Dragon Family lawsuit against the United Nations

[Anders Lindman]

Why can't it be just like that?

Because to program in several years of false memory into a person is most likely science fiction. Even with very advanced black-op technology I don't see how it would be possible to implant such huge false memories into a person.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Those are not "evidence" they are "claims" and "stories". Where is the peer reviewed, repeatable science?

Well, mind control experiments are a huge violation of human rights. That should give you a hint of why there are no experiments like that published in peer-reviewed science journals.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Because to program in several years of false memory into a person is most likely science fiction. Even with very advanced black-op technology I don't see how it would be possible to implant such huge false memories into a person.

And quote when I pointed out that was rubbish, and suggested that you didn't need to do that, that all you needed was a suitable amount of false memories to change the subjects perspective (and offered the Satanist Panic as an example) your response was....

That's not what I meant. I meant the total programming of a lifetime memory into a person. Very much like the Replicants in the Bladerunner movie. I haven't moved any goal post. I have stated that from the beginning.

So why are you now claiming the exact opposite? Why not just say: "I agree with what Tomtom said earlier, my Blade Ruinner theory was tosh, and well beyond the scale of plausible psychology!"

 

[Anders Lindman]

And quote when I pointed out that was rubbish, and suggested that you didn't need to do that, that all you needed was a suitable amount of false memories to change the subjects perspective (and offered the Satanist Panic as an example) your response was....



So why are you now claiming the exact opposite? Why not just say: "I agree with what Tomtom said earlier, my Blade Ruinner theory was tosh, and well beyond the scale of plausible psychology!"

Yes, I posted about Replicants earlier but in relation to what is NOT possible with mind control.

 

[JayUtah]

No, you are mistaken. Perhaps the misunderstanding is that you take for granted that everybody has fixed beliefs about everything.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't claim everyone has fixed beliefs on this or anything. I claim you're the one circularly defining mind control to be exacly what you need in order to explain your beliefs by means of it. You can't say that the facts are nebulous about something and then work it out so they're nebulous only in your favor.

 

[JayUtah]

Because to program in several years of false memory into a person is most likely science fiction.

Translation: Because I think so.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Well, mind control experiments are a huge violation of human rights. That should give you a hint of why there are no experiments like that published in peer-reviewed science journals.

And yet...
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...ipulation&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

And if we take a more open approach to what levels of behavioural manipulation and control count as the sceintfically meaningless term (none of which are what Anders describe by the way, all being routed in the real world):

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...handle=hein.journals/hoflr12&div=10&id=&page=

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1981-01825-001

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h0221u63qh3748u3/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1984.tb01499.x/abstract

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=pdf&file=PSP2006039002087

I would guess Anders didn't bother to spend less time googling than it took to type his post.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Don't put words in my mouth.

I don't claim everyone has fixed beliefs on this or anything. I claim you're the one circularly defining mind control to be exacly what you need in order to explain your beliefs by means of it. You can't say that the facts are nebulous about something and then work it out so they're nebulous only in your favor.

It's basically only the connection between mind control and the Dragon Family I have done. The rest is just information I learned from the Internet. Even the connection between mind control and bloodline families is something I have learned from the Internet, not something I have come up with myself.

 

[Anders Lindman]

And yet...
http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar...ipulation&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

And if we take a more open approach to what levels of behavioural manipulation and control count as the sceintfically meaningless term (none of which are what Anders describe by the way, all being routed in the real world):

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPa...handle=hein.journals/hoflr12&div=10&id=&page=

http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=1981-01825-001

http://www.springerlink.com/content/h0221u63qh3748u3/

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1984.tb01499.x/abstract

http://content.karger.com/produktedb/produkte.asp?typ=pdf&file=PSP2006039002087

I would guess Anders didn't bother to spend less time googling than it took to type his post.

Those are second-hand reports. Not peer-reviewed mind controlled experiments.

 

[R.A.F.]

In a way I'm more skeptical than the ordinary skeptics, because if for example mainstream science said that mind control is real, then most skeptics would accept that claim...

Ridiculous...if "mainstream science" said that mind control was real, then they would OF COURSE have evidence to "back up" that assertion...on the other hand, you have no evidence.


No, you are a credulous believer, certainly not a skeptic.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Translation: Because I think so.

But do you really believe several years of personal memories, such as memories of loved ones, education, career, vacations, holidays etc would be possible to create artificially in a person? That's like an extreme tinfoil hat conspiracy theory imo.

 

[JayUtah]

Yes, I posted about Replicants earlier but in relation to what is NOT possible with mind control.

No, that's not the context of the quote. You went on to say...

It's you who are trying to move the goal post into a lesser form of memory implants.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Those are second-hand reports. Not peer-reviewed mind controlled experiments.

Er, they are studies in peer review publications. Some are case studies, but all are peer reviewd and repeatable.

 

[JayUtah]

But do you really believe...

Begging the question.

You are arbitrarily defining mind control from time to time to mean what you need in the argument at hand. What I may or may not believe is irrelevant; the question is what you're claiming.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Ridiculous...if "mainstream science" said that mind control was real, then they would OF COURSE have evidence to "back up" that assertion...on the other hand, you have no evidence.


No, you are a credulous believer, certainly not a skeptic.

My point is that I don't even automatically trust mainstream scientific evidence. For example, I believe all evidence for Einstein's relativity is faked. In that sense I'm more skeptical than most skeptics.

 

[Craig4]

Well, mind control experiments are a huge violation of human rights. That should give you a hint of why there are no experiments like that published in peer-reviewed science journals.

Have you read what the US Army Inspector General said about them? Have you read any of the reports about the efficacy of the programs?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Yes, I posted about Replicants earlier but in relation to what is NOT possible with mind control.

Then when I said it wasn't possible, or required, but false memories can be established with known techniques, why say:
"No that's not what I meant"? Surely it would have been more correct to say:
"Yes I agree. That is a more reasonable methodology for the mind control I proposed?"

 

[Anders Lindman]

Er, they are studies in peer review publications. Some are case studies, but all are peer reviewd and repeatable.

But those are studies of experiments done by OTHERS, not by the scientists publishing the articles.

 

[JayUtah]

But those are studies of experiments done by OTHERS, not by the scientists publishing the articles.

Metaresearch is a valid, well-accepted form of doing science.

 

[Tomtomkent]

My point is that I don't even automatically trust mainstream scientific evidence. For example, I believe all evidence for Einstein's relativity is faked. In that sense I'm more skeptical than most skeptics.

Believing somethiong to be faked in spite of evidence is not sceptical. It is outright rejection.