Cluesforum - How far will they go exactly

I just tried to access a clueless thread on my work laptop and got this:

le03.jpg


That's pretty smart software...
 
threadworm said:
I just tried to access a clueless thread on my work laptop and got this:

[qimg]http://img546.imageshack.us/img546/2284/le03.jpg[/qimg]

That's pretty smart software...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately things like this only reinforce their beliefs that the evil ptb are blocking them because they are afraid of cluesforum knowing the 'truth' and releasing it.
 
It's like watching Idiocracy live and unscripted on the internet. :boggled:
 
Last edited:
threadworm said:
They do, but there is a rigmarole to go through - see the 'Important requirements and tips' section.
Click to expand...

1.Must agree to everything Simon Shack says.
2.Must not wear any clothing with stripes-used to be blue and white now its any.
3.Consider everything is a false flag (see 1.)
4.Must be able to spot actors from any point in time and compare them to present people.
:D
 
Was browsing today and read the Apollo Space Hoax forum,and the topic was the ISS and after all these years still someone posted about "there's no stars total fake"! Not sure how many years ago that was debunked with ref to moon landing photos.
 
I find it a little surprising that nobody has posted on the "fake" Typhoon in the Phillipines.

Well actually I am not. I suspect that the general members are waiting for one of their masters to take up the cause and then start up with their so-called Photoshopped analysis. But I suspect that even Simon and the other pack leaders are incapable of having an angle for this event, and accept that, just maybe, it might have really happened.

This rather undermines the basic premise of the whole site. If the masters don't start something, the sheep are too scared to.

Norm
 
fromdownunder said:
I find it a little surprising that nobody has posted on the "fake" Typhoon in the Phillipines.

Well actually I am not. I suspect that the general members are waiting for one of their masters to take up the cause and then start up with their so-called Photoshopped analysis. But I suspect that even Simon and the other pack leaders are incapable of having an angle for this event, and accept that, just maybe, it might have really happened.

This rather undermines the basic premise of the whole site. If the masters don't start something, the sheep are too scared to.

Norm
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's just not going to happen. It just takes time for the sludge in their heads to get up to speed. They'll come up with an angle eventually, because remember, nothing ever actually happens in the real world. EVER.
 
thedopefishlives said:
Yeah, that's just not going to happen. It just takes time for the sludge in their heads to get up to speed. They'll come up with an angle eventually, because remember, nothing ever actually happens in the real world. EVER.
Click to expand...

Once they find someone who looks vaguely like someone else who was an actor- or someone wearing a striped pattern t-shirt- then they'll be off! :rolleyes:
 
Bishop said:
I can kind of understand him not taking a look for himself. If he did, and then he reported back to the forum that it looked legit, he'd immediately be called a liar and probably banned.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
Heiwa has now been banded a shill by hoi.polloi et al

His crime? - believing some aspects of ESA rocket science.
cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1222&start=465#p2388168

Ive seen Shacks boast elsewhere about his popular forum with over 1200 members. Wouldn't be surprise if 91.1% of those members have been banned as shills. :boggled:
 
I'm waiting for the day that cluesforum speculates that cluesforum itself might be a hoax.
Click to expand...

Using their exact method to determine if a person is real or a SIM.

hoi.polloi is a SIM

fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=fadcdd0270bbd75bbf598733cfba40926002335e.63404

:rolleyes:
 
Azrael 5 said:
For anyone familiar with their "rockets are impossible "theory how do they explain satellite TV?
Click to expand...

There aren't any satellites. period!

Doppler radar is what really is used for TV, weather, GPS etc.
Signals bouncing off the ionosphere are how it all really works.

A patient soul called Jonathan tried to set them straight with facts such as GPS is passive. Frequencies and wavelengths would make this impossible etc.

Quelle surprise. Jonathan got banned.
cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1070&start=15#p2358414
 
I realise that this is well over three years old, but is really does indicate that the some (all?) members of Cluesforum cannot even differentiate between fact and fiction, hence, the basic problem that comes from not being able to understand the world in any way, shape, or form.

If you don't know the difference, everything must be fiction.

I'm aware this is only tangentially related to this thread, but I was wondering if anyone else has developed a severe dislike/distrust for ALL movies. Ever since learning the truth about 9/11 media fakery, I find acting so distasteful I can't watch it anymore, since by definition it involves simulating reality. Right now I think all actors, and everyone else involved in tv/movies, are liars - and I despise lying with everything in me.

Anyone else find movies unwatchable now?
Click to expand...

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=146

Norm
 
LTP said:
There aren't any satellites. period!

Doppler radar is what really is used for TV, weather, GPS etc.
Signals bouncing off the ionosphere are how it all really works.
Click to expand...


I'm sure this has been asked before, but have they ever come up with a halfway sane sounding explanation why one would need to fake the existence of telecommunication satellites if there were technologies that would achieve the same effect without having to shoot rockets into space?
 
Muc said:
I'm sure this has been asked before, but have they ever come up with a halfway sane sounding explanation why one would need to fake the existence of telecommunication satellites if there were technologies that would achieve the same effect without having to shoot rockets into space?
Click to expand...

They claim that as rockets don't work in a vacuum it's all about NASA stealing money off the American public for nefarious reasons. Unfortunately I don't think that this fills your criteria for 'a halfway sane sounding explanation'
 
MinimumWageShill said:
They claim that as rockets don't work in a vacuum it's all about NASA stealing money off the American public for nefarious reasons.
Click to expand...

Which, of course, is ludicrous because NASA doesn't do this. Satellites are built, deployed, and operated by private companies intending to make a profit from their use. Even NASA contracts to these commercial launch services. They don't build and fly their own rockets for operational purposes.

Unfortunately I don't think that this fills your criteria for 'a halfway sane sounding explanation'
Click to expand...

No, but the ones I've heard include a series of high altitude "invisible" balloon relays, and high-flying aircraft constantly aloft. Yes, there are numerous technical reasons why this wouldn't work, but there is always a fanciful "correction" to the theory to account for it.
 
My favorite of the out there theories is from Alexis111 on the David Icke forum and his massive array of switching networked satellites. Back when he thought only low Earth orbit travel was possible (now IIRC he doesn't believe in any space travel) his explanation for geostationary satellites that are well into the Van Allen belts was instead an array of networked satellites in low Earth orbit that continually switch on an off when in the right position to simulate the geostationary bird. Never mind the fact that for all users there would have to be many hundreds of active satellites at any given time to get the angles right or the multiple thousands necessary to keep up the orbits for just each single geostationary satellite.
 
That's essentially identical, problematically speaking, as the "squadron of airplanes." While the one-meter dishes used by most consumer television satellites have a fairly slopping pointing constraint, the many-meters dishes used for uplinks and for commercial and scientific satellite communications have much narrower beam widths and must be focused to fairly tight tolerances. Even considering the number of such dishes (including mine) just in the Salt Lake Valley, and the number of airplanes circling in the sky over just the right position to make the published celestial coordinates work for all of them, one boggles at the incredibly intricate absurdity of such a proposal.
 
Scott Sommers said:
I tried to register at Clues Forum and keep getting an error message. Is it possible I've been banned from registering?
Click to expand...

Possibly. I read their registration procedures and they seem to be designed to keep out rational people whom they define as trolls. To register it looks like you have to provide a CV of your stupidity to ensure only people who have completely lost touch with reality can post. Wouldn't want anything intelligent there to disturb the nut jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom