• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

Tomtomkent said:
If you want to discuss it as an entitiy that exists you will need to supply evidence. How is this managing to confuse you?
Click to expand...

I have posted enough evidence to at least not dismiss the theory. I have provided one quote from someone claiming to have done mind control programming and a quote from Rockefeller admitting he works for a secret cabal.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Then why do you not post evidence that withstands scrutiny to show that the information is correct. What is being said could just be a lie, or meaningless, depending on who says it. If the random drunk, or numpty on the internet says there is a cabal, or takes a quote out of context and asks you to not worry about who said it or in what context, then that IS a manipulation.

Supply some source data in the form of viable evidence, or that post is meaningless gibberish. Why should we believe YOU are not manipulating data? Or posting honest sources?
Click to expand...

Are you accusing David Rockefeller of being a liar? He said himself that he was a member of a secret cabal.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Are you accusing David Rockefeller of being a liar? He said himself that he was a member of a secret cabal.
Click to expand...

Seriously: You tell us to look at what is being said, not who says it. Then your defence is "He said it, are you calling him a liar?"

Which is true: Should I look at what is being said, which would require comparing the statements to available evidence to determine accuaracy. Or should I look at who is saying it?

Again, you can not insist we both ignore, and rely soley upon, who said the statement. It can only be one or the other, if you insist on such extremes.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Seriously: You tell us to look at what is being said, not who says it. Then your defence is "He said it, are you calling him a liar?"

Which is true: Should I look at what is being said, which would require comparing the statements to available evidence to determine accuaracy. Or should I look at who is saying it?

Again, you can not insist we both ignore, and rely soley upon, who said the statement. It can only be one or the other, if you insist on such extremes.
Click to expand...

Ok, when someone talks about himself or herself, then of course who says it is important. Because if someone says that someone else said this or that, then that's secondhand information.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I have posted enough evidence to at least not dismiss the theory.
Click to expand...

But you said the purpose was to discover IF the theory was valid. "Not Dismiss" is the not the same as providing evidence it IS valid.

You are working against your own stated purpose. Why?

If your Purpose is to determine the validity of the theory, why assume it is valid before you have shown it to be so?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, when someone talks about himself or herself, then of course who says it is important.
Click to expand...

No. Either the person giving the information is important or not in all cases. A person has as much motive and oppertun ity to be mistaken, dishonest or manipulative with personal information, as they would with information about others.

I have as much to benefit by saying I am not a mind controlled agent of your cabal, as I do for stating there is every possibility that you are.

Either you ignore who said it, and objectively look at what evidence supports those statements, or you take into account who said it and gather objective evidence for why the statements were said AS WELL as the evidence that either may or may not be true.

Your failure to understand these concepts, and lack of consistency is bemusing.
 
Tomtomkent said:
But you said the purpose was to discover IF the theory was valid. "Not Dismiss" is the not the same as providing evidence it IS valid.

You are working against your own stated purpose. Why?

If your Purpose is to determine the validity of the theory, why assume it is valid before you have shown it to be so?
Click to expand...

I look at the big picture and only occasionally look at specific details. I brought up mind control in relation to the lawsuit because I have recently looked into mind control a bit and it seems to be a lot of smoke at least. And even some fire. And related to ancient bloodlines, such as the Dragon Family perhaps. We will see what comes out of it.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I look at the big picture and only occasionally look at specific details. I brought up mind control in relation to the lawsuit because I have recently looked into mind control a bit and it seems to be a lot of smoke at least. And even some fire. And related to ancient bloodlines, such as the Dragon Family perhaps. We will see what comes out of it.
Click to expand...

Great so all you need to do to "see what comes out of it" is:
1) Supply evidence for mind control that meets your description.
2) Prove the Dragon Family exists.
3) Prove a link between 1) and 2)
4) Prove a link between 3) and your O/P conspiracy theory.


So far you have supplied insufficient evidence to even suggest the possibility of any of your points. You have only speculated to your own satisfaction.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Great so all you need to do to "see what comes out of it" is:
1) Supply evidence for mind control that meets your description.
2) Prove the Dragon Family exists.
3) Prove a link between 1) and 2)
4) Prove a link between 3) and your O/P conspiracy theory.


So far you have supplied insufficient evidence to even suggest the possibility of any of your points. You have only speculated to your own satisfaction.
Click to expand...

Correct. There are many uncertain elements remaining. The lawsuit doesn't depend on the existence of mind control but I thought it's an interesting connection so it can be good to keep that on the table. To go do massive research about mind control to try to find official evidence and things like that could be useful, but I'm not sure it's that useful yet. I need more dot connections before I invest much more effort on mind control research.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The 'authority' of a source is often useful as a hint, but I don't rely on any information without having grokked it myself.
Click to expand...

So you ignore any context, motive, or purpose unless you deem it important, effectively ignoring any relevent context that hampers your theory.

Understood.

Now as you "grokked" the information yourself, why is there no posted evidence to validate any of your claims?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Correct. There are many uncertain elements remaining. The lawsuit doesn't depend on the existence of mind control but I thought it's an interesting connection so it can be good to keep that on the table.
Click to expand...

Wether you find it interesting or not is irrelevant. Please prove that both the Dragon Family and Mind Control exist in the form you describe. Otherwise there is no point keeping either on the table, let alone a point to discussing a link between two fictions.
 
Tomtomkent said:
So you ignore any context, motive, or purpose unless you deem it important, effectively ignoring any relevent context that hampers your theory.

Understood.

Now as you "grokked" the information yourself, why is there no posted evidence to validate any of your claims?
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I take in all kinds of contexts and motives etc into consideration. I have grokked only fragments so far. I don't have any good grasp on the big picture yet.

I will do some more research (watch a few videos on the Web :D).
 
ngc6205 said:
Funniest thing I have read yet today. Not only are you NOT "one step ahead", you are on the wrong road and going in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

you forgot that he has a bucket over his head and the squirrels are aggressively trying to collect him
 
ngc6205 said:
Funniest thing I have read yet today. Not only are you NOT "one step ahead", you are on the wrong road and going in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

It's precisely because you believe the road is the only measure of progress that I'm ahead.
 
Let's assume that the Dragon Family is a part of the secret cabal. Then what about those who are defendants in the lawsuit? They are also a part of the secret cabal! But then what is the purpose of the lawsuit? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom