Page 2 of 2

Re: Dewey Larson removed from Wikipedia--AGAIN

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 11:48 am
by Djchrismac
bperet wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:56 am
Why don't you and wsitze update the biography on Larson, which you could use as a template for a Wiki post. That way, at least it will be out there in the search engines, someplace.
Sounds good i'll send wsitze a message.
bperet wrote:
Tue Dec 04, 2018 8:56 am
Perhaps when you get the bio flushed out, you should hit other Wiki's, like Peswiki and the alternatives to Wikipedia?
Will do, I hadn't even heard of Peswiki but it has a lot of interesting content!

Re: Dewey Larson removed from Wikipedia--AGAIN

Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 12:36 pm
by Djchrismac
I found a couple of interesting pages, first the unsurprising rationalwiki page on Larson which used Satz's failed attempt to counter their psyop website attack on Larson to strengthen their case against them!

Probably best left well alone.

This also popped up though and actually wasn't a bad read or a full on attack: ... _of_Theory

What both articles touch on and which may be important when it comes to getting RS2 and Larson promoted more to the mainstream is the apparent lack of mathematics to back it up. A very intelligent engineer friend of mine rejected the RS when I sent him links to read for this very reason, then there was no more dialogue on it unless I could show him the workings using mainstream equations!

I don't understand how they can't understand that this is all you need:


I've messaged wsitze about collaborating so once we've got a first draft we'll send it to you for your input.

Re: Dewey Larson removed from Wikipedia--AGAIN

Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 9:32 am
by bperet
Larson spent decades trying to get his ideas before the High Priests of Science, with no success. Long ago I decided to not waste time with sites like IrrationalWacky, as they have no intention of expressing a clear and honest analysis. They even pay search engine sites to get top billing so people will see their trash first, and therefore not pursue a new understanding of anything--that's "job security" for scientists.

But people are slowly wising up to the fact that the stuff you SHOULD study is the stuff that the "experts" bad-mouth and claim to be "pseudo-something." And eventually, those priestly "experts" become nothing more than fools.

Re: Dewey Larson removed from Wikipedia--AGAIN

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:16 am
by user737
This is but another subtlety of the intent to affect a fundamental change of perspective of the population.

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." ... _not_truth

Truth IS whether we recognize it to be or not.

Because that which is true can be made to appear false, and that what is false can appear to be made true, it is only appropriate the eternal pursuit of truth be inclusive of all thought, even that which may appear to be "wrong." For without that primary consideration we remain trapped and hidden within the labyrinth of our own errors.

It is a damn dirty trick that Wikipedia would include "pedia" in the name as if to liken their site to an "encyclopedia," but therein the similarities end. For any other encyclopedia of mention-able notation would have applied a wholly different standard and when called to question would reject the assertion those topics contained within were "verifiable" only, and "not necessarily truth."

Wikipedia, however, strives to create a difference insofar as the information contained within need not be necessarily true nor false but rather verifiable to the extent it may be referenced as a citation. By this ledger, anything and everything ever written or spoken would naturally qualify for incorporation.

But this is not so and represents a grave mis-justice for the policy allows for "known" demonstrably untrue (read: disinformation) to be added, simply due its publication, while at the same time makes possible exclusion of other material by means of consensus vote by committee.

And therein lies the fatal flaw. Science is NOT done by consensus. Science is the study and acceptance of that which IS.

That some, or most, or even all but one choose to reject the truth of their own free will makes no difference as to what is good and true. Truth does not succumb to any force of will no matter the magnitude of said collective will.

The democratic process infects and defiles all that it touches; science included.

For most, a well-functioning democracy is nothing more than the besetting of an advanced state of group-think; mass hypnosis, if you will. Natural rights are not established due the opinion of the few or the many; quite so they are the acknowledgement of that which IS (truth) and inform our every ethical decision. And so, the fickle desires of the many (or the few), in a vile attempt to suppress and control the thoughts of others, will forever inevitably end in their own tumultuous ruin.

Re: Dewey Larson removed from Wikipedia--AGAIN

Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:18 pm
by bperet
Wikipedia is controlled by corporate interests, just like the TV news and newspapers. It is structured so you get an artificial view of reality that keeps the profits flowing, and has little to do with accuracy or information. Anything that challenges the "accepted view" is not permitted.

It is the same with search engines. Google biases their results based on corporate interests, as well.

One of the things you find out quickly when working with things like the Reciprocal System is that anything outside the accepted dogma is forbidden--and they use social pressure to do it. "Skeptics" even go to the extreme of creating fake sites with fake research papers to disprove something, then use those bogus references on Wikipedia to "prove" it.

We really do live in the "disinformation age."

Re: Dewey Larson removed from Wikipedia--AGAIN

Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2020 12:56 pm
by Djchrismac

Wikipedia: A Disinformation Operation?

Published: March 2020

Wikipedia is generally thought of as an open, transparent, and mostly reliable online encyclopedia. Yet upon closer inspection, this turns out not to be the case.

In fact, the English Wikipedia with its 9 billion worldwide page views per month is governed by just 500 active administrators, whose real identity in many cases remains unknown.

Moreover, studies have shown that 80% of all Wikipedia content is written by just 1% of all Wikipedia editors, which again amounts to just a few hundred mostly unknown people.

Obviously, such a non-transparent and hierarchical structure is susceptible to corruption and manipulation, the notorious “paid editors” hired by corporations being just one example.

Indeed, already in 2007, researchers found that CIA and FBI employees were editing Wikipedia articles on controversial topics including the Iraq war and the Guantanamo military prison.

Also in 2007, researchers found that one of the most active and influential English Wikipedia administrators, called “Slim Virgin”, was in fact a former British intelligence informer.

More recently, another highly prolific Wikipedia editor going by the false name of “Philip Cross” turned out to be linked to UK intelligence as well as several mainstream media journalists.

In Germany, one of the most aggressive Wikipedia editors was exposed, after a two-year legal battle, as a political operative formerly serving in the Israeli army as a foreign volunteer.

Even in Switzerland, unidentified government employees were caught whitewashing Wikipedia entries about the Swiss secret service just prior to a public referendum about the agency.

Many of these Wikipedia personae are editing articles almost all day and every day, indicating that they are either highly dedicated individuals, or in fact, operated by a group of people.

In addition, articles edited by these personae cannot easily be revised, since the above-mentioned administrators can always revert changes or simply block disagreeing users altogether.

The primary goal of these covert campaigns appears to be pushing Western and Israeli government positions while destroying the reputation of independent journalists and politicians.

Articles most affected by this kind of manipulation include political, geopolitical and certain historical topics as well as biographies of non-conformist academics, journalists, and politicians.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, a friend of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and a “Young Leader” of the Davos forum, has repeatedly defended these operations.

Speaking of Davos, Wikimedia has itself amassed a fortune of more than $160 million, donated in large part not by lazy students, but by major US corporations and influential foundations.

Moreover, US social media and video platforms are increasingly referring to Wikipedia to frame or combat “controversial” topics. The revelations discussed above may perhaps help explain why.

Already NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed how spooks manipulate online debates, and more recently, a senior Twitter executive turned out to be a British Army “psyops” officer.

To add at least some degree of transparency, German researchers have developed a free web browser tool called WikiWho that lets readers color code just who edited what in Wikipedia.

In many cases, the result looks as discomforting as one might expect.

Re: Dewey Larson removed from Wikipedia--AGAIN

Posted: Fri Apr 24, 2020 5:56 pm
by dbundy
At one time, the Wikipedia talk page on our RST article and the ensuing debate for deletion was the longest and most extensive in Wikipedia history. I don't know if it still is, but it might be.The main reason the opponents had was that his work is original research, not notable or historical achievement.

We didn't understand that stipulation clearly at the time and lost the case for permitting the article to stand. However, making that case over the course of many months proved to be unifying, as we had to defend the new system, viz-a-viz the legacy system. We learned a lot, but now that we can see the true purpose of Wikipedia as part of the mind control efforts of the globalists, it's clear that we are not going to prevail.

The best thing we can do now is solve more of the LST community's challenges on our own platform and publish the results for all to see.