04-03-2010, 03:16 AM
Judyth has made some very insightful observations about the opinions
of the expert on psy ops that I had consulted. I think her remarks on
"the golden mean" by splitting the difference between conflicting points
of view--as though there were a compromise when one is true and the
other is false--is highly pervasive. My confidence in Judyth has grown
stronger and stronger through the course of this discussion and debate.
------------------------------FIRST EMAIL --------------------------------
Well, the expert Jim asked to look into this assessed only what he read
on the blog and so on...
The 'golden mean' logical error comes into play.
I have explained it probably to you before.
Position a: Judyth tells the truth.
Position c: McAdams lies and says I am lying.
Position b: the erroneous 'golden mean' that people choose after
reading both sides, trying for 'fairness'--but it always hurts the truth-
teller, and hope you pass this on to Jim.
The truth teller's position in the golden mean is reduced to 'might be
telling the truth".
This is weighted against "she is lying" at position c.
The golden mean for the 'she is lying' statement is "maybe she is lying".
The outcome using this fallacy that is taught in our schools is that, for
example, there is no 'pure' good or 'pure' evil--not true.
In my case, the result are two statements:
Judyth might be lying.
McAdams' statement indicates Judyth might be lying.
Outcome: Judyth might be lying, not McAdams might be lying.
Because the subject is Judyth and goes through two cycles, whereas
McAdmas only goes through one cycle, of reasoning...
Thus whenever a witness statement is disputed, forever the witness is
then marked as 'maybe did not tell the truth'; whereas the one who
raised the objection gets no such judgment.
Note that the first impression of the 'expert'; was more positive.
Then he read the objections against me and moderated that to 'maybe
she is not telling the truth'.
Nobody can come to the conclusion "she is 100% telling the truth" after
reading a list of accusations and objections in our society, the way we
have been brainwashed to accept the golden mean, which is indeed
tarnishing our ability to accept anyone as a truth-teller once any
objection is raised.
This filters into the news where 'balance' always includes, no matter how
much truth is out there, 'the other side' so that after all this time they
are still arguing in the news about whether water-boarding, used by the
Spanish Inquisition, can be called 'torture.'
The redefinition of 'torture' has now come to mean no visible marks left
on the body and no permanent damage. Thus it is no longer torture to
pull out all the fingernails and toenails and then after they have grown
back, release the prisoner who says he was tortured but cannot 'prove'
it because no marks were left on his body.
Of course, electro-shocking people also is not torture?
The redefinition and skirting of the Geneva Accords on their subject
demonstrates the paucity of real logic that is allowed to exists = when
mind control of the public is paramount.
Therefore, Dr. Fetzer, to not look too bad, will eventually have to modify
his statement that I am telling the truth all the time, because of all the
objections raised by others. If he stands up for the Zapruder film 100%
as he does, and yet the press has failed to say a peep about it, how can
he defend me, a truth-teller whose statements have been altered on the
internet?
All I can do is cite the past, letters of recommendation, etc. And here
'students' I do not even know their names, have spoken out saying silly
and untrue things about me.
Character assassination of the Kennedy family has been going on at a
great clip ever since the government's complicity has become more and
more evident and obvious.
The government will never try itself for the death of JFK.
It was a coup.
Interestedly, Gerry Hemming told me that I was stating things about
covert operations of which I was unaware, which could get me killed. He
secretly cc'd his emails to his interpen organization and I have saved
them, showing me his confidence in my statements. It was he who
directed Nigel Turner to me, as well.
Attached are photos of Gery that I made, and one that he sent me, of
his family and him...his jacket was stolen--the one I photographed was
re-created by interpen for him.
Gerry had as much stolen from him as I had.
Judy
------------------------------SECOND EMAIL --------------------------------
The 'golden mean' concept has made it impossible for witnesses to stand
as truth-tellers against government and its biased media that uses "the
golden mean" as a ploy that 'fairness' is thus presented. Actually, as
repeated below, adding in the same story objections to it reduces every
truth teller to 'might be lying' status.
News stories are not being 'fair' by presenting news with 'both sides'.
Such news stories are often in debate format. Stories opposing the original
statements should be written referring to the original, which should always
be available for comparison.
Can you imagine if every scientific paper had to list all the objections to
its statement within its declaration of new findings in research? They
cite a history, but they do not break up the scientific paper's new
information and evidence with dissents from former researchers to
'be fair.'
Scientific method regarding witnesses should allow a full, unadulterated
original story to reach the public. Later stories should always show where
the original story can be accessed.
Then statements where they alter the information stated can be compared
easily to the original in every instance.
No forum that purports to be an education forum should make a statement
without citing a reference. Stating, for example, that our hotel bills were
paid by Carlos Marcello (added with a sneer) should have been backed up
with a citation.
I had to wade in and correct.
But then it gets buried.
McAdams would always put the original nasty statement at the end, as if
it had never been disproven.
The same tactic was used on the education forum when John Simkin kept
reposting the original message that I had joined the forum weeks later
and so could not make the claim that I had asked him to start the forum,
he also did not cite--failing to show the first post, which was about me,
perhaps because that strengthened my position.
Instead, he kept reposting, as does McAdams, as if the question had not
been resolved. I note that Dr. Fetzer would then repost the answer. Good
for him.
Thus the slanted playing field gets somewhat corrected.
of the expert on psy ops that I had consulted. I think her remarks on
"the golden mean" by splitting the difference between conflicting points
of view--as though there were a compromise when one is true and the
other is false--is highly pervasive. My confidence in Judyth has grown
stronger and stronger through the course of this discussion and debate.
------------------------------FIRST EMAIL --------------------------------
Well, the expert Jim asked to look into this assessed only what he read
on the blog and so on...
The 'golden mean' logical error comes into play.
I have explained it probably to you before.
Position a: Judyth tells the truth.
Position c: McAdams lies and says I am lying.
Position b: the erroneous 'golden mean' that people choose after
reading both sides, trying for 'fairness'--but it always hurts the truth-
teller, and hope you pass this on to Jim.
The truth teller's position in the golden mean is reduced to 'might be
telling the truth".
This is weighted against "she is lying" at position c.
The golden mean for the 'she is lying' statement is "maybe she is lying".
The outcome using this fallacy that is taught in our schools is that, for
example, there is no 'pure' good or 'pure' evil--not true.
In my case, the result are two statements:
Judyth might be lying.
McAdams' statement indicates Judyth might be lying.
Outcome: Judyth might be lying, not McAdams might be lying.
Because the subject is Judyth and goes through two cycles, whereas
McAdmas only goes through one cycle, of reasoning...
Thus whenever a witness statement is disputed, forever the witness is
then marked as 'maybe did not tell the truth'; whereas the one who
raised the objection gets no such judgment.
Note that the first impression of the 'expert'; was more positive.
Then he read the objections against me and moderated that to 'maybe
she is not telling the truth'.
Nobody can come to the conclusion "she is 100% telling the truth" after
reading a list of accusations and objections in our society, the way we
have been brainwashed to accept the golden mean, which is indeed
tarnishing our ability to accept anyone as a truth-teller once any
objection is raised.
This filters into the news where 'balance' always includes, no matter how
much truth is out there, 'the other side' so that after all this time they
are still arguing in the news about whether water-boarding, used by the
Spanish Inquisition, can be called 'torture.'
The redefinition of 'torture' has now come to mean no visible marks left
on the body and no permanent damage. Thus it is no longer torture to
pull out all the fingernails and toenails and then after they have grown
back, release the prisoner who says he was tortured but cannot 'prove'
it because no marks were left on his body.
Of course, electro-shocking people also is not torture?
The redefinition and skirting of the Geneva Accords on their subject
demonstrates the paucity of real logic that is allowed to exists = when
mind control of the public is paramount.
Therefore, Dr. Fetzer, to not look too bad, will eventually have to modify
his statement that I am telling the truth all the time, because of all the
objections raised by others. If he stands up for the Zapruder film 100%
as he does, and yet the press has failed to say a peep about it, how can
he defend me, a truth-teller whose statements have been altered on the
internet?
All I can do is cite the past, letters of recommendation, etc. And here
'students' I do not even know their names, have spoken out saying silly
and untrue things about me.
Character assassination of the Kennedy family has been going on at a
great clip ever since the government's complicity has become more and
more evident and obvious.
The government will never try itself for the death of JFK.
It was a coup.
Interestedly, Gerry Hemming told me that I was stating things about
covert operations of which I was unaware, which could get me killed. He
secretly cc'd his emails to his interpen organization and I have saved
them, showing me his confidence in my statements. It was he who
directed Nigel Turner to me, as well.
Attached are photos of Gery that I made, and one that he sent me, of
his family and him...his jacket was stolen--the one I photographed was
re-created by interpen for him.
Gerry had as much stolen from him as I had.
Judy
------------------------------SECOND EMAIL --------------------------------
The 'golden mean' concept has made it impossible for witnesses to stand
as truth-tellers against government and its biased media that uses "the
golden mean" as a ploy that 'fairness' is thus presented. Actually, as
repeated below, adding in the same story objections to it reduces every
truth teller to 'might be lying' status.
News stories are not being 'fair' by presenting news with 'both sides'.
Such news stories are often in debate format. Stories opposing the original
statements should be written referring to the original, which should always
be available for comparison.
Can you imagine if every scientific paper had to list all the objections to
its statement within its declaration of new findings in research? They
cite a history, but they do not break up the scientific paper's new
information and evidence with dissents from former researchers to
'be fair.'
Scientific method regarding witnesses should allow a full, unadulterated
original story to reach the public. Later stories should always show where
the original story can be accessed.
Then statements where they alter the information stated can be compared
easily to the original in every instance.
No forum that purports to be an education forum should make a statement
without citing a reference. Stating, for example, that our hotel bills were
paid by Carlos Marcello (added with a sneer) should have been backed up
with a citation.
I had to wade in and correct.
But then it gets buried.
McAdams would always put the original nasty statement at the end, as if
it had never been disproven.
The same tactic was used on the education forum when John Simkin kept
reposting the original message that I had joined the forum weeks later
and so could not make the claim that I had asked him to start the forum,
he also did not cite--failing to show the first post, which was about me,
perhaps because that strengthened my position.
Instead, he kept reposting, as does McAdams, as if the question had not
been resolved. I note that Dr. Fetzer would then repost the answer. Good
for him.
Thus the slanted playing field gets somewhat corrected.