The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

Battle Forum

Public Shunning Of Rath Requested....

This is the Battle Forum. It was setup for those threads and conversations that get out of hand - and turn into attacks, name calling and childish behavior. Users head here to hash out their differences. Please be warned before entering...
Forum rules
This is the BATTLE FORUM. A WARNING UP FRONT: ANYTHING GOES HERE!

Expect language and attacks from other members here. This place was setup for those threads that turned to personal attacks, name calling, and other immature behavior.

This is an unmoderated board, except by the site Administrator. There are NO THREATS OF VIOLENCE, BLATANT RACISM, or other ILLEGAL ACTIVITY! Other than that, this is a battle field - so enter and read at your own risk.

Postby qmark » Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:28 pm

First of all, I'm sure there are movies out there already twisting the truth. That wouldn't surprise me. I know the truth so I don't feel threatened.

Secondly, I couldn't give a flying fig about Felix the Cat. There are a lot more important things going on in the world than who is responsible for a cartoon. Is this really what you are stressing over? Good grief!

Thirdly, I loved Marry Poppins, and not once did I ever believe it was an American invention. So what?

If this is all you got to complain about rath, congradulations. Life must be good for you.

Let me give you an example of the way I look at things.

Who made the first automobile? . . . . . . . IT DOESN'T MATTER.
What matters to me is GM and Ford made some GREAT muscle cars in the sixties.

Who made the first cartoon, some guy in Australia or Disney? . . . . . . IT DOESN'T MATTER.
The fact is Disney has some great cartoons. So what? Australia probably does to, big deal.
qmark
 
Posts: 1061
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby BloodStone » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:04 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Interesting thread....







BloodStone...
If it were raining hookers, I'd get hit by a fag.
User avatar
BloodStone
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: U.S.S.A

Postby greeney2 » Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:52 pm

I think you have lost your marbles Rath, Rambling on about Felex the cat and listing Mary Poppins as stolen by the United States. Again your facts are inaccurate. Here is some History about Mary Poppins and how her books rites were purchased by Disney, and the involvment in production. Hardly a story of the USA stealing anything, or the Disney company stealing, they were purchased legally. The end result was a extremely highly rated movie winning many many awards, in which the author shared. Nothing was stolen, this was a colaberation with the Walt Disney Company--a long negotiated business contract, taking from 1938-61 to complete an agreement. Travers had considerable involement in planning and approvals control, and was part of the entire production. Travers had a great amount of control over the entire production, again nothing stolen by the United States, or the Walt Disney Company.

From your favorite sourse, Wikipedia, with references to support the facts. Look it up this time.

Production history
The first book was the main basis for the Walt Disney film Mary Poppins, a musical with mixed live action and animation which premiered on August 27, 1964. It was the Sherman Brothers, who composed the music and song score, and who were also involved in the picture's development, who suggested that the setting be changed from the 1930s to the Edwardian era. Julie Andrews, who was making her movie acting debut after a successful stage career, got the prime role of Mary Poppins soon after she was passed over by Jack Warner and replaced with Audrey Hepburn for the role of Eliza Doolittle in his screen version of My Fair Lady, even though Andrews had originated the role on Broadway. Andrews later beat Hepburn for the Best Actress Awards in both the Golden Globes and Academy Awards for their respective roles.

Disney cast Dick Van Dyke in the key supporting role of Bert, thanks to his work on The Dick Van Dyke Show. Van Dyke also played the senior Mr. Dawes in the film. Although he is fondly remembered for this film, Van Dyke's attempt at a Cockney accent (lapsing out of it at times) was nonetheless widely ridiculed and is still frequently parodied. It is still often cited as one of the worst attempts at a British accent by an American actor,[1] a fact acknowledged with good humour by Van Dyke himself on the 2004 DVD release of the film.

According to the 40th Anniversary DVD release of the film in 2004, Walt Disney first attempted to purchase the film rights to Mary Poppins from P.L. Travers as early as 1938 but was rebuffed because Travers did not believe a film version of her books would do justice to her creation. In addition, Disney was known at the time primarily as a producer of cartoons and had yet to produce any major live action work. For more than 20 years, Disney periodically made efforts to convince Travers to allow him to make a Poppins movie. He finally succeeded in 1961, although Travers demanded and got script approval rights. Planning the film and composing the songs took about two years. Travers objected to a number of elements that actually made it into the movie. Rather than original songs, she wanted the soundtrack to feature known standards of the Edwardian period in which the story is set. She also objected to the animated sequence. Disney overruled her, citing contract stipulations that he had final say on the finished print. Much of their correspondence is part of the Travers collection of papers in the Mitchell Library of New South Wales, Australia. The relationship between Travers and Disney is detailed in Mary Poppins She Wrote, a biography of Travers, by Valerie Lawson. The biography is the basis for two documentaries on Travers, The Real Mary Poppins and Lisa Matthews' The Shadow of Mary Poppins.[2][3][4]

A number of other changes were necessary to condense the story into feature length. In the movie, there are only two Banks children, Jane and Michael. The satirical and mysterious aspects of the original book gave way to a cheerful and "Disneyfied" tone. Mary Poppins' character as portrayed by Andrews in the film is somewhat less vain and more sympathetic toward the children than the rather cold and intimidating nanny of the original book. Bert, as played by Van Dyke, was a composite of several characters from Travers' stories. Travers demanded that any suggestions of romance between Mary and Bert be eliminated, so lyrics were written for "Jolly Holiday" that clearly indicated that their friendship was purely platonic (some subtle hints of romance remain, however).

As mentioned above, Van Dyke played two roles in the film. Andrews did at least three: she provided the robin's whistling harmony during "A Spoonful of Sugar", and was also one of the Pearly singers during "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". David Tomlinson, besides playing Mr. Banks, also provided the voice of Mary's talking umbrella as well as numerous other voice-over parts (including that of Admiral Boom's first mate). During the "Jolly Holiday" sequence, the three singing Cockney geese were voiced by Marni Nixon. (Nixon would later play one of Julie Andrews' fellow nuns in The Sound of Music; she also provided the singing voice for Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady.)
greeney2
 
Posts: 9527
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Sat Jul 24, 2010 12:06 am

qmark wrote:First of all, I'm sure there are movies out there already twisting the truth. That wouldn't surprise me. I know the truth so I don't feel threatened.

Secondly, I couldn't give a flying fig about Felix the Cat. There are a lot more important things going on in the world than who is responsible for a cartoon. Is this really what you are stressing over? Good grief!

Thirdly, I loved Marry Poppins, and not once did I ever believe it was an American invention. So what?

If this is all you got to complain about rath, congradulations. Life must be good for you.

Let me give you an example of the way I look at things.

Who made the first automobile? . . . . . . . IT DOESN'T MATTER.
What matters to me is GM and Ford made some GREAT muscle cars in the sixties.

Who made the first cartoon, some guy in Australia or Disney? . . . . . . IT DOESN'T MATTER.
The fact is Disney has some great cartoons. So what? Australia probably does to, big deal.



Oh ........ I agree 100% .....


But lets just remember what started this ....... Not me.


Southwestranger, like other members on here, from all parts of the world ....... Thay post something, i know is wrong & fraudulent, & I call them on it.

& they go & have a spaz & start threads asking other members to boycot my posts ..........

Well you know ...... if you wanna be a child about it.

& all because he does not like his own version of history questioned.

:oops: :oops: :oops:



First of all, I'm sure there are movies out there already twisting the truth. That wouldn't surprise me. I know the truth so I don't feel threatened.

Secondly, I couldn't give a flying fig about Felix the Cat. There are a lot more important things going on in the world than who is responsible for a cartoon. Is this really what you are stressing over? Good grief!

Thirdly, I loved Marry Poppins, and not once did I ever believe it was an American invention. So what?

If this is all you got to complain about rath, congradulations. Life must be good for you.


Sure i can see how you might feel that way, But you dont speak for you whole nation do you ......

& one only need to search the internet to see just how many Americans do care ........ As why else would they keep trying to re-right history.

More over ...... i did not think for a second that you cared about Felix the CAt & who created it....

I dont care about things other nations did first either .......

But i bet youve been to Disneyland.


Now who in their right mind builds a monument to somebody' who did something SECOND.

& like you said their only movies / cartoons after all .....

& lets face it Walt Disany ripped of the culture of other nations other then just Australia.

& on that note .....



Like i said this is all because southwestranger got his panties in a knote over a part of history he did not like ( even tho its fact )

He got all patriotic ... not me



If i was being all patriotic ....... would i have started a thread on Greenpeace & New Zealand ....


No ...... i would have started a thread on how Australia invented cinema.


The world's first feature film was an Australian Film, .. , The Story of the Kelly Gang i1906.

Or i would have started a thread about how an Australian Invented ....... such & such,
( like my thread on the Black Box )

Or how Penicillin was invented by an Australian, ... The Nobel laureate, Howard Walter Florey.


Or how Aspro was invented by an Australian & not a German.



When it comes down to it, Like you said.

Who cares, ........ ( southwestranger it seems )
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Sat Jul 24, 2010 1:00 am

greeney2 wrote:I think you have lost your marbles Rath, Rambling on about Felex the cat and listing Mary Poppins as stolen by the United States. Again your facts are inaccurate. Here is some History about Mary Poppins and how her books rites were purchased by Disney, and the involvment in production. Hardly a story of the USA stealing anything, or the Disney company stealing, they were purchased legally. The end result was a extremely highly rated movie winning many many awards, in which the author shared. Nothing was stolen, this was a colaberation with the Walt Disney Company--a long negotiated business contract, taking from 1938-61 to complete an agreement. Travers had considerable involement in planning and approvals control, and was part of the entire production. Travers had a great amount of control over the entire production, again nothing stolen by the United States, or the Walt Disney Company.

From your favorite sourse, Wikipedia, with references to support the facts. Look it up this time.



Wikipeadia post ........

Hmmm

How can you claim it as fact when you have no knowalage of who wrote it & for what reason .......


Also ........

Have you' ...... heard of Wikisource.

Here is the Mary Poppins Wiki page you cut an pasted from ......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Poppins_(film)

Now right there, you have proved my point .........


Like i said, the issue is how the People of the USA are so brain washed & are so programed & complacent, ........ that you only question things, when you think they are what you have been lead to think ......


& only When you realise, that what you have been told by your government & lead to believe is a crock.

Do youes mob bother to look into it at all.

Take the War movies, we where talking about ......


The Battles in question had NO AMERICANS IN THEM, yet in the movies, The American's save the day .........


You don't think that it has more to do with increasing recrutment numbers, in the US forces.

Positive image and all that .....

As for Mary Poppins, ........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Poppins_(film)

This page was last modified on 21 July 2010 at 20:09.

By who ? ........ & WHY ?

Recent changes to Mary Poppins web page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges


You can't realy on Google & Wikipeadia to find your facts ......


& the fact, that every time i claim something ..... you all run off & check Wikipeadia ..... ect ect sums up my point.


A) .... wikipeadia is full of Proaganda ......

&

B) Anybody who quotes Wikipeadia & Google Answere without question, as to who provided the answers on wikipeadia or Google ( what was their age ) & Where did they get their facts from .....


Is a fool.


Since its creation in 2001, Wikipedia has grown as the online phenomenon that
apparently allows the truth to be managed democratically; but over the past year it
has also been exposed as a real-life "Ministry of Truth". Worse: people have
been arrested and terrorised due to incorrect information being posted on this free
Internet encyclopaedia.




Faking it

It was in early 2007 that the WikiWorld was rocked when one of its most prolific contributors and editors, "believed" by the site to be a professor of religion with advanced degrees in Theology and canon law, was exposed as being nothing more than a community college drop-out.

The person at the centre of this controversy was "Essjay"—which begged the question as to why anyone in a position of authority should want or need to hide behind a pseudonym.
In truth, Essjay was Ryan Jordan, a 24- year-old from Kentucky with no advanced degrees, who used texts such as Catholicism for D u m m i e s to help him correct articles on the penitential rite and transubstantiation.

Indeed, the problem began at the very beginning of Essjay's career, when no one vetted his credentials and when his claim to be a tenured professor of religion at a private university was
accepted. He contributed to an estimated 20,000 Wikipedia entries, making up one per cent of the 1,675,000 articles that Wikipedia listed as being online.

Worse, however, was that Wikipedia staff recruited Essjay to work on the site's Arbitration Committee, which he chaired for two terms, thus granting him almost divine powers without anyone asking him any questions. Fortunately Essjay was only a pretender, not a person intent on spreading disinformation...but he could have accomplished this easily.

He was an important player in WikiWorld. The New Yorker, in its 31 July 2006 edition, ran
an article on Essjay and his activities, which were then believed to be genuine.

By mid-January 2007, Essjay had posted his real name and employment history on the related Wikia website. However, it was Daniel Brandt who noticed this and made further enquiries.
He eventually contacted The New Yorker to say that Essjay's original biographical information was fake.


On 26 February, The New Yorker made an online correction, stating that Essjay "holds no advanced degrees" and "has never taught". But worst of all was probably this comment: "At the
time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay's real name."


Following the revelation, Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales asked Essjay to resign
(in any business environment he would have been fired), stating that "Wikipedia is built on (among other things) twin pillars of trust and tolerance". It was clear that one pillar had now totally collapsed.

But bizarrely, Wales further commented: "It is not good, obviously, but the interesting thing is that Mr Jordan was an excellent editor, credentials or not. His work was extremely positive for Wikipedia."


'I don't think this incident exposes any inherent weakness in Wikipedia, but it does expose a weakness that we will be working to address,' Wales added."


Wales may of course change his opinion, but originally he said he was not concerned with Essjay's invented persona: "I regard it as a pseudonym and I don't really have a problem with it."

After an outcry from Wikipedia users, Wales changed his view.

Larry Sanger, in his Citizendium Blog of 1 March, responded to Wales's initial statement, stating: "There's something utterly breathtaking, and ultimately tragic, about Jimmy telling The New Yorker that he doesn't have a problem with Essjay's lies, and by essentially honoring Essjay after his lies were exposed... Doesn't Jimmy know that this has the potential to be even more damaging to Wikipedia than the Seigenthaler situation, since it reflects directly on the judgment and values of the management of Wikipedia?"

Wales meanwhile maintained that the service and its community are built around a self-policing and "self-cleaning" nature that is supposed to ensure its articles are accurate:
the "Wikipedia Police".

But are they the "Thought Police" or people who verify facts? Seigenthaler's entry suggests they are definitely not the latter.



"Wikipedia Police"

Disgruntled people at odds with Wikipedia are numerous. The "pseudophysicist"
(to quote Wikipedia) Jack Sarfatti considers himself to be a victim of the service and even considered litigation at one point. He found that certain libellous information had been posted about him. Of course, he, like anyone else, can go in and alter that information, which is what he tried to do.

He tried posting at various times of the day, but each time, within minutes, the changes were undone—suggesting that the Wikipedia moderators were constantly monitoring certain pages.

When he dug further, he came to the conclusion that Wikipedia seemed to be in the hands of a group of sceptical minds, intent on making sure there were no mysteries and no conspiracies.


Indeed, when you consult a variety of subjects on Wikipedia, you will notice a certain "mindset" that excludes certain opinions. Just two examples...

Paul Smith is an ardent sceptic of the Rennes-le-Château and Priory of Sion mysteries (which are at the core of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code) and is responsible for most of the Wikipedia entries on the subject.

Some of these entries are blatantly biased and others contain serious factual errors. In both
instances, I adjusted the wording and removed the errors. At no point did this mean that the Priory was depicted as genuine—far from it.

In fact, I felt that an error-free posting would actually bring enhanced value to the entry.
In this case, the entries remained up for a number of months, but then were returned to
their negative, erroneous entries. The "Wikipedia Police" should have seen that the new entry was less neutral and more biased than what was on there, but they did not revert to the previous version.

The question is: why prefer erroneous information over more neutral wordings? No wonder that experts find numerous errors in every article on Wikipedia...when Wikipedia
seems to prefer to promote errors over factual statements.

I also tried to add further information about dissenting theories on the Corpus Hermeticum, specifically the work of Leiden University professor Bruno Stricker,
giving due reference to his name and publications (including his PhD thesis).

In this instance, Wikipedia moderators removed the section themselves, stating that I needed to give "more sources" — though I had actually given more sources than most of the other statements that maintain the status quo in this entry, namely that the
Corpus is a second- or third-century AD creation rather than a third-century BC codification, as Stricker (and others) argue.

Examples of such unprofessional editing, with a bias towards maintaining the status quo and specifically downplaying if not removing controversial information, run into the hundreds if not thousands.

Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet (http://www.prisonplanet.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) has noted there is a concerted campaign to erase the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Furthermore, pages which they and like-minded individuals created, such as "List of Republican sex scandals", "People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report" and "Movement to impeach George W. Bush" were all deleted.

The first-mentioned page might indeed not be seen as important in an encyclopaedic
environment, but the "wiki" (a page in the encyclopaedia) for Dylan Avery, the producer of the most-watched documentary film in Internet history, clearly merits a biographical page on an online encyclopaedia.

Wikipedia, however, thought otherwise.

These are just some of the examples that people have experienced with the "service".

At best, it is clear that the moderators have never been trained or validated for their
credentials. But Sarfatti has also drawn attention to the so-called "Wikipedia arbitration", which Wales has seen as the "self-cleaning" and the deus ex machina designed to reestablish Wikipedia's credibility—even though he elected a college drop-out to preside over it.


Upset about his own case and unable to rectify the situation, Sarfatti commented on a private
email list: "They have set up a Virtual Shadow Government in which they now have their own courts to adjudicate 'litigation'." He made the point that the theory is that whoever controls the Web controls the Earth—and there is indeed that potential.

Perform a Google websearch and if Wikipedia has a result on what you search for, the Wikipedia entry will come up on top.


So whatever you want to know, you will probably Google it and find it in Wikipedia.

"Googlepedia" thus has a virtual monopoly on information and does indeed, as Sarfatti said,
control the Web—and knowledge.

Googlepedia offers a one-stop shop for teachers and anyone else who wants to find information. Teachers have stated that this is exactly the case. What is in Wikipedia—and the opinions
expressed therein—is almost directly passed on to students.

And students are more likely to check other hits, perhaps being more realistic about the expectations of Wikipedia—which for many teachers seems to have become gospel.


Image


WikiScanning revelations

This has underlined some serious problems with the second pillar of WikiWorld: tolerance.

But what about Sarfatti'sOrwellian claims that Wikipedia is the Ministry of Truth — i.e., Lies?

On 14 August 2007, Wired reported that CalTech computation and neural-systems graduate student Virgil Griffith had created the "Wikipedia Scanner", which "offers users a
searchable database that ties millions of anonymous Wikipedia edits to organizations where those edits apparently originated, by cross-referencing the edits with data on who owns the associated block of Internet IP addresses".

"I came up with the idea when I heard about Congressmen getting caught for white-washing their Wikipedia pages," he says on his website (http://virgil.gr/31.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). Griffith became very intrigued when, on 17 November 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia user deleted 15 paragraphs from an article on e-voting machine vendor Diebold, excising an entire section critical of the company's machines. Griffith traced those changes to an IP address reserved for the corporate offices of Diebold itself.



Wired concluded that when the new datamining service was launched, it traced millions of Wikipedia entries to their sources, and for the first time put "comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegations". In short, Griffith proved Sarfatti and others' conspiracy theory.

Griffith has compiled lists of different corporations and government branches that have abused the "trust" of Wikipedia essentially to edit the truth out of existence, replacing it with a PRfriendly
façade favourable not to the facts or any sense of neutrality but only to the interests of the parties concerned.

The WikiScanner page (see http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) lists a few "favourites" which include the CIA, the Vatican and the Church of Scientology.

http://katrina.cs.caltech.edu/erenrich_ ... ner_final/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You might expect that the CIA would make the biggest use of this tool, to spread propaganda, but such thinking would be too primitive: a multibillion-dollar agency that has existed for 60 years has better and less traceable methodologies at its disposal. Still, rather interesting and somewhat humorous is that, on the profile of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a worker on the CIA network added the exclamation "Wahhhhhh!" before a section on the leader's plans for his presidency.

A warning on the profile of the anonymous editor read: "You have recently vandalised a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behaviour." It seems that one CIA worker also tweaked the profile of Oprah Winfrey—an edit which
hopefully occurred during a lunch break.


More interestingly, WikiScanner uncovered that the Vatican edited entries about Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams. The edit removed links to newspaper stories written in 2006 that alleged that Mr Adams's fingerprints and handprints had been found on a car used in 1971 in connection with a double murder. The Vatican spokesman, Jesuit father Federico Lombardi, clarified on Vatican Radio on 17 August 2007 that accusations saying that the Holy See manipulated the encyclopaedia intentionally "...lack all seriousness and logic.

It is absurd even to think that such an initiative could have even been considered." Forced to explain how it could have happened, he said that there are many computers in the Vatican and that anyone could have access to Wikipedia on any one of them.


Equally interesting is that a computer traced to American Airlines (AA) was used to make a significant change about 9/11.

The original entry read: "Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and
American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767)"—to which an AA employee added (somewhat ungrammatically): "Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001.

Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (http://www.bts.gov/gis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) do not list either flight that day."
(See http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/au ... rlines.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.)

What are we to make of this?

But WikiScanner especially revealed that most abuse originates from corporate clients—and politicians.

According to the UK Independent of 18 August 2007, Wal-Mart cleaned some statements about its employment procedures, and again, in October 2005, a person using a Diebold computer removed paragraphs about Walden O'Dell, chief executive of the company, which revealed that he had been "a top fund-raiser" for George W.Bush.

Such cleaning should be seen as rewriting history. Even if the edits are not correct, Wikipedia's policy should be to insert "it is alleged" or statements to that effect.

The Independent, along with many media sources, mentioned other abuses. Griffith's tool also discovered that a computer owned by the US Democratic Party was used to make changes to the site of right-wing talk-show host Rush Limbaugh. The changes brand Mr Limbaugh as "idiotic", a "racist" and a "bigot". An entry about his audience read: "Most of them are legally retarded."

An IP address that belongs to the oil giant ExxonMobil was linked to sweeping changes to an entry on the disastrous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill. An allegation that the company "has not yet paid the US$5 billion in spill damages it owes to the 32,000 Alaskan fishermen" was replaced with references to the funds that the company has paid out.

The Republican Party edited Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party entry so it made it clear that the US-led invasion was not a "USled occupation" but a "US-led liberation"—the clearest example
of Ministry of Truth's approved Newspeak if ever there was one.

Also uncovered by WikiScanner was that a computer registered to the Dow Chemical Company deleted a section on the 1984 Bhopal chemical disaster (which ultimately killed up to 22,000 people) which occurred at a plant operated by Union Carbide, now a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow.

It was also reported that Barbara Alton, assistant to Episcopal bishop Charles Bennison, deleted information on a cover-up of child sexual abuse, allegations that the bishop misappropriated US$11.6 million in trust funds, and evidence of other scandals. When challenged, Alton claimed that she had been ordered to delete the information by Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori.

WikiScanner also uncovered that staff in Australia's Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC) had edited entries on topics such as the "children overboard" affair, as reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 24 August. PM John Howard stated that he had not asked any of his staff to edit those entries. WikiScanner revealed, too, that Department of Defence staff had made more than 5,000 changes to the encyclopaedia, but the Herald reported that they were now blocked from editing entries (note that a general IP number can be used by several departments).

Commenting on ABC News, the chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia, Dale Clapperton, said: "You also have to ask yourself whether it's a responsible and reasonable use of taxpayer dollars to
have public servants trying to sanitise entries on Wikipedia using taxpayer-paid resources to make their point of view more acceptable to the current government." In a follow-up Herald
report of 30 August, the PMC secretary claimed that the IP number did not belong to the department but instead to Macquarie Telecom—a claim that experts and the Herald dispute as highly unlikely, stating they have more evidence than merely an IP address to identify the government department as the source.




Disinformation weapon

Just before WikiScanner grabbed the headlines in mid-August 2007, there was one Wikipedia incident which received far less attention than it deserved: it revealed that the intelligence agencies had been using Wikipedia for disinformation purposes, thus proving Sarfatti's Orwellian allegation.

Daniel Brandt posted a summary on The Wikipedia Review website on 1 August .

The incident involved Pierre Salinger. He was a White House press secretary to Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, served as a US senator from California in 1964 and was campaign
manager for Robert Kennedy.

Salinger was also a famous investigative journalist who broke many important news stories. When he was based in London, he investigated the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which killed 270 people. He and his collaborator, John K. Cooley, hired
Linda Mack, a young graduate, to help in their research, which resulted in Salinger testifying at the Camp Zeist trial in November 2000:

"I know that these two Libyans had nothing to do with it. I know who did it and I know exactly why it was done," he said.

Thinking the judge would allow him to present this evidence, Salinger queried:
"That's all? You're not letting me tell the truth.

Wait a minute; I know exactly who did it. I know how it was done," Salinger replied to the trial judge, Lord Sutherland, who simply asked him to leave the witness box. "If you wish to make
a point you may do so elsewhere, but I'm afraid you may not do so in this court," Lord Sutherland interrupted.

So what does this have to do with Wikipedia? "SlimVirgin" had been voted the most abusive administrator of Wikipedia.

She had upset so many editors that some of them decided to team up to research her real-life identity.

Attempts to track her through Internet technology failed. This was suspicious in itself, as
WikiScanner has revealed.

According to a team member, SlimVirgin "knows her way around the Internet and covered her
tracks with care".

The question, therefore, was: why?


Daniel Brandt patiently assembled tiny clues about SlimVirgin and posted them on his website. Eventually, two readers identified her as none other than Linda Mack, the young graduate whom Salinger had hired.

To see her name appear in such a context was of course of great interest.
But that was not all. Cooley, Salinger's collaborator in the Lockerbie investigation, sent a letter to Brandt which was posted on The Wikipedia Review on 4 October 2006.

He wrote how Mack "...claimed to have lost a friend/lover on Pan103 and so was anxious
to clear up the mystery.

ABC News paid for her travel and expenses as well as a salary... Once the two Libyan suspects were indicted, she seemed to try to point the investigation in the direction of [Libyan President Colonel Muammar al-] Qaddafi, although there was plenty of evidence, both before and after the trials of Megrahi and Fhimah in the Netherlands, that others were involved, probably with Iran the
commissioning power... Salinger came to believe that Linda was working for MI5 and had been from the beginning; assigned genuinely to investigate the bombing of Pan Am 103, but also to infiltrate and monitor us..."

Soon after John Cooley contacted Brandt, Linda Mack contacted Cooley and asked him not to help Brandt in his efforts to expose her. Though all doubts about SlimVirgin's true identity then vanished, as for her motives…

Inconvenient truths

So, welcome to WikiWorld, a realm where inconvenient truths can easily be removed, while erroneous information— convenient lies and diinformation—can be entered in the encyclopaedia with emotionally upsetting and even worse consequences for the people involved.

This is the modern Ministry of Truth which, together with the liars and no doubt some mentally unstable people, has been put in charge of rewriting history.

It labels itself as the "Free Encyclopaedia", but perhaps the world should be freed from this
encyclopaedia before the old proverb is converted thus: "There are lies, damned lies, statistics, and then there's Wikipedia."

The problem with Wikipedia is not that it exists, but that it has become the cornerstone for researchers scanning the Internet for information and blindly copying from Wikipedia entries, wrongfully assuming that they are neutral and correct. It has become the "Ministry of Information", the "one-stop information shop" of the Internet, but no one
should fall for the "Newspeak" of a title.

Wikipedia has made the task for those seeding disinformation and removing dissenting views
easier, more direct and even more anonymous. Lies and Wikipedia, indeed...




About the Author:

Philip Coppens is editor-in-chief of the online website Conspiracy Times ( h t t p : / / w w w .
conspiracy-times.com).

Glozel" His new book, The New Pyramid Age, is reviewed in this edition. He is
scheduled to speak at the 2007 Conference in Queensland, Australia, on 20–22 October. Philip Coppens's website is at http://www.philipcoppens.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, and he can be emailed at info@philipcoppens.com. His own Wikipedia entry, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Coppens" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, was accurate at the time of our going to press...but perhaps won't be for much longer.




greeney2 wrote:I think you have lost your marbles Rath,


:D :D :D

But you knew that already ...........
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:25 am

Something wrong with you Rath.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9527
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby qmark » Sat Jul 24, 2010 8:29 am

rath wrote:But i bet youve been to Disneyland

Now who in their right mind builds a monument to somebody' who did something SECOND.


I went to Disneyland in 1958. I haven't been there since, or to Disney World. However, Disneyland and Disney World is a monument to Disney's first creation which was Mickey Mouse. Are you now saying Mickey Mouse is Australian.

rath wrote:i would have started a thread on how Australia invented cinema.

The world's first feature film was an Australian Film, .. , The Story of the Kelly Gang i1906.


You are correct. The first feature film was The story of the Kelly Gang. The first feature film out of Hollywood was The Great Train Robbery.

However, a short film was released in 1894 called "Sandow, No1", also titled "Sandow: The Strong Man". This was filmed in New Jersey by the Edison Manufacturing Company. So, do you have anything any earlier than 1894?

rath wrote:Or how Penicillin was invented by an Australian, ... The Nobel laureate, Howard Walter Florey.


Once again, only partially right. He didn't invent it, Alexander Fleming did (a Scottsman), Florey just improved and commercialized it.

Alexander Fleming is famous for discovering the usefulness of penicillin as an antibacterial agent. Raised in rural Scotland, he moved to London in his teens and worked as a shipping clerk and served in the Territorial Army. He earned his medical degree in 1906 from St. Mary's Medical School, where he spent his career (with the exception of a stint as a medical corps captain during World War I). A researcher in the area of antiseptics and antibacterial substances, in 1921 he discovered a natural protein with bacteria-killing properties that he named lysozome. In his lab in 1928 Fleming discovered some bacteria-repelling mold in an uncovered culture of staphylococci. He identified the mold as Penicillium notatum and published his findings in 1929, naming the substance penicillin. Fleming lacked sufficient chemistry skills to exploit his findings, but years later penicillin was developed by Howard Florey and Ernest Chain into the first significant antibiotic. Fleming was knighted in 1944, and in 1945 he shared the Nobel prize in medicine and physiology with Florey and Chain.


rath wrote:When it comes down to it, Like you said.

Who cares, ........
qmark
 
Posts: 1061
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby greeney2 » Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:25 pm

Notice in the list of bullshit movies, he doesn;t mention "On the Beach". :lol: Remember thats when all the Austrailians were innocent victims and kill themselves in the end, as the fallout hits their country. All caused by a Nuclear war they didn't have anything to do with. Talk about propaganda, get the violins out, Austrailia is the ultimate victim, and the rest of the world is screwed up, and they are all brave enough to OD on a pill.
greeney2
 
Posts: 9527
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Sun Jul 25, 2010 12:24 am

greeney2 wrote:Notice in the list of bullshit movies, he doesn;t mention "On the Beach". :lol: Remember thats when all the Austrailians were innocent victims and kill themselves in the end, as the fallout hits their country. All caused by a Nuclear war they didn't have anything to do with. Talk about propaganda, get the violins out, Austrailia is the ultimate victim, and the rest of the world is screwed up, and they are all brave enough to OD on a pill.


Arh .... But Supperman loved Us.

Even he wanted to stay.

:D
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby rath » Sun Jul 25, 2010 2:51 am

qmark wrote:
rath wrote:But i bet youve been to Disneyland

Now who in their right mind builds a monument to somebody' who did something SECOND.


I went to Disneyland in 1958. I haven't been there since, or to Disney World. However, Disneyland and Disney World is a monument to Disney's first creation which was Mickey Mouse. Are you now saying Mickey Mouse is Australian.

rath wrote:i would have started a thread on how Australia invented cinema.

The world's first feature film was an Australian Film, .. , The Story of the Kelly Gang i1906.


You are correct. The first feature film was The story of the Kelly Gang. The first feature film out of Hollywood was The Great Train Robbery.

However, a short film was released in 1894 called "Sandow, No1", also titled "Sandow: The Strong Man". This was filmed in New Jersey by the Edison Manufacturing Company. So, do you have anything any earlier than 1894?

rath wrote:Or how Penicillin was invented by an Australian, ... The Nobel laureate, Howard Walter Florey.


Once again, only partially right. He didn't invent it, Alexander Fleming did (a Scottsman), Florey just improved and commercialized it.

Alexander Fleming is famous for discovering the usefulness of penicillin as an antibacterial agent. Raised in rural Scotland, he moved to London in his teens and worked as a shipping clerk and served in the Territorial Army. He earned his medical degree in 1906 from St. Mary's Medical School, where he spent his career (with the exception of a stint as a medical corps captain during World War I). A researcher in the area of antiseptics and antibacterial substances, in 1921 he discovered a natural protein with bacteria-killing properties that he named lysozome. In his lab in 1928 Fleming discovered some bacteria-repelling mold in an uncovered culture of staphylococci. He identified the mold as Penicillium notatum and published his findings in 1929, naming the substance penicillin. Fleming lacked sufficient chemistry skills to exploit his findings, but years later penicillin was developed by Howard Florey and Ernest Chain into the first significant antibiotic. Fleming was knighted in 1944, and in 1945 he shared the Nobel prize in medicine and physiology with Florey and Chain.


rath wrote:When it comes down to it, Like you said.

Who cares, ........




See ..... Once again you have done, just what im talking about.

I post something that shows Somebody did something BEFORE THE USA, & you all go nuts & search for somethimg even older.

& in doing so you make my case for me.

A. ......

The world's first feature film was an Australian Film, .. , The Story of the Kelly Gang i1906.

& nothing will ever change that no matter what you say.

B. ......

You went a did just what the USA has done for hundreds of years.

Whenever somebody else in the world Creates or invents or does something first.

The USA goes off & changes the name of the said item, or event, & then proclaims that the USA invent, created, discovered, or did it firts.


EXAMPLE .........

Had the Russians landed on the moon first ....... im sure the USA would have landed on the moon second.

Changed the name of the moon from the moon ..... to something else ( say fred ) & then claim that the USA landed on Fred first.

:roll:

Just re-nameing something does not make you first.


First is First ....... End of story.


You are correct. The first feature film was The story of the Kelly Gang. The first feature film out of Hollywood was The Great Train Robbery.

However, a short film was released in 1894 called "Sandow, No1", also titled "Sandow: The Strong Man". This was filmed in New Jersey by the Edison Manufacturing Company. So, do you have anything any earlier than 1894?



Now what did i just say about RE-Nameing stuff.

We where talking about Feature films & not shot films ..... but hay.


A short film ANYBODY CAN MAKE where as a feature film ....has actors, film crew, a film set, & movie thearters to show the movie in ...... ect ect

HOWEVER ............

Ill play along.

However, a short film was released in 1894 called "Sandow, No1", also titled "Sandow: The Strong Man". This was filmed in New Jersey by the Edison Manufacturing Company. So, do you have anything any earlier than 1894?


A ........... Sandow is not a film ........... short or otherwise.

At best it is a home movie or maybe it can be called a doco.

It goes for 20 seconds on the info i found ....... so it aint no movie is it.


But that aside i found a U.S web page that is just fuul of crap & yet again ..... proves my point.
( than American's either just lie & put out Propaganda & mis-information.)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203853/

Oh Brother .........

But wait, theres more ........

Edison: Invention of Movies.

Author: Michael_Elliott from Louisville, KY

Sandow (1894)
Carmencita (1894)
Boxing Cats (1894)
Caicedo With Pole (1894)
Annabelle Butterfly Dance (1894)
Cockfight, no. 2 (1894)

Among the first group of motion pictures to be exhibited commercially in the world, when the Holland Bros.' Kinetoscope Parlor opened on Broadway in New York City on 14 April 1894



:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


So, do you have anything any earlier than 1894?



To answer your question ...........

YES.
Image
rath
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

PreviousNext

Return to Battle Forum

  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there are 0 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 0 guests (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests