he says when he's lying and where it is on the video? If he did definitely, willingly lie then I'll amend my position once I've heard what he has to say about it, if appropriate.

  14. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Innocent Warrior For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (13th September 2016), Aragorn (13th September 2016), Bob (13th September 2016), bsbray (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Dreamtimer (13th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), modwiz (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  15. #38
    Member on Sabbatical Morocco modwiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th September 2013
    Location
    Outside of Addlepatia
    Posts
    5,781
    Thanks
    34,903
    Thanked 37,387 Times in 5,752 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Outlander View Post
    Perhaps it's an idea to contact Courtney Brown in person and ask him why he did what he's done?

    http://courtneybrown.com/contact75.html

    He's following the golden rule of agencies. Those who pay the gold, make the rules.

    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    While we're at it we can ask Simon Parkes and Corey Goode if they are telling the truth too.

    Also I hear that Hillary Clinton is saying that she is in excellent health.
    Considering the position she seeks. I think she is in excellent health. Just the kind we like to see.

    Quote Originally posted by Innocent Warrior View Post
    I can think of another possible scenario, it's possible it is a misunderstanding because he didn't discuss the amendment to the target criteria but he is explaining the complexity of viewing one target (and how the complexity lies in the weight of the events in the news) at the beginning of the video, hence why I wrote this -



    When he explains the complexity of viewing one target he addresses specifically the elements of the target criteria that have been affected by the amendment. So it could be a case of Courtney seeing the amendment as an adjustment due to the complexity issue and the video as a clarification. In that case it would be that he didn't communicate that clearly enough and we have a misunderstanding, or you could be right. Until I can see clearly that he's lied and until he's been approached about it so I can hear what he has to say, I stand by what I've written.

    My apologies if I've missed something, I haven't yet got the chance to read the rest of the thread, but I watched the video and I'm not sure exactly what you mean when you say he was lying on the video. Could you please point out exactly what he says when he's lying and where it is on the video? If he did definitely, willingly lie then I'll amend my position once I've heard what he has to say about it, if appropriate.
    Yes, a few words would help.
    "To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize" -- Voltaire

    "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."-- Eleanor Roosevelt

    "Misery loves company. Wisdom has to look for it." -- Anonymous

  16. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to modwiz For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (13th September 2016), Aragorn (13th September 2016), Bob (13th September 2016), bsbray (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Dreamtimer (13th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  17. #39
    Permanently Banned United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,918
    Thanks
    17,643
    Thanked 12,679 Times in 2,912 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Innocent Warrior View Post
    I can think of another possible scenario, it's possible it is a misunderstanding because he didn't discuss the amendment to the target criteria but he is explaining the complexity of viewing one target (and how the complexity lies in the weight of the events in the news)
    Originally, Jim Marrs was picking the target at the end of the month, from the given month's major news events. Remember that? He picked a single target. It was a very simple method by comparison and no one complained about it being "not possible," obviously, because they were doing it.

    Then they changed it, so that it was a formulaic way of picking the target event based on the criteria that were still explained on the website as of early August. Brown made it clear at that point that it was a straightforward process that would result in a single target event chosen at the end of the month. Again, no one said anything about it being "not possible."

    Now he is saying that this can't be done, that it is "not possible" (see the vid, 1:55) to focus on a single target (as they had claimed they were doing before!) because of a "well-known phenomenon with remote viewing."

    It must not have been too damn well known back in June and July, because it didn't stop them from picking a single target back then, did it? No, it did not. But in case anyone remembered that fact, he went back and edited the website and put out this video acting like it's been that way the whole time, that it's complicated, that most people don't understand, etc. etc. That whole spiel was actually what finally triggered my bullshit meter, because he was saying none of this before. That's when the idea popped into my head to check the Internet Archives. And I was validated by what is shown there.

    There are at least two lies in the video. The first is that the time-cross project is based on these pools of news targets that can't be limited to a single target, so they can get results for all kinds of different stuff. That is a lie because it is not what they were saying earlier this summer, it is the exact opposite of the originally-stated method of picking a single target, either by Jim Marrs or the formulaic method. The second lie came when he started justifying this new claim, stacking bullshit on top of bullshit by saying that news targets can't be singled out because of a "well-known phenomenon." This could not possibly be true considering that earlier this summer they were attempting exactly what he is now calling impossible, and making no disclaimers about it whatsoever.

    When you say two things like that which are mutually exclusive, one of them has to be false. They can't both be true at the same time. And by quietly editing the website, and then acting as if it's been this way all along, intent is demonstrated. That's how you know it's not just confusion. Following me? That's why I say you can't just accidentally cover up what the website used to say.

  18. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (13th September 2016), Aragorn (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Dreamtimer (13th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), Innocent Warrior (13th September 2016), modwiz (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  19. #40
    Senior Member Australia Innocent Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th June 2016
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    1,105
    Thanked 1,191 Times in 164 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    Originally, Jim Marrs was picking the target at the end of the month, from the given month's major news events. Remember that? He picked a single target. It was a very simple method by comparison and no one complained about it being "not possible," obviously, because they were doing it.

    Then they changed it, so that it was a formulaic way of picking the target event based on the criteria that were still explained on the website as of early August. Brown made it clear at that point that it was a straightforward process that would result in a single target event chosen at the end of the month. Again, no one said anything about it being "not possible."

    Now he is saying that this can't be done, that it is "not possible" (see the vid, 1:55) to focus on a single target (as they had claimed they were doing before!) because of a "well-known phenomenon with remote viewing."

    It must not have been too damn well known back in June and July, because it didn't stop them from picking a single target back then, did it? No, it did not. But in case anyone remembered that fact, he went back and edited the website and put out this video acting like it's been that way the whole time, that it's complicated, that most people don't understand, etc. etc. That whole spiel was actually what finally triggered my bullshit meter, because he was saying none of this before. That's when the idea popped into my head to check the Internet Archives. And I was validated by what is shown there.

    There are at least two lies in the video. The first is that the time-cross project is based on these pools of news targets that can't be limited to a single target, so they can get results for all kinds of different stuff. That is a lie because it is not what they were saying earlier this summer, it is the exact opposite of the originally-stated method of picking a single target, either by Jim Marrs or the formulaic method. The second lie came when he started justifying this new claim, stacking bullshit on top of bullshit by saying that news targets can't be singled out because of a "well-known phenomenon." This could not possibly be true considering that earlier this summer they were attempting exactly what he is now calling impossible, and making no disclaimers about it whatsoever.

    When you say two things like that which are mutually exclusive, one of them has to be false. They can't both be true at the same time. And by quietly editing the website, and then acting as if it's been this way all along, intent is demonstrated. That's how you know it's not just confusion. Following me? That's why I say you can't just accidentally cover up what the website used to say.
    Yes, I follow you, thanks for the clarification. I think you have raised valid concerns, especially the not announcing the amendment to the target criteria part, however, I'm not satisfied that we have enough information for me to agree that what you've made of it has been proven as fact. I don't see the point in going into why because I can't see you being satisfied with my reasoning and without Courtney's answers to the following questions, I can't see this disagreement being resolved.

    What was it about the complexity of the August news that caused you to decide, only now, that it's impossible for the viewers to always view a single event (they evidently thought it was possible before, as you pointed out Bsbray, and the viewers had done so before)?

    Could you please expand on what the "well-known phenomenon" is?

    How is it that you did not foresee this issue when the phenomenon was already well known previous to the August results?

    Why didn't you inform the public of the recent amendment to the target criteria?
    Last edited by Innocent Warrior, 13th September 2016 at 12:09. Reason: clarified, typos

  20. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Innocent Warrior For This Useful Post:

    Aianawa (13th September 2016), Aragorn (13th September 2016), Bob (13th September 2016), bsbray (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Dreamtimer (13th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), modwiz (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016), Wind (13th September 2016)

  21. #41
    Super Moderator United States Dreamtimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    9,291
    Thanks
    51,799
    Thanked 41,396 Times in 9,207 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by modwiz View Post
    I forget which head of the mentioned agency said that their job will be done when people believe what is not objective reality. Paraphrasing here, of course. Another thing to remember is the agency is part of Nazi International. J.P. Farrell has done exhaustive and scholarly coverage of this. This is not conspiracy theory. So, the alternative media MUST be penetrated from their perspective. CB is just such a penetration, IMO. Short memory spans and a gullible audience eager to be thrilled and intrigued (Corey Goode anyone?) are perfect for this kind of mindfark. If a portion of the population is believing anything resembling the real way the world works the agency will see its job as not being done properly. Getting into our heads is the most strategic space they can occupy.

    Furthermore, compartmentalization allows for actual patriots to work for an agency without their decency alarm going off.
    I know so many people who believe things that are not objective reality already. Is the job done then? Hopefully we undo it with our collective efforts at critical thinking.

    Bsbray has done some critical thinking and research that shows that things were changed after the fact to make it look better. Really, an explanation of results and announcement of a change in approach is what would be appropriate. Not retroactively changing the appearance of what you were trying to do. That's not part of good research or investigation.

  22. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (13th September 2016), bsbray (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Divine Feminine (16th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), modwiz (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  23. #42
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    East Tennessee U.S.A.
    Posts
    1,018
    Thanks
    1,427
    Thanked 6,201 Times in 1,021 Posts
    There is really a dichotomous discussion going on here, almost IMO worthy of a thread split as going back and forth, it's difficult to stay on topic. On the one hand we have the original topic of one Mr. Courtney Brown being busted red handed doing a little razzle dazzle smoke and mirror disappearing act to cover his ass, and on the other we have questions as to some possible much darker motives behind who and what created the original remote viewing program in the first place.

    First off, I would *love* to see Courtney come on here or elsewhere to explain his actions. I seriously doubt he would as people who do that sort of thing seldom if ever do that, but I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong. Whatever the case though, shit hot job bsbray for snatching the original guidelines from the waste bin of internet oblivion, and placing that blatant deception in the public spotlight where it rightfully belongs. Courtney got sloppy through his ego and arrogance, and he got caught with his pants down.

    Bob, pointing out the naked Emperor is not an attack or a smear. That sort of pointing at the truth equals a smear double think may smooth things over at Project Avalon when things like this get pointed out about certain individuals, but not so much here. Come on man, seriously now...

    Now as to the original program itself, who set it up? And for what purpose? It's Genesis came from some of the highest levels of Army Intelligence, and other assorted alphabet letters, and the purpose was not so the whole world could link up telepathically and sing we are the world we are the children together.

    Quite the opposite, as the task at hand was to experient, test, and then ultimately weaponize this psychic phenomena. We had high ranking generals and full bird colonels who were black ops at it's finest, the true men in black running the show. And what was their specialty? Psychological warfare and "non lethal" (can you say tazer?) weapons. They had nothing else on their minds but war, spying, and controlling the hearts and minds of people and nations alike. Why was it released out into the public domain, under the care of original participants? I know the company line, and I don't buy it.

    Can I prove anything? Hell no, good luck getting a finger to stick on mirage men. But my bet is that at a high enough level, exists a consciousness redirection Project.
    Last edited by Fred Steeves, 13th September 2016 at 15:12.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  24. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (13th September 2016), blufire (13th September 2016), bsbray (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Divine Feminine (16th September 2016), Dreamtimer (13th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), modwiz (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  25. #43
    Super Moderator United States Dreamtimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    9,291
    Thanks
    51,799
    Thanked 41,396 Times in 9,207 Posts
    "But my bet is that at a high enough level, exists a consciousness redirection Project." Probably a whole lotta consciousness projects. ,

  26. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (13th September 2016), bsbray (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Elen (13th September 2016), Innocent Warrior (14th September 2016), modwiz (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  27. #44
    Permanently Banned United States
    Join Date
    16th January 2015
    Location
    Au dela
    Posts
    2,918
    Thanks
    17,643
    Thanked 12,679 Times in 2,912 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Innocent Warrior View Post
    Yes, I follow you, thanks for the clarification. I think you have raised valid concerns, especially the not announcing the amendment to the target criteria part, however, I'm not satisfied that we have enough information for me to agree that what you've made of it has been proven as fact. I don't see the point in going into why because I can't see you being satisfied with my reasoning and without Courtney's answers to the following questions, I can't see this disagreement being resolved.
    If you or anybody else wants to ask CB those questions I'm all for it. I'd be interested in how he responds too. I just hope that no one takes everything he says as gospel at this point. We have been given more than sufficient reason to question the guy. I'm also not sure what reasoning you mean when you say "I can't see you being satisfied with my reasoning." You don't think I would be satisfied with your reasons for thinking intent to deceive hasn't actually been established because I would be too hard-headed about them, or because you think the reasoning itself is unsatisfactory at this point, or some other reason?

    I was all about the Farsight Institute before yesterday. I'd even paid for a couple of their videos (probably like $30 to them altogether) and contacted Brown to suggest future targets for their sessions. I enjoyed watching their presentations. I was right there with it. So no one can say I was previously harboring any ill will towards Mr. Brown. Someone might say I'm just being a hard ass, but I'm trying to keep my feelings out of this. After a long list of other frauds that we know only too well, that we inevitably become emotionally invested in and don't want to believe are pulling our legs, when I come across something as straightforward as the manipulation shown above, I don't feel like I need to take time out to try to imagine complicated scenarios just to give Mr. Brown the benefit of the doubt no more than I should have spent time trying to justify Simon Parkes' actions or any of the other long list of frauds.

    When Simon Parkes first came on the scene I watched hours of his interviews and presentations and took it seriously. He pulled my leg too, and a lot of other peoples' legs. Now I don't know of many people who would even try to still defend him. It's a blessing to be given such straightforward evidence of manipulation on Brown's part. If he hadn't changed his story so blatantly, and if the Internet Archives hadn't stored that single cache in August to prove it definitively, we'd still be too much in the dark to even ask the questions you list above, which are very good questions.

    No matter what his answer is though, we have his words and text on the record and we already know they don't match, and that there was intent in editing his website to change the stated methods.
    Last edited by bsbray, 13th September 2016 at 22:01.

  28. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to bsbray For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (13th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Divine Feminine (16th September 2016), Dreamtimer (14th September 2016), Elen (14th September 2016), Innocent Warrior (14th September 2016), modwiz (13th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016)

  29. #45
    Senior Member Australia Innocent Warrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th June 2016
    Posts
    164
    Thanks
    1,105
    Thanked 1,191 Times in 164 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by bsbray View Post
    If you or anybody else wants to ask CB those questions I'm all for it. I'd be interested in how he responds too. I just hope that no one takes everything he says as gospel at this point. We have been given more than sufficient reason to question the guy. I'm also not sure what reasoning you mean when you say "I can't see you being satisfied with my reasoning." You don't think I would be satisfied with your reasons for thinking intent to deceive hasn't actually been established because I would be too hard-headed about them, or because you think the reasoning itself is unsatisfactory at this point, or some other reason?
    You and I are coming from completely different perspectives and consequently have completely different approaches to assessing the concerns you have raised. I’ve spent far too much time banging my head against that brick wall throughout my life to not see the fruitlessness of such debates. I enjoy the peace of allowing, appreciating and respecting the views of others while staying true to myself too much to bother arguing a point with you when we clearly aren't going to see eye to eye on this.

    I appreciate your wariness regarding the integrity of others and their work, however, this is an example of how very different our approaches are. If someone wants to pull my leg, they can go for it, they can knock themselves out doing for all I care because I know that by being a loving and true person that it’s only a matter of time before their BS comes to light. If I need to know, I’ll know, it’s never failed me before.

    I don't feel like I need to take time out to try to imagine complicated scenarios just to give Mr. Brown the benefit of the doubt...
    Me either, I don’t find my alternative scenario complicated at all, it’s pretty simple actually. They altered the target criteria and, in the video, Courtney addressed the exact issue that was rectified by the alteration. He didn’t inform the public of the alteration, is that an error? Yes. Does it mean he’s a liar? Not necessarily. If you don’t agree with that then that’s fine, I’m comfortable with that, I don’t need you to agree with me.

    Now I think I need a dance and a sing along, you wanna dance Bsbray? C'mon, it's good for ya....


  30. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Innocent Warrior For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (14th September 2016), Bob (14th September 2016), bsbray (14th September 2016), Cearna (14th September 2016), Dreamtimer (14th September 2016), Elen (14th September 2016), modwiz (14th September 2016), pointessa (14th September 2016), Wind (14th September 2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •