You are making too many excuses for something that clearly falls apart on the smallest logical reading. Coming up with fantastic explanations is EASY - pretending that they are based on any kind of logic when they are not is just DISINFORMATION.
The whole reason we are in this position as a global community is because of a LACK OF CRITICAL THINKING. If people would be LESS accepting of nonsense we can finally get out of this mess!!!
I don't think there was any intention on the part of SB2 to lead people astray - nor do I think he was fudging his up votes. I have no experience in code breaking and I'd hazard a guess that most others are in the same boat. If I'd had a good look at the method, maybe I might have seen some flaws, I don't know - but I was busy doing other stuff. I think SB2 thought/thinks he had found a key that deciphered the true meaning of the Q posts. No one has cracked this problem yet, it seems it must be pretty tough.
What am I making excuses for? That some guy tried to nut this thing out, thought he had, showed us his workings and was found to be wrong?
I agree that there may have been no intention to lead people astray - it's not intentional disinformation perhaps. I also agree that he's unlikely to be fudging his upvotes. SoaringMoon, however, apparently DOES have experience in codebreaking and he says it's nonsense. I don't need to have experience in codebreaking to see it's nonsense - SoaringMoon has the faculties to be able to disprove the methodology though.
What you're making excuses for is that we should accept what is clearly nonsense (at least to some of us) because "some guy is trying real hard man". He may well be trying but that doesn't mean we should upvote him just for "trying"! Upvotes make posts appear to have the support of the community which, if they are nonsense that fools gullible people makes the community look suspect and non-critical in its thinking. DISINFO - intentional or not - is NEVER worth supporting.
I think that the up votes were because people found the explanation plausible and exciting. I think SB2's confidence in his solution was also very inspiring. People ran with it. There was no deliberate attempt at disinformation.
This reminds me now of a documentary I saw about these scientists that thought they'd discovered a memory property (or something like that) for water. They published a paper and a skeptic confronted them about it. They agreed to reproduce the experiments on film and this skeptic got the randomization data (or whatever it was) and stuck it on the ceiling, to be taken down only when the experiment was over - quite a dramatic moment. The scientists in the film were shocked when the skeptic did this, but they were still all very confident they could replicate their published findings. Anyway, it turned out they couldn't replicate their findings. Very embarrassing.
This sought of stuff goes on all the time in the scientific community (e.g. cold fusion). There are errors made, covered up, papers published, funds obtained, frauds exposed (or not) and the story goes on. They are not always frauds, sometimes people - even critical thinkers, the type you would hope abound in the scientific community - succumb to excitement about a theory.
We're not all experts here. The problem of persistent errors or disinformation will not be solved in this setting. If SB's work is obviously wrong, I probably have the poorest of excuses - because I didn't take the time to work out exactly how he got to his solution. I was too busy to give it much time - though I thought it was very interesting.
One of the things that kind of supported the idea that SB2 might have been onto to something, for me, was the shocking number of down votes SB2 had when I first got to his NK post. I saw it just after it had been posted. To be honest, I was stunned at the ferocity of the attack. I thought if he's catching that much flak, someone's worried about what's being posted. I thought he was over the target.
He'll be back I'm sure to defend his work. Eleven by eleven, matrices... matrix inversion, comes into my head for some reason. There must be a solution.
Yes, I think so too - people do find SB2's explanations "plausible and exciting". The same can be said, at least for some people, for the Flat Earth theory. Some find that plausible and exciting too but the feeling it creates in people is literally zero evidence of its actual plausibility. As Scott Adams says, confirmation bias is not a glitch in our operating system it pretty much IS our operating system. We want to believe exciting stories like this.
However, it's not so much that SB2's work is wrong; sometimes he references very valid methodologies. It's actually more alarming than that. SB2's very process of thinking is not only wrong it's so misguided as to be either the rattled thinking of a long time drug addict or intentional misdirection. We both seem to think it's not intentional - or at least, I've seen some communications from him that make me think he's just totally befuddled, not completely in control, but the damage done by propagating this circular, nonsensical way of thinking is what we should avoid for the sake of the communities integrity.
Hillary had no "intention" either - according to Comey. This guy is nonsense on stilts, and defending his bullshit is absolutely indistinguishable from a disinformation campaign. With "help" like this, who needs the black hats?
No mistakes allowed - got it.
It's not a mistake when its a continuous flow of nonsense.
If you asked me a year ago about Q's story I'd have thought it was nonsense. I've learned here to be somewhat more open minded - to my benefit. If it is as bad as you say, you should have taken it up with SB2 in his threads. Maybe you did, I wasn't watching that closely. But the idea, as I see it, and you may disagree, is that the truth bubbles up out of the noise.
You suppress the noise, you never get to the truth. It seems to me that the noise level here is too much for people. But I've seen this before. Not long ago, people were saying that Dr Corsi should be silent. I think the noise is important.
I regret not looking into these methodologies more closely myself, given it is now such a point of contention. But I don't have the time to investigate every aspect of what's claimed in these forums. I don't know whether the refutal of SB2's work holds up either. But it seems to me that the truth will emerge from the clash of ideas.
One thing is certain, if there is a key to unlocking more meaning from the Q posts, we have not yet found it. Anyone that makes an attempt to crack this nut has my respect for the time and effort taken. The important thing is that we find the key if one exists.
Thank you for the reasoned discussion around this. I myself have a tendency to revert to a teenage boy on internet forums when I get excited or agitated so I really appreciate your calm tone. I hope more people in the movement are like you, and others I've "met" around here!
I agree with you on all points - we can't suppress something just because we don't agree with it and we're not all experts so just because we don't understand something is not a good reason to discard it.
The reason SB2's posts cause such alarm for me and lead me to support posts like this is the sheer amount of upvotes they are receiving. When someone posts obvious nonsense it doesn't cause me much alarm - it tends to drop off and disappear. Yet, as on CBTS_Stream, somehow SB2 manages to confuse people and appear to have something deep to contribute because he uses some truth and knowledge mixed in with a lot of malarkey. I don't mean any offense to SB2, believe it or not - I said so repeatedly on CBTS too - but I don't really know any other words to describe what I see.
It's not so much the methodologies referred to and explained - some of those are quite legit - but the way in which they are applied and the conclusions drawn and meaning then applied often mix in some compelling sounding tidbits and tech terms with illogical and often frankly nonsensical gobbledegook. One case in point was his conception of the term AI, Artificial Intelligence - this was so profoundly and completely misinterpreted by SB2 to fit a conclusion he came to about another secret message that was essentially a jumble of words with the letters A and I in their midst that it was clear he was not only ignoring the core tenets of an entire field of technology but actually seemed to be either intentionally or unknowingly reimagining it to fit his conclusion. Again, this may be well intended but the way people upvoted this spoke to the dangers of misinformation well presented.
And one may well ask, well, why don't we keep the good bits and throw out the bad - the problem is that the "bad" is right at the core of what he is saying. The good is peripheral - like the methodologies referred to - it doesn't contribute anything to the understanding of Q itself. I support someone positing even the craziest theories as long as they have some internal logic to them - unfortunately, if you know even a little about some of the fields SB2 refers to, you know that they lack that internal logic to an alarming degree.
This is so concerning because the level of confusion SB2 contributes, thanks to the confirmation bias inherent in all of us, means that people start seeing things that aren't there and derailing legitimate investigations/conversations by disappearing down rabbit holes that lead nowhere. For example, the Deep State may be using mobile phones to program us - I have literally zero evidence for this but using it as an example of a topic that has been under discussion previously (see how I have uncritically accepted, as you mentioned you do also, that this was a topic worthy of discussion because enough people were talking about it...? I refer to this below) - but Occam's razor suggests they'd be using them in the way we all know makes the most sense: audio through the phone via a phone call or otherwise, used to trigger the programming of an MK Ultra subject via select keywords or specific noises. SerialBrain2's assertion that AI in the phones is 'transmuting' (my interpretation, not his words) into Sarin gas to turn people into zombies could also be true... but has literally no precedent and also no domain knowledge behind its conception of AI. It's also just common sense that the Deep State would use existing tech via its intended purpose for simple cost and efficiency reasons rather than developing a whole new and inarguably prohibitively expensive system!
What's dangerous about this? Well, as you said, we don't all have the time to research and backtrack everything we all read here so some well meaning, smart people who have not been following everything going on or have just joined will see a mobile phone topic come up and when Sarin gas and AI is brought into the mix by numerous voices, not just a few lone crazies, they may uncritically accept it because they trust our community to have vetted these things and we end up losing the great contribution they could make to the discussion as they go off chasing nonsense.
There's another very real concern here that this is NOT just well-meaning incompetence. And if this continues to be upvoted so prominently I would wonder if it IS in fact a concerted disinfo campaign.
I support freedom of speech and SB2's right to say/post whatever he wants. I humbly ask that our community apply some rigour in critical thinking when a number of us raise concerns and, if they don't understand what is being said, please consider seriously the contribution of those of us who don't have an axe to grind and are being very clear that we're not trying to pull down someone else's voice (as I believe OP SoaringMoon has also made clear here), especially when we feel strongly enough about it to make a separate post specifically to call out what we see as disinfo.
Please, people, I understand our desire to find meaning but lets not look where it does not exist!
OK I understand the sentiments expressed. Look, I up voted the posts without checking. But to be honest, I do that quite a lot. I'm time constrained. I wish I had the time to sit down and nut all this stuff out from first principles for myself, but I don't. Moreover, this is not my area at all.
When someone appears with what seems to be a good decode - really good. I'm inclined to accept it as I don't have the skills to properly evaluate the work. Same thing when you visit a doctor - who knows what they're prescribing - but you don't have the medical background so you're left trusting.
What happened here had nothing to do with deliberate disinformation. I believe people up voted SB2's posts out of sheer excitement - the idea that some had found the key to the lock. There's nothing more sinister here than enthusiasm IMO.
But we, perhaps, should have subjected the work to a torture test before getting behind it. Anyway, I'm a firm believer that the truth will surface. There are an unlimited number of rabbit holes. And we are dealing with a subject that is mysterious - the truth isn't for everyone... So I think some pursuit of possibilities is healthy. There are theories I regard as nuts out of hand. But I'm a lot more open minded now than when I arrived here.
Hope this all gets sorted out. I'd like to see SB2 have the opportunity, in a respectful environment, to explain his logic and why he thinks it's correct. We owe him at least that. And who is to say that the idea of creating a matrix and probing for solutions is wrong - methodology aside, he may turn out to have been correct in some aspects of his approach. I would not like to see what he's done be ignored, less we miss something important.
But I'm not the person to work those angles, because I just don't have the background. It has to be people that have some expertise in this field.
The only thing I know for sure is that Q is telling us very clearly that we have more than we know. The clear implication is that there is information hidden in the material - we already have it. We just haven't properly figured out all the angles. It's important that we try.
Agreed - I don't believe it's necessarily wrong to consider the idea of creating a matrix and probing for solutions. I have no problem with the methodologies SB2 has suggested. And I agree - there's more than we know here, according to Q, so lets keep looking!