Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed
Today on #SolutionsWatch, James goes into further detail about the theory and practice of source citation. In addition to the hows and whys of citing sources, James also addresses the weaponization of the “What’s your source?” question and how people can use citations to improve communication, not interfere with it.
Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4
SHOW NOTES
Open Source Journalism presentation
Episode 447 – Further Down the David Kelly Rabbit Hole
Dissent Into Madness: The Weaponization of Psychology
reddit post on Rothschilds and the Fed
Secrets of the Federal Reserve (CIA.gov)
November 2017 Release of Abbottabad Compound Material (CIA.gov)
Interview 1813 – WTF Just Happened in Russia? with Rolo Slavskiy
Wagner’s Prigozhin Issues Most Dire Warning Yet Ahead of Ukrainian Counterattack
Prigozhin video cited by Slavskiy
Moscow’s Azov-Medvedchuk Swap Inflames Russian Hardliners
Russia, Ukraine Carry Out Major Prisoner Swap Brokered by Turkey and Saudi Arabia
Обмен пленных на Медведчука расколол российских патриотов
Zelensky says he returns to Ukraine from Turkey with Azov nationalist battalion commanders
Are You or a Loved One Recovering From A ZAnon Addiction?
Seymour “Trust Me, Bro” Hersh: Pregozhin’s Folly
Reddit
On reddit a lot of good sites are black-listed.
Including CorbettReport.com
I also had posts removed to Bitchute, odysee and much more.
The r/conspiracy subreddit is also more controlled than some years ago.
It started with the quarantining of r/911truth and r/thedonald
People read very limited information
There are indeed a lot of people that only read the headlines.
Some only read key-words and make conclusions based on that.
I notice that a lot of people do not even understand the keywords.
It gets worse.
Things like quantum, AI, dark-matter, and much more..
combines with all kinds assumptions.
And even scientists mix up stuff in videos and articles.
The assumptions are never mentioned, which are essential in science.
And when scientists mix them up, people not knowing the words
even get them mixed up more.
Bad and/or manipulative information
And then there are articles that are based on headlines and snippets
from interviews. Usually snippets to put someone in a certain light.
Tim Pool reported how facts were invented and published on wikipedia.
They were then published in mainstream media.
And when it was removed from wikipedia to correct it,
it was falsely put back, because some mainstream media reported on it.
This was a trick that was often used to target political opposition.
And to get “fact-checkers” to categorize the lie as a fact.
Then we have “sources” that are long videos of “some dude speaking”.
Or a short video of “an expert” making some claim.
All without further evidence.
Peer reviewed science
The sources of peer-reviewed scientific articles are the worst.
Each peer-reviewed article should be regarded as an advertisement.
Advertisement for a product or for a narrative.
Peer-review means that certain “peers” are able to refuse an article.
These “peers” include Big Pharma and other groups that want a certain outcome.
The cooperation with Big Pharma is so strong that most scientists
“ghostwrite” a lot of articles. It is to promote products and for patents.
That way they can get sponsorship for research.
And use the expensive laboratory tools and ingredients that are necessary.
Without sponsorship there is no high-quality research.
There is only so much that you can see in a microscope.
“Forbidden” Science
So there are also a huge number of subjects that are NOT being researched!
And maybe they never will. At least not to the extend that is necessary
to reach good conclusions.
And if people write about it, they get onto some kind of black-list.
They will never make any career in the science community.
And other people will write nasty articles about them, with made-up information.
The “skeptic communities” are full with such nasty stories.
Like:
vaccine side-effects, harm from radio-waves,
solar climate impact, low-energy nuclear reactions,
ancient civilizations, cheap medicine,
chi/prana and the energy-field, etc.
And not to forget all kinds of conspiracy related subjects.
Feel free to add to the list.
https://saidit.net/s/CorruptScience
has lots of sources on science related things.
There are lots of mad scientists too.
Growing Rat Neurons… To Play Video Games?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEXefdbQDjw
Is that even ethical?
This same guy also does gene-editing,
and tried some on himself for Lactose tolerance
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoczYXJeMY4
And he has some interesting about Fungi
Do fungi think?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj5mIhDVF1g
Simad, I thought I remembered this Dr. from somewhere…
https://carnicominstitute.org/
Clarification of the blood, cleatiation of toxic metals,may save your life in this time of culling. 68% of the world population has this clot shot, nano aerosol poison in their blood. No wonder the virus/ no virus distraction was rammed down our throats. It’s pure eugenics in real time action.
Dr. Ana and Carnicominstitute.org deserves support $$$ s.
More on health. This has been in use since 1992. Smart Dust. Short Read
Read the the health uses, very interesting.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/we-all-breathing-smart-dust-institute-of-innovation-and-knowle
Good example of an article where someone writes about something
that he/she does not understand at all.
By combining all kinds of things that the writer does not understand,
the writer comes to all kinds of
impossible conclusions.
@Z-man
How would you describe a cross domain virus/ bacteria? It shouldn’t be able to exist however it may in high probability. Please enlighten the pumpkin eaters,they should listen.
Carnicom spent a lot of time reverse engineering morgelens.
There are some viruses that are like bacteria.
You can find them with “giant viruses”, even on Youtube.
They act like an undead vampire version of a normal bacterium.
The article that was posted was full with keywords that
are meaning different things than imagined by the writer.
And the writer is mixing them all up, without understanding
anything.
Like quantum-dots.
Quantum-dots are a quantum super-position state within a
crystalline structure.
The idea is that you can store and reuse quantum-information
in a super-cooled sealed environment. And with an extreme
accurate machine scientists may be able to use it.
\
One big reason I do not write much here:
There is a limit on words and one needs to
write whole articles about each of these subjects.
I think almost no-one on this forum, except for me has
researched about quantum computers and
super-position quantum states of molecules.
And I do not even know everything, because I am more interested
in how physical quantum-phenomena are active in living
biological systems.
These quantum phenomena may be guided by life-force (prana),
and help the physical body to make intelligent choices.
Without any guidance, you just get plain physical matter.
Plain physical matter is only stupidity and chaos
with no intelligence.
That means that also smart-dust can not exist.
And smart-dust was an imaginary science-fiction idea,
based on the idea that matter can be intelligent by itself.
Alternative ideas are that you can place small chips in a grid,
and program them to do a certain function. Chaos does not work.
That still needs some kind of grid, electrical connections, electrical power, etc. So you gain absolutely nothing.
There is a reason why modern chips are all build on a flat surface.
Mistakes like that go on and on.
People are too locked up in watching videos that they can
understand a bit. Usually conspiracy like videos or
popular science videos.
But also most people in the video and articles
have no idea what the words mean in the real world.
The destruction of the real-world is part
of the Critical Theory, that is very popular today.
And for some reason it draws the conspiracy world
into the same bad way of thinking.
Z- man, thank you.
Dr. Ana Mihalcea had some
very interesting things to say here on the Stew Peters Show, which is unknown to me.. She sounded like she was in near anger and panic over cross domain self assembly nano polymers and graphene that acts like viruses. Phizer lied so no big revelation there. This is getting out of DARPAs control and as she said it’s showing up in many other products other than vaccines. That’s bad. She is pushing EDTA chelation as a mediator but will it work on polymers as well as metals? This is disturbing.
https://rumble.com/v2znw20-pfizer-and-media-caught-lying-about-graphene-oxide-dr.-ana-mihalcea-proves-.html
Z- man last one Dr Ana Milhalcea on crimes against humanity. Our blood has been poisoned.
Transhumanist agenda.
https://rumble.com/v2y5lfu-evidence-of-crimes-against-humanity-darkfield-blood-microscopy.html
This is just mind blowing.
There is a lot of confusion about Graphene oxide (GO).
There was an experimental GO that was begin developed.
Something to replace the toxic Lipid Nano Particles (LNP)
It was all black/grey, because carbon is black.
It may not be toxic, because graphite pencils are
used all the time. But that needs some research.
Sources (also in comments):
https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/how-non-ionizing-radiation-affects
The researchers claiming that there is GO,
are mixing up facts.
a. They are doing the Raman scattering wrong.
b. They are mistaking obvious cholesterol for GO
(which has a different crystal structure)
c. They think that there are circuits or alien-like high tech.
d. They think that obvious gas bubbles are GO
e. The dark-field shows different crystals (not black graphene)
etc. Usually forming or moving by the heat of the light.
f. They polluted the sample with the environment
Should I waste another 30 minutes to look at new bullshit?
With these false findings the internet seems to run wild.
And experts are shaking their heads in shame, while
being attacked for explaining the obvious:
Nothing is true about it.
It gets even worse with the ideas about strong
magnetic properties. (ALL FAKE)
Self-assembling circuits (ALL FAKE)
which are just demonstrations of magnetic and electric fields.
Connecting to nerves to take over humans (ALL FAKE)
They use it only in laboratories instead of wires.
It is clearly a distraction from the overwhelming
damage that the LNP and mRNA is doing to the body.
The imaginary story is helping Big Pharma, because now
people are complaining about something that is not true.
It will not hold up in a normal trial.
So the GO story is 100% helping Big Pharma
Gates is smiling with every GO story.
Another example of people not understanding words and
making stupid conclusions
FDA confirms Graphene Oxide is in the mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines after being forced to publish Confidential Pfizer Documents by order of the US Federal Court
https://expose-news.com/2023/07/14/fda-graphene-covid-vaccine/
Look up words if you don’t understand them!
What is a Vitrobot Mark IV?
Why is gold quantifoil?
What is the sample?
After you understand the words, it translates to
A sample of protein was prepared with gold-foil and graphene oxide.
This sample was scanned with an electron microscope.
Based on the confidential paper:
The “vaccine” contains as much graphene-oxide as
you contain your toilet-seat.
Sometimes when I need a source document or details of a scenario (with links), I will go to one of Corbett’s documentaries.
Then I will search the transcript with keywords.
Ctrl + F for a webpage Search Box.
???
It was an encouragement to me that I was challenged for the source when I pointed out the $43 million in investments and multiple half million dollar salaries at Operation Underground Railroad with my video: “Sound of Freedom” – “Wag the Dog” – Coincidence or intent? (http://ShofarLeaks.com/2023-07-09)
The sources are now linked and the data is also duplicated on my site.
I’ll be sure to check this out. While I want to like abd extol Ballard, I can not escape the fact my youboob feed is absolutely gushing with materials realted to this movie. It’s an outpour, deluge even. Interviews, opinions and whatnot from a bunch of sources I was compleyely unaware of (and hence youboob would not likely suggest theor content to me).
I sometimes almost miss the old days of lack of skepticism.
Mr. Corbett,
The Odysee link goes to Laughing At Tyrants – #SolutionsWatch, currently.
Thanks for the tip, HRS. Fixed.
You might want to familiarize yourself with the term, “sealioning”.
https://SaidIt.net/s/Terminology/comments/8f81/sealioning_a_harassment_tactic_under_the_guise_of/
Good term to know.
It facilitates recognition of that ploy.
“Do you wish there was a way to engage in meaningful, data driven, evidenced based discussion online?”
It doesn’t help we have moneyed interest active in stifling interesting discussion. We’ve had too much government swill muddying the waters
>The research team – Drs Stephane Baele, Lewys Brace, and Travis Coan from the University of Exeter
>The user base is highly paranoid about being researched and surveyed
You don’t say
>One such tactic would aim at gradually making these boards less interesting for their users.
>One way to achieve this would be to regularly post content that looks genuine (using the right language, imagery, etc.) yet is meaningless – this would dilute the message of these boards and make their threads uninteresting, thereby reducing their attractiveness and sense of community.
>Recent developments in artificial intelligence enabling researchers to automatically generate credible extremist sentences make such a tactic cheap and easy to implement.
https://crestresearch.ac.uk/resources/mining-the-chans/
Here’s a good, well sourced read:
https://karenkingston.substack.com/p/naomi-wolf-and-her-legal-team-got-83e
Ectoshire Wolf
This needs to be widely distributed. Immediately.
This is a monumental outrage.
QFC: this certainly qualifies for a documentary for humanities sake.
World’s largest Grift.
Militaries Newest Holocaust
Eugenicists Biggest Play Yet.
U S out Nazis Nazis
For years my wife has been telling me outrageous stories that she heard on the ‘net, podcasts of events that are not verified by anyone. As time goes by I point out to her the contradictions we see. She can’t explain any of the contradictions in her reporter’s claims, but still believes. All I can do is point out the contradictions. After that, when she says: “I don’t know”, meaning she can’t resolve the contradictions, but chooses to believe, I have done all I can do. She has OCD, and denies it, sometimes, other times she laughs when I point it out. I thought that was her confronting it, but once I asked her if I was correct, and she refused to answer. I was confused.
I think it’s not just that she “wants to believe”, but she “needs to believe” badly. It is beyond her control.
Voluntaryist,
Thanks for the anecdote. It was insightful.
Mental gymnastics is a tough sport.
I think most of us here had a fair share of experiences where people, when confronted with reality, simply zone out or say something like “I can’t understand what you are saying”. Sometimes this seems like a nightmare, but the only thing that can be done is to bring the same information over and over again.
Which God?
There are so many religions.
And would one human be closer to god than another?
That is how the Catholic church helped create a feudal system.
They also changed some texts.
The Hindu system had a more caste-like system to reflect
certain humans being closer to god.
Certain religious groups (and cults) see themselves as
chosen by god (or gods), like Jehovah Witnesses.
More traditional nature religions see nature as god, and
people far more as equal. Sadly some of them see predator behavior and violence as a solution.
Better if people would listen to their soul, instead of
following some human impression of some god.
Agreed that a “human impression of some god” is futile. If there is one true God, then it is His decree, not ours, that would be our concern. We might form religious groups to describe Him, but what would be more important is how He describes Himself. God might isolate Himself from us, or interface directly with us. If He is isolated, we have no hope.
Perhaps He could speak to some face-to-face that would be called prophets. Perhaps He would orchestrate events to show His majesty. Perhaps He would give us text that could be tested in many ways to validate the source. Perhaps He would delegate to man to be the overlord of the earth, plants and animals, but not over another man. That would be a statement of anarchism for man, but God alone in direct control. He might state to us that “I am God, and there is no other”. That would limit our choices. Maybe the heavens would declare His glory, and leave man without excuse to know Him. I know of only one who fits that.
Do you realize that your statements are as if you are the final authority which you state with religious conviction? Do you see an issue with that?
You state “The soul is inseparable from God”, and your reference for that is what?
I use the Bible as the reference for reasons described earlier and it makes clear in Genesis 2 that we exist in God’s creation and He breathed into man the breath of life and the soul. The word “soul” is based on “breath”. We became sentient, which is not shared with the earth.
I use a reference claimed to be from God with evidence. It seems your reference is yourself. Do you see that you are essentially claiming to be god with religious conviction?
Lisab.
I have often seen the manipulation of that innerpersonal dialogue for nefarious purposes. To some who are unable to explain that feeling inside them simplistically,they open themselves up for others to
‘esplains it too me’ manipulation.’ The lengths that are taken to do so has been the bain of humanity forever. Ancient Egypt being one such manipulation of that knowledge in people ran for thousands of years. I could name a few others that were studied infinity by the Free Masons because of the power of manipulations of people,cultures and all of humanity.
The confusion in some is so great you will find it best to leave it alone and as our founding fathers ,IMO, implied,go into your closet in private and worship freely,we the people, will guarantee that right, will never be taken from you.
When religion practitioners act as tyrants they have lost that inter personal connection.
Welcome to transhumanism, Technocracy. The new religion without the knowledge of the inner
“as our founding fathers ,IMO, implied,go into your closet in private and worship freely,we the people, will guarantee that right, will never be taken from you.”
I’m not intending to be argumentative, but I am compelled to point out that many, if not most of the founding fathers were quite outspoken about their religiosity and its importance to the future of the country..
“The destiny of America is to carry the gospel of Jesus Christ to all men everywhere.“
John Adams
https://christianheritagefellowship.com/christian-quotes-from-the-founding-fathers-2/
Steve-O
At least they were less fallible than organized religions of their day. For a moment in time they rose above selfish interest and they produced a proclamation of freedom instead of dogma. Which as we know was not long before some of those same religions started attacking that free concept. No citation provided.You will know how free you are by how soon the pharisees will nail you to a cross. Best just keep it in the closet in a free country. That way you can stay above in thought and deed. When you encounter a need ,like sin,sickness,disease or death,pull it out and work a miracle, in private and seek no earthly reward.
“At least they were less fallible than organized religions of their day. For a moment in time they rose above selfish interest and they produced a proclamation of freedom instead of dogma.”
Absolutely agree.
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.“
John Adams
(I think I would have liked John Adams) 🙂
Can we believe any authority?
And can there be religion without authority?
That is why I went to the personal responsibility,
a person’s own soul.
Or a person’s own experience of the divine.
And I know people experience this in many different ways.
Soul-full “atheists” seem to experience more nature.
And some people are very far away from their soul.
And maybe some souls are dark in some way.
But there should never an authority stand between
you and what you experience as a soul or as divine.
You are offering a remarkable logical fallacy. The Scripture states directly that it is God breathed and you are declaring that my believing in what the Scripture says will separate me from God. Your declaration is a statement from authority as you have set yourself up as god, which is what you essentially state. What you have been describing seems to be pantheism.
You state “We experience life on earth in denial of God’s existence.” I contend that I acknowledge, celebrate, and am thankful to our Creator, not a self-existing universe. That is what it is to know God.
You want a challenge? Consider taking me on in rational dialog, you or anyone else, with any subject stated on http://Kozlowski.org. Or would that be an uncomfortable challenge?
I have set before many the thesis: “The Bible is true and the institutional church is a fraud”. We seem to agree that religions are fallacies, but our references are opposites.
dreg? reply 1/
Word-language, works better when we are on-the-same-page, so-to-speak.
Ought to have put “imo” at the start & end of my comment, eh?
I had no malicious intent in my-comment being examined, nor in this reply to Mr. Corbett’s analysis.
Wow, so honored* to be recognized by Mr. Corbett in his examination & extrapolation of my comment!
Begins at 26:40 in this video titled: “How (and When and Why) to Cite Your Sources – #SolutionsWatch”
Oops! I questioned the credibility of an “Interview”, an interviewee and the value of “SHOW NOTES”.
Direct link to my-comment cited by Mr. Corbett: https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1813-wtf-just-happened-in-russia-with-rolo-slavskiy/#comment-151892
I will refer to the comment Corbett examines as my-comment throughout this reply.
A few points I’d like to clarify.
Throughout this comment, I am using quotation marks (“-“) to indicate these are Mr. Corbett’s or others’ or a publication’s or my exact-words I am reprinting.
In the comment being examined I used apostrophe before & after to indicate my way of describing something that is not exactly how presented in the publication.
example: publication described as “Interview” I referred to as ‘report’, not intended as a pejorative or “not real”.
26:30.Corbett: “Pretty non-controversial, except, of course, this is a controversial topic in conspiracy spaces, so it became controversial.”
[https://www.thefreedictionary.com/controversy
“A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views.”
26:39.My comment is cited as “example” of controversy, though I question without directly opposing.
26:50.Mr. Corbett mis-reads and mis-interprets my first sentence attributing the use of apostrophes ( ‘reports’ ) as “in quotation marks, ’cause their not real reports” though not intended to imply “not real reports”, but that I question the real-world-accuracy of what is presented and that “interview 1813” and the earlier interviews with Riley Waggaman is the subject of my comment.
I don’t remember what Mr. Slavskiy & Mr Waggaman call their shared information, I wrote ‘reports’.
26:53. “show notes” is a quote, though I suppose “SHOW NOTES” would be more exact as found on the page, and
indicates I am referencing a specific portion of the article published by Mr. Corbett, not that the information and links are “not real show notes”.
quotes, in my understanding, indicate words accurately attributed to someone else.
For some reason Mr. Corbett has chosen to read-into my punctuation inaccurately & significantly beyond my intent or the literal purpose I have understood for using quotation marks.
Exactly the words written or spoken by others.
dreg? reply 2/
26:56 Yes, the show notes are primarily links to the interviewee’s own writings, though I acknowledged now I ought to have qualified my following line “which [mostly] lack references”, since Mr. Corbett did give one example of a reference link to a video in one of Mr. Slavskiy’s articles.
27:03 (quotes are words from my comment) “Most” and “seem to be” are significant in this statement, while again, I will acknowledge that my absolute use of “none” is inappropriate & inaccurate in this instance, though expresses my questioning of, again, the real-world-accuracy of the information provided.
Questioning. Get it?
Is questioning less-acceptable than previously in “open source journalism”?
Is one’s opinion of the information from an ambiguous, anonymous “source” to be kept to one’s self?
Will I be criticized for asking these^ questions?
I am saying I am personally questioning significant portions of the real-world-accuracy of information presented in the “interview” and in the interviewee’s publications that seem to be presented as fact, not as opinion.
27:08 Mr. Corbett’s tone-of-voice here is surprisingly sarcastic while he cites that I do what he did earlier when examining a reference to the CIA website & it’s content.
Then laughingly reads my acknowledgement of Wikipedia’s questionable status at this time.
Speculating that Wikipedia’s bias would be more inclined to attempt to validate “Moscow Times” in the eyes of readers, I still think, due to easy access, that the ownership by a foreign national (Not Russian & not referencing Moscow, Idaho, USA) is relevant.
So, Wikipedia is a laughable reference, but no effort is made to debunk the Wikipedia information as inaccurate. (?)
Mr. Corbett’s mocking glee is uncharacteristic from my many years of appreciating, supporting & promoting his work.
27:33 An accurate statement about the lack of mention of other independent journalists. Yes, none, as I recall. Is that refuted by Mr. Corbett?
27:38 Again, ‘reports’ is mis-interpreted by Mr. Corbett to mean ” ’cause they’re not really reports “, then continuing his mis-interpretation & mis-representation of “show notes” (a reference to the segment of every Corbett Report publication titled “SHOW NOTES”), again, full quotes used by me indicating exact words from a person or publication.
dregeye says:
“27:08 Mr. Corbett’s tone-of-voice here is surprisingly sarcastic….”
You hit a point.
There have been times where Corbett portrays a relatively harsh, sardonic approach at sarcastically criticizing someone who is on our team. From a viewer’s perspective, it can appear uncomfortably caustic.
And it does make me feel uncomfortable or a bit unsettled.
In the construction industry, there are thousands of tiny ‘detail-type’ skills which one learns along the way.
An overly sarcastic boss who ridicules the apprentice at every hiccup will only cause the apprentice to hate being around the boss and/or that line of work.
However, “coaching” the apprentice gives learning a better flavor. It’s more gentle and guiding. Rather than targeting the apprentice with verbal “make wrongs”, the student is warmly coached, much like a friend helps a friend.
I’ve left jobs where the Boss was overly sarcastic and harshly ridiculing his/her employees. It made for a toxic, stressful environment.
dreg? reply 3/
27:59 Wow! My bracketing ‘reports’ with apostrophes is “rhetorical slander” !?
I didn’t see that coming…
rhetoric(?):Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
slander(?): A false and malicious statement or report about someone.
Seems quite a leap-in-interpretation from using apostrophes to distinguish a difference between ‘reports’ with “interview” or “publication” or “article” or even “The Corbett Report”.
I avoided full quotation-marks because it is not an exact reprinting of words used by another.
Reasserting his mis-interpretation of puncuation in the extremely-negative, imo.
28:05 This time, understanding that when I wrote “show notes” I am referring to “SHOW NOTES” as printed on his article’s page, and then Mr. Corbett explains his purpose in including links to Mr. Slavskiy’s publications.
28:27 Mr. Corbett “This is controversial because, oh my god, it’s Rolo [unintelligible], but, take for example … ”
Corbett goes on to present “Interview 1814 – The UN’s Apex Body with Jacob Nordangård” https://www.corbettreport.com/nordangard-un/
( somehow evading the “SHOW NOTES” for “How (and When and Why) to Cite Your Sources – #SolutionsWatch” )
From “Interview 1814” introduction: “Joining us today to discuss this incredibly important topic and these incredibly important documents is author and researcher Dr. Jacob Nordangård.”
An “example” of a known credentialed person with “incredibly important documents” as compared to a previously unknown faceless person presented only in “anonymity”, so lacking any verifiable backstory? Not comparable, imo.
Not what I am used to with “The Corbett Report” to the best of my recollection.
Mr. Corbett on Rolo Slavskiy:
“a source that will be new, I’m sure, to some of the people in the audience” (Mr. Slavskiy’s first appearance & reference on “The Corbett Report” website.)
Corbett: “You will have a new source to be looking at”
“a lot of coverage that Rolo’s been doing in the last couple of days on this topic”
Preserving his “anonymity” he says, “It’s been done before.”
Again, in my opinion, not comparable.
dreg? reply 4/
28:41 Corbett, concerning “SHOW NOTES” with Mr. Nordangård: “I specifically cite the articles that he wrote about that topic we talk about in that particular interview and the UN
reports that we’re talking about. I also link to those. Which is, that’s the entirety of the show notes. His articles & the UN reports, because what else am I going to link?”
Still Mr. Corbett: > “Am I going to start linking to people who, who think that the UN is a great place, because it has to be balanced so you should link to it in the show notes, even though you don’t talk about that in that particular interview.” <
(??)
What does that have to do with my questioning the assertions of an anonymous interviewee and expressing my opinion of a lack-of-credibility that, to my mind, is uncharacteristic of The Corbett Report?
I never suggested anything "has to be balanced" or any particular links or sources that were missing. I simply expressed a skeptical outlook, which I do frequently, across all platforms & sources.
I do, however, find a bit of humor in Mr. Corbett's continuing assertion "If we talk about other specific reports that are relevant, they will be in the show notes as well." while the Nordangård interview is not in these "SHOW NOTES" (though I agree, not comparable so not relevant, imo)
29:29 Mr. Corbett omits my words "seems to be" which is obviously qualified as an opinion, injecting an absolute-statement-of-fact portrayed by prefacing with "it turns out" instead of my words, "seems to be" preceding "are just hear-say …"
29:41 An example of a reference link in one of Mr. Slavskiy's publications. (I acknowledged this inaccurate absolute negative on my part earlier)
30:45 Corbett "So, if you can speak Russian … "
I don't speak or understand the Russian language, leaving me to trust the interviewee as translator.
Skepticism still SEEMS legitimate from my personal perspective.
30:58 Corbett "So, anyway, I think there's a number of false claims being made here"
Could "false claims" be speculatively founded opinions, as they are presented and intended to be?
31:01 back to Moscow Times to legitimize Corbett's "SHOW NOTES" link to that publication, regardless of ownership or history of the publication, Corbett emphatically elaborates on "the fact, the fact, the documentable, verifiable fact that there was an exchange …"
Curious that my link to Wikipedia info, referenced to "DutchNews.nl. 9 March 2022" was laughable but his link to
Moscow Times is "the FACT, the documentable, verifiable fact" (cited article details read being irrelevant concerning his attempt to legitimize, with all reference-links in the Moscow Times article being cited going to Telegram posts.
dreg? reply 5/
though there is also links to “Reuters” & “The New Voice of Ukraine” in “SHOW NOTES”.
32:07 Corbett “Moscow Times? Dirk Sauer? This isn’t a source we are trusting about their interpretation of events, but the question here is the documentation of the claim … ”
Just as my use of Wikipedia was much similarly intended.
The prisoner swap info is “documented” ?
Why is not Dirk Sauer’s ownership of Moscow Times equally acknowledged as document by referencing Wikipedia and their link to DutchNew.nl? Is it because it doesn’t link to Telegram like Moscow Times does?
I am asking QUESTIONS here. No accusations. No fault-finding. Skepticism, questions and opinions.
I have been under the impression that this is, to a great extent, what “open source journalism” is embracing, not exposing-as-illegitimate & to be mocked.
Maybe I have misunderstood all along (?)
32:39 Corbett “So, the Moscow Times says it happened and there’s the link, but, let’s not take their word for it. Okay, so let’s not take their word for it.”
“The Moscow Times is unreliable, therefore this prisoner swap didn’t happen?”
I made no such assertion in relation to any reference links, I simply questioned the source linked, which Mr. Corbett has acknowledged to be possibly questionable, like Wikipedia.
I did not extrapolate my opinion of the questionable-nature of The Moscow Times to delegitimize the associated assertions within the referenced article’s links to Telegram.
Why is Mr. Corbett extrapolating thus?
Similar to the seemingly absolute-conclusion that whether I type ‘show notes’ or “show notes”, to Mr. Corbett it MEANS I am asserting “not real show notes” in his mind, instead of it being me citing a regular segment of his publication.
Quite unfortunate, imo.
32:54 Corbett “because then you’re gonna have to, you’re gonna have to provide some more information that that prisoner swap didn’t happen.”
Actually, no. I am a person, a “subscriber” commenting my opinion of speculation of lack of credibility of assertions in an interview with an anonymous faceless person I have never before heard-of and heard for the first time in my life, in years of listening to The Corbett Report.
I have no obligation to back-up my opinion or justify my suspicions of inauthenticity, inaccuracy or deceptions on the part of Rolo Slavskiy.
Really, it’s not what I am here for.
Maybe it’s in an “eula” if The Corbett Report has one for subscribers. If so, I have not read it.
dreg? reply 6/
32:59 Corbett “I could cite dozens and dozens and dozens of sources that would verify this information.”
But he chose Moscow Times to put in the “SHOW NOTES”, making all other “sources” elaborated irrelevant in relation to my comment on the “Interview 1813” and it’s accompanying “SHOW NOTES” because they were not made available prior to my comment.
If “ANTI-WAR.com” had been listed, I would probably not have questioned it.
(My own bias, I suppose, coupled with my own opinion & experience)
Though the reading of specific “prisoner swap” info from different sources is, imo, not relevant to the subject of what I commented, unless also the use of Wikipedia leading to a reference link of greater validity (?) is also relevant.
Seems I am not allowed to question Corbett’s source links, but he is empowered to mock me for mine, of comparable legitimacy?
33:42 “… in the lying Moscow Times.”
I did not write that the Moscow Times was lying. Why does Corbett imply that I did? Does that make his mockery of Wikipedia (my linked reference) an obligation to “provide some more information that [whatever Wikipedia publishes] didn’t happen.” ??
(Honestly, this is amazing what expressing one’s opinion & skepticism can result in within “open source journalism” circles!)
He continues reading the Anti War article … I’m not sure why.
34:14 “More information from ANTI WAR.com. Am I allowed to cite that source?”
Allowed? I would say The Corbett Report is “allowed” to cite any “source” it wants, of course.
And I am allowed, even encouraged to question and be skeptical of any or all of them. As I recall, that is WHY many “open source journalism” publishers say words to the effect of, [don’t trust my word, read it yourself].
He goes on to “How about a Russian source?” that was NOT in the “SHOW NOTES” that is the subject of my comment and a considerable portion of this “#SolutionsWatch”.
(this is now quite tiresome)
“and if you speak Russian you can go read it for yourself, or you can find a way to translate it online”
Now I wonder why Mr. Corbett didn’t just publish an amended “SHOW NOTES” for “Interview 1813” instead of using straw-man-arguments directed at my-comment as-if I am some discrediting-force in the “open source journalism” universe.
More Russian “sources” about later events that were not available at the time I wrote my comment? Why?
dreg? reply 7/
36:03 Corbett “what is the point of questioning that source in that case?” is the SAME as the questioning of Wikipedia as a source.
(not intending to shout anything, but it’s gotten tedius. btw, “SHOW NOTES” is just the literal quote from the top of that segment in all Corbett’s online publications I am aware of.
I am attemping to avoid being misunderstood or misrepresented. He’s gotta change the focus off of my-comment soon, right? I’m feeling a bit like I broke-his-brain.)
36:06 Corbett “What is the point of questioning that source in that case?” Is not a question because he has already judged & determined … “In THAT case (emphasis in original) the what’s-your-source-bro(?) is being weaponized, and I am SURE (emphasis in original) that people have encountered this online.”
So, my questioning & suspicions of inauthenticity, inaccuracy or deceptions are now “weaponized” against(?) the “open source journalism” community?
This is really an extrapolation so far from my intent in questioning, expressing my opinion & suspicions so as to feel a bit like I’m in some bizarre alternate universe!
It keeps getting more outlandish, and there is still 6&a-half minutes to go! Not all about me, I hope.
When does he say, Fooled ya! Remember, “QUESTION EVERYTHING” ! (again, a quote from another member of the “open source journalism” community.
36:20 “Ya just bring out the handy, what’s-your-source? (with a nasty look on Corbett’s face, implying that is my attitude?)
The inaccurate extrapolation based in questioning a “source” continues…
“…and here’s the Russian, the official propaganda news agency source. Is that good enough?”
This makes no sense in relation to seeking truth.
Why would Corbett think “the official propaganda new agency source” would be “good enough” for me?
This drastic & ongoing discrediting of questioning-sources seems to contradict what I have thought I knew about “open source journalism” and that The Corbett Report wants us to scrutinize & research & question the information that comes our way. Each and every one of us, legitimately looking for “truth” in a world of desceptions.
dreg? reply 8/
36:47 Corbett “The doubt has been sewn”
Who doesn’t DOUBT much of the information published anywhere & everywhere? If not, I ask, WHY NOT DOUBT. It is the way we are motivated to investigate, to research, to locate and consider information from a variety of “sources” to make up our own minds about the matters that interest us as individuals and our communities.
Mr. Corbett now ventures into “ZAnon” and though it seems he may be attempting to link this subject with my-comment on “Interview 1813” from June, he is reading from a Rolo Slavski article dated July 10 for some reason. Maybe he has moved-on from my-comment to other concerns he has about Russia or questioning-sources or speculation-of-authenticity.
37:46 It seems Corbett is back to reading my-comment now, “No mention of other independent journalists” leaving out (on the ground). I realize I ought to have specified that I was surprised the interviewee did not mention any, not Corbett.
Leaving out (on the ground) makes more sense to his train-of-thought in that he now de-values Seymore Hersh but references his writings. Not an example of “independent (on the ground) journalists”, so how is this relevant, though my failure to specify Mr. Salvskiy when making that observation lends slight credibility to this track, the omission of (on the ground) disqualifies it, imo.
So, Corbett expresses extreme skepticism of “Hersh’s source”. (!) Is that “allowed”? I’m more confused about Corbett’s point.
I did not specifically reference Hersh, that article, or any other journalist, corporate mouth-piece, talking-head or “open source journalism” in my-comment.
How can we have gotten here, a completely different article, not in the “SHOW NOTES” for “Interview 1813” but an article that Corbett is very comfortable questioning it’s legitimacy, authenticity & accuracy, as I am with his “Interview 1813”.
What’s the difference?
Corbett seems to be employing considerable projecting of ways-of-thinking that are foreign to me.
Still pushing the idea that because the Moscow Times got the prisoner-swap correct, questioning Moscow Times as a “source” is illegitimate. I disagree, and I assert that I am free to question any and every “source” I choose to, as are all of us, including Corbett, as he did with Mr. Hersh.
Why would it be “allowed” that Corbett can question Hersh but I am not “allowed” to question Corbett or his interviewee or any other publication or individual or organization?
Seriously, explain that to me, please.
dreg? reply 9/
The further Corbett goes, the more he seems to undermine what I speculate to be his premise, that I am not “allowed” to question, speculate or express my opinion in The Corbett Report comments section, and he uses his own questioning of others reporting in the process of explaining why. (?)
How can this be happening? So tedious!
39:26 Corbett “when people don’t want to believe something they’re gonna question the source, EVEN WHEN IT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE to question the source.”
I disagree with this premise 100%
In today’s world it ALWAYS makes sense to question the source, imo. But apparently my opinion is not valid any longer at The Corbett Report, and neither is YOUR OPINION or your QUESTIONS, in the mind of James Corbett anyway…
This is a radical awareness I am being confronted with today.
I am grateful to have Corbett present his perspective on questioning & sources using my-comment, that is really so minimal in expressing what he has estrapolated into the stratosphere of projection from his own mind, and there is no place for it in my experience.
I flatly reject the premise that Corbett gets to question what I am not “allowed” to question, and that questioning some sources “doesn’t make sense”.
(can I quote without emphasis words spoken with emphasis?)
39:37 Corbett “Actually, it did happen, so why are you questioning? So you see how this can be weaponized. How it can be gamed. How we can cite the CIA(in airquotes)”
Corbett mentions others like Moscow Times but omits Wikipedia, in spite of many truths found there, mixed with untruths.
Implying that if a publication prints anything true, it is not to be questioned henceforth?
40:36 “it can be weaponized and gamed like anything else and it can be used as a way to distract from online discussion rather than forwarding it.”
40:47 Corbett “…discussions can be derailed by people making it into the source-game.”
41:47 Corbett “There’s never going to be that bedrock source that will provide all the information for everything, but at any rate, the more that we engage in this task of constructing information from sources, I think the better off we will be… and I’d like to think that The Corbett Report is contributory to the type of discourse that I’d like to see online with regards to having sources and being able to backup what you’re saying.”
He continues by expressing being disheartened over people accepting “source-less” content, going to the “trust me bro journalism mold” (which I obviously did not, nor did I encourage others to do anything but be honest about opinion & questions.
dreg? reply 10/
42:52 Corbett “Anyway, that’s not what I do. I do open source journalism and it is there on Corbett Report dot com for your free perusal and hopefully edification and as always, I don’t know everything, I’m not right about everything but I’m doing my level-best to at least put the information out there the best way that I can and here’s where I get my information, this is the way I put my information together and I have faith in the intelligence of the people in this audience, to be able to think for themselves, put the information together for themselves in whatever way they wish, search more on whatever thing they think is most important, disagree with me, of course. Come to your own conclusions, but at the very least let’s have a more informed and informative discussion with actual evidence to back it up. But having said that, I think that will do it for today’s edition of solutions watch. I thank you for investing your time in this exploration today and I’m very much looking forward to talking to you again in the future. I’m James Corbett of Corbett Report dot com.”
Ironically, I believe I have followed Mr. Corbett’s closing guidelines quite accurately. I have expressed my questions and doubts honestly and politely. No insults or name-calling.
I have always appreciated Corbett Report’s publications and may continue to do so.
I am still baffled by this “exploration today” in that so much was read-into the sparse words I wrote.
I have stated what I would change in my-comment being to qualify stated absolutes of “none” to be lacking-but-not-absolute and my failure to clarify concerning mention of other ‘independent (on the ground) journalists’ to be directed to Mr. Slavskiy, not Mr. Corbett.
Mr. Corbett could have pointed out that my too-absolute assertion of “which lack references” wherein a qualifier such as “which [mostly] lack references” would be more appropriate.
He could have brought to my attention Mr. Slavskiy’s referencing of other ‘independent (on the ground) journalists’ but apparently that was an accurate assessment since he did not.
(If I was right about even one thing, why question me as a “source” on the same premise of accepting Moscow Times as a source without question? somewhat facetiously offered)
dreg? reply 11/
So, I conclude that Mr. Corbett protected & defended his “source” (Rolo Slavskiy) beyond all resolvable reason or logic by asserting that some people (Corbett) are “allowed” to question sources (Hersh, Wikipedia & me), while others (me) are not “allowed” to question sources put forth by Mr. Corbett, or are thereby inviting an “exploration” such as this.
This piece of work titled “How (and When and Why) to Cite Your Sources – #SolutionsWatch” is mind-boggling and unfortunate in that it strikes me as self-discrediting for Mr. Corbett and could disorient many in “open source journalism” pushing it toward “open source journalsim” (a simulation of the original concept) IF people are intimidated concerning free expression of questions, skepticism & resolving differences of opinion, or tolerating those differences.
Make of all this what you will, but use caution expressing your views in The Corbett Report web site comments, eh?
btw, from the top,
*honored? That’s what I typed, knowing fault-was-being-found (with my-comment) but not having heard Mr. Corbett’s “exploration” yet.
I now think this was an attempt to make-an-example-of-me/my-comment to discourage readers/listeners from questioning Mr. Corbett’s work, references, etc. & is something other-than an honor, bringing confusion as to his opinion of others’ opinions, their validity in relation to own opinions & the validity of questioning in general, when the “source” is one he asserts as legitimate.
More like a misguided defensive hit-piece on the honest opinions of an “Interview” and interviewee done by Mr. Corbett.
Suggested principles of interaction: Mutual-respect through empathic-personal-empowerment with voluntary-inclusive-cooperation, refusing coercion while embracing personal-responsibility.
dreg?
Reply here if you want me to be notified as I forgot to change the setting on the others.
dreg?
I think you both stand guilty of a modicum of misunderstanding. People get things wrong and there is plenty of disagreement in these comment sections.
Thank you, mkey, for replying.
I would appreciate more specifics.
modicum? (A small amount of something) seems an understatement, though I understand the motivation to not escalate …
“disagreement in these comment sections” acknowledged, but to have Mr. Corbett devote half of a 40 minute talk directed at one specific comment, insisting a negative extrapolation, reading-into (imo) one brief comment on the basis of discrediting the principles of questioning & skepticism is unique in my reading & listening experience of Corbett Report content.
If you know of other examples of Mr. Corbett doing this, I am interested for the sake of perspective.
Disclosing an other’s view (yours, mkey) of where my “misunderstanding” of Mr. Corbett is evident to you is encouraged by me, to better grasp what you are referring to.
I have no intent to disrupt the “open source journalism” being practiced here and still firmly believe that my-comment did not do so, especially in comparison to Mr. Corbett’s response to it.
Again, my use of full quotation marks indicate exact words or phrases from a source, not the discrediting or altering-of-the-meaning of those words or phrases.
I want to, and am attempting to communicate honestly and freely as I had thought was encouraged at The Corbett Report.
Thank you, mkey, for any further information, observations or views you care to share with me.
Sincerely, dreg?
By misunderstanding on your part I was mostly referring to your assessment of much of this episode being directed at your comment, but I didn’t spend as much time dissecting this matter as you did.
I guess I can only offer some insight into what James’ inbox must look like. Reading into trash he must receive there daily can make people read into things too much. When one develops a habit of doing so, it is easy to misunderstand.
For any author it is probably best to ignore commentary and opinions altogether.
Thank you again, mkey, for replying.
Concerning “much of this episode being directed at your comment” seemed something I couldn’t get away from, even attempting to & desiring a change-of-focus (mentioned in my replies) but would then find my-comment on screen again, Mr. Corbett citing specifically from my words & punctuation.
I’m no grand-stander in real-world-life or online. In music, (my main focus,) I play a supportive role mostly, hosting a free community jam/live-recording space. Comfortable with the tech aspects as well as playing guitar or drums, least of all singing, though I do have original music, lyrics & recordings.
I don’t promote them.
It is the principles and desirability of questioning in general. The freedom to speculate, consider alternatives, avoiding the “trust me bro journalism mold” Corbett himself rejects and, imo, to a degree and at times in this “episode” (your word) he is disapproving of questioning on-face-value that Corbett chose to list something as a reference, that questioning is illegitimate, described at 36:20 as,(brackets contain segment from my reply including exact quote from Mr. Corbett’s talk) [ “Ya just bring out the handy, what’s-your-source?” (with a nasty look on Corbett’s face, implying that is my attitude?) ] and seems expressed distinctly negatively.
36:47 Corbett “The doubt has been sewn” seems expressed as undesirable. Did I misunderstand? Is he promoting “doubt”?
I don’t think so.
I will own promoting doubt. Faith is for religions.
For me, when one’s mind spontaneously finds a questioning outlook, questioning seems appropriate in avoiding the “trust me bro journalism mold” (quotes from original).
My sincere desire is for a clearer understanding all around.
dreg?
too late to edit original but upon re-reading I would add to
“Faith is for religions” , in my opinion.
My,My,My,My,four Mys. Again and again and again, three agains. Over and over, two overs. Wrong ways of thinking,one.
Time and time and time again,
threeTimes and one again.
You ought to know by now you are in trouble.
Manbearpig will be next if you don’t straighten up.
read comment at 07/12/2023 at 8:05 am General to HRS.
https://youtu.be/wLEDjhfPVaA
More on site your sources. This talk with Melody Cedarstrom was another example of maintaining integrity of journalism.
I posed a question to the Editor and the comments section. An actor on a stage during a performance sees in the back of the theater a fire, he says FIRE! And runs away. How many in the theater will respond ? How many times must it be said to break through the play into reality for the audience?
Open source may have different rules? Rules !?
Truth in History on Financial Survival
That link is an “Age Restricted ‘Corbett Report Extras’ YouTube video”.
“This video may be inappropriate for some users.”
HomeRemidySuppy,<—-google predict } lol
HomeRemedySuppy
Glad you pointed that out Homie!
" How about them waffles!"
Corbett is the most dangerous man on the internet.
Peggy Hall,on cognitive dissonance.
She looks at a candidate with some fancy legalezz,legalsleez …well I’ll just let her “esplain it to ya”.
https://www.youtube.com/live/QKzYcTjzE18?feature=share
She is the source using other specific sources as examples. She is a bulldog for truth.
The “What’s your source?” comments reminded me of Wikipedia’s “reliable sources”, presented in a chart at https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/reliable-sources-according-to-wikipedia-explains-a-lot-of-the-bias/ (based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources). This chart says it all about Wikipedia, whose editors (the ones who haven’t been banned) can’t use or cite anything that doesn’t come from these “reliable sources”, all of which are similarly elite-controlled and thus actually unreliable. I assume everyone reading this knows what a stinking piece of shit Wikipedia is on political and other topics.