Inaccuracies From WikiOp
Post by delta7 on Dec 9, 2005, 9:00pm

I hardly ever used the Wikipedia, even though its been available on the net for quite some time, however I thought I'd run a test.

So I took a relatively arcane subject I have some familiarity with ie, Remote Viewing.

Any way here is the Wikiop article:

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

As you notice in the first paragraph it says that RV was developed by "para psychologists".

This is untrue RV was developed by Harold Puthoff a former employee of the NSA and noted Quantum Physicist, who developed the Tunable Laser and Russell Targ his assistant, also a Quantum physicist .

What follows are too many inaccuracies to note, though I checked the link to SRI which itself contradicts the above article giving details similar to what I've given regarding Puthoff .

Worse, even though the article gives a definite bias against the subject as it passes on the plausible denial ( read lie ) that the CIA found no operational value in RV after field testing it for over two decades! It yet cites in its bibliography articles and books that are all pro RV, which indicates that the "author" or "authors" never bothered to read the references they've cited!

Any way for a balanced comparison, I'll include an article published by FAS or the Federation of American Scientists on the same subject:

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/stargate.htm

My point is that any person uninformed about a subject could actually go to Wiki and be even less informed than when they started!

Reaching a point of drooling idiocy!

Therefore, because of this I suspect that Wikipedia is a carefully crafted psyop, funded by our tax dollars to bring about an easily ruled state of morons.

What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Inaccuracies From WikiOp
Post by Igor Alexander on Dec 9, 2005, 9:32pm


Dec 9, 2005, 9:00pm, delta7 wrote:Therefore, because of this I suspect that Wikipedia is a carefully crafted psyop, funded by our tax dollars to bring about an easily ruled state of morons.

What do you think?



It's definitely got a "social experiment" feel to it. I'm still puzzled by what the true purpose of Wikipedia is. I don't buy into all that touchy-feely crap about making the world a better place, and I don't buy that they're really trying to create an encyclopedia (if they were, they would have precise goals, which they don't). It just seems like the encyclopedia part was tossed in there to justify the social experiment aspect.

I heard a guy talking about remote viewing on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory a few weeks ago. Is this something you believe is real?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Inaccuracies From WikiOp
Post by delta7 on Dec 9, 2005, 10:48pm


Dec 9, 2005, 9:32pm, Igor Alexander wrote:
Dec 9, 2005, 9:00pm, delta7 wrote:Therefore, because of this I suspect that Wikipedia is a carefully crafted psyop, funded by our tax dollars to bring about an easily ruled state of morons.

What do you think?



It's definitely got a "social experiment" feel to it. I'm still puzzled by what the true purpose of Wikipedia is. I don't buy into all that touchy-feely crap about making the world a better place, and I don't buy that they're really trying to create an encyclopedia (if they were, they would have precise goals, which they don't). It just seems like the encyclopedia part was tossed in there to justify the social experiment aspect.



Seems like incipient fascism. Woe be tide you if you tread far from the party line, much like usenet has become.

For instance, on alt conspiracy if you even suggest a possible conspiracy involving our government, you're usually subjected to an unrelenting troll attack.

I know I saw poor Alex Constantine go down in flames when posting on the subject there. In fact many para political authors post off usenet now onto other discussion boards, instead of wasting their time defending against a borg onslaught.

I myself have had the same pleasure.

Personally, I don't mind if someone disagrees or has something they'd like to contribute to the discussion, but most of these are personal attacks against the author, not criticism constructive or otherwise.

I read somewhere that Intel ops lurk in NGs just for that purpose and from what I've experienced it seems likely.

Wiki has been that way from the beginning from what I've seen.

[/quote]I heard a guy talking about remote viewing on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory a few weeks ago. Is this something you believe is real?[/quote]

It's something I've had interest in as a writer, as well as UFOs, government black projects such as MK Ultra and its other permutations. The CIA's involvement in drug trafficking, terrorism and money laundering. What are called 'less than lethal' or 'non lethal' weapons.

Pretty much what Noory covers on his program from what I've heard.

Most of the information I've studied has been declassified government documents or books relating to the subject.

Regarding RV initial reports indicated a 66% success rate. Yet the AIR report which is what the bulk of the Wiki article supposedly cites was flawed to say the least and actually gave a higher percentage than given in the article, see the following:

http://www.lfr.org/LFR/csl/media/ciaairreport.html

http://www.parascope.com/en/articles/rvreview.htm

As well as the earlier FAS article cited.

With a possible 66% success rate.

What does it matter if you believe in it or not?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Inaccuracies From WikiOp
Post by blissyu2 on Dec 11, 2005, 8:14am

Getting back to the point here (rather than the example), I agree that Wikipedia has ridiculous inaccuracies in there. My personal experience was with a ridiculously inaccurate article that had 100s of users criticising its accuracy in talk pages, yet not a single one of these criticisms was included in the article. They claim to be presenting the "neutral point of view" but in reality they are pushing forward the point of view of a select group of powerful editors, presumably the admins, personal friends of Jimbo Wales and otherwise the "in" crowd. If the "in" crowd believes that something is right, then it is right. If they believe it is wrong, then it is wrong. And if you disagree with them, then you are immediately on the "outer".

In some articles, you will see the conspiracy theory pushed like no tomorrow - take JFK for example. But in others, they pretend that there is no conspiracy theory, like the Port Arthur Massacre one, or the Backpacker murders one.

Oh and just to go over the Backpacker murders one (I created that article just to try to "toe the party line" as it were. What I wrote was a ridiculous lie - it was the very biased "official story" that is totally nonsensical - yet incredibly in the 6 months since then nobody has thought to fix it up).

The Backpacker murders is a term coined to represent bodies that were found in Belanglo State Forest in NSW in 1992-1995. There were initially 2 bodies, but over time they eventually found a total of 8. They were found in 6 different areas - i.e. only twice were two bodies found together. The distance between the bodies was over 100 km (60 miles). The 8 murder victims were each killed in a different way - in other words, 8 different MOs, with no connection between them. They were of different ages, different genders, some were backpackers, some were locals, and so forth. The only similarity between them was that they were all found in Belanglo State Forest. Oh, and a few of them had bones from one attached to bones of others.

Now, police, when they were searching, were looking for a gang. They did not believe even momentarily that it was the work of 1 person. Indeed, Chopper Reid told them who he thought had done it - an organised crime gang that operates from Victoria through to NSW and Queensland. A very powerful organised crime gang.

They also knew that it was not just 8 people. They had only found 8 bodies, but there were actually 32 people who had disappeared in that area. Legally of course they can only prosecute for the 8 whose bodies were found.

Now, media scrutiny meant that the fact that they took so long to "catch" anyone resulted in the public and the media saying how terribly inadequate the police are. They had suspects, but of course infiltrating organised crime isn't easy.

So what did they do? Well, they blamed the guy who was helping them out more than anyone else - Ivan Milat.

There is absolutely zero evidence attaching Ivan Milat to the murders. Oh sorry, there is the evidence that he once picked up a hitch hiker, did nothing to the hitch hiker, and that hitch hiker decided to tell the world that Ivan Milat might have wanted to kill him. That's your evidence there, in total.

He was found guilty of course, but he obviously didn't do it, at least not unless he was a part of that gang. It was a very clear "cleanup crew" situation. Such things wouldn't happen in America of course. In America they'd just never be prosecuted full stop.

And so of course we have an article of terrible inaccuracy. I wrote it sort of as a joke, to have a go at the stupidity of the Port Arthur Massacre article. But guess what? They kept it. Unedited even. I even got praised for my "research". I wrote it in the exact same method as Longhair used to write the Port Arthur Massacre article - in other words I found for myself the most biased article that I could find, which pushed the official point of view, and I wrote the entire thing based on that. Then I found myself 3 other links that prove that the whole thing is a lie, and put them down as external references, and didn't include a single word from any of them.

And see this is the really stupid thing.

Had I first created the Backpacker Murders page in the way that I did, before then going on to fix up the Port Arthur Massacre page, having first told a whopping great lie, then the likelihood is that they would have then considered my point of view. Because then I would have "towed the party line" as it were, and done what everyone tells you to do.

So the only way to get in to the Wikipedia "in" crowd is to make ridiculously awful POV edits.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------