December 3, 2018 at 8:42 am #856573There are many different flavors to Fakeologist members, and every so often there are recurring opinions, comments and critique that are either not addressed in a meaningful way or repeated without proper context nor reference.
Verbal shoot outs often will be beyond reach for new or occasional followers of the Fakeologist blog – and it is both for better clarity towards this public and for containing controversy where it belongs that this particular thread* has been created.
The derailing nature of repeated critique of the same nature that often is brought up out of context is a nuisance for quality research. We all might be guilty of not contributing topically while our points still can be worthwhile to discuss – in its own rights and in its own space. Which is what is proposed here.
“It’s impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows”
With a dedicated space for outspoken opinion and critique, it should be straightforward from here on to consider any repeated off topic critique or attack to have its own space and platform. This of course means that those who do not play along and put their content where it fits are de facto derailing and misleading dialogue – in other words openly acting as online intel puppets whose job often is just interjecting and opinionating without reference, research and plainly wasting our time we could spend thinking on conspiracy together, not in-fighting against each-other.
In order for discussion to be meaningful, it will therefore require that Fakeologists be explicit in their griefs and claims so that the concerned topic and/or researcher(s) can argue in intelligible fashion to precise points of Discord or labelling.
*it would be helpful if Admin/Ab could give their opinion about this Forum Topic initiative towards better topical discussion and less derailing blanket statements throughout the FAK Forums (and possibly elsewhere). If there are better ideas about how to go about this I would be the first to comply
[ TOTT Media partner Darcey Stephen Johnstone using self-affirmative sales tactics as he markets his commercial venture John Le Bon – as the world’s leading skeptic ]December 3, 2018 at 9:27 am #856574
Hasty Generalization: EGI is BS
Quite often i encounter self-confirming one-liners such as Elite Gender Inversion research is BS. This opinion is of course valid, but the proponents of such critique seem to be very poorly informed about what EGI research is really about and why this research figures on the Fakeologist blog as a subdomain and as this websites most commented forum topic.
To put it shortly, EGI is the acronym for Elite Gender Inversion and was started as a forum topic on this blog in November 2016. The aim of studying this topic (EGI) is to understand how come Elite individuals and celebrities impersonate as the opposite gender of which they were born.
One of the recurrent critiques of this research is that it is based on just speculation and image analysis. While it is true that unwinding hidden practices does not come with a state funded manual, it is not true that we cannot prove there are indeed Elite individuals that have live and have lived as the opposite sex deceptively before either coming out of their uncomfortable role of their own volition or being in some form or fashion publicly questioned and/or “outed”.
The publicly available information makes it nonsensical to contend what is here described as EGI (or hidden transgenderism if you will) to be fantasy or “wrong”. The examples of such admitted practice are many and easily verifiable: Bruce Jenner, Bradley Manning, Chaz Bono, Elliot Kukla, JJ Totah, Teddy Geiger, Lewis Maday-Travis, Narcissa Wright, Madeline Snyder, Eddie Ayres, Jordan Raskopoulos, Carrie Marshall, etc*.
The fact all these people above have lived their lives acting as the opposite gender to which they were born might be considered “normal” by some, but be that as it may, it still represents a very profound deception up to the point these people have “come out”, thus admitting to having inverted their public gender appearance. The hidden nature of a person’s natural gender such above-mentioned cases is what is referred to in the dedicated forum as an EGI person*.
It is the period when an individual does not openly disclose their real gender that is of the most attention in the study of EGI as this obviously is a period comprised of very advanced deception – fake breasts, gender affirming surgeries, voice alteration, hormone treatments and a whole other range of other techniques that makes it very hard for non-informed individuals to uncover if a person really is the gender they claim – or not (see the EGI forum thread here).
A number of Fakeologists are of the opinion this research is either uninteresting and/or poorly documented. The fact everyone would be interested in such a topic never was the ambition of EGI research, and disinterest would normally mean one would leave the topic alone and pay no attention findings, theories or casual speculation.
For some – they act all the contrary in regards to Elite Gender Inversion. They claim to take no interest in the topic – yet talk derogatory of the topic unasked for and as the case of Tom Dalpra – out of context and used as a fallacy.
I’m not sure how any thinking person would ever consider how not doing research can result in obtaining better information. This really should be too idiotic a stance to comment, yet many naysayers still proffer such idiocies…
Not only does EGI research bring plentiful of factual research into light, it also covers the origins of hidden transgenderism which is loudly claimed even by the official Transgender community itself (https://forlackofsomegoodwriting.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/susan-stryker-and-stephen-whittle-eds-the-transgender-studies-reader.pdf). And the Transgender community trace their origins way back, even far beyond Christ* – which goes to show how EGI is nothing new nor unrecorded.
Now it seems that what is disliked by the naysayers would be the hidden transgender individuals that have not yet “come out” and the existence or not of those who never will. Even in this case there are numerous examples (Zeke Smith, Jenna Talackova, and Caroline Cossey to name but a few) and for evident reasons, much deception is used to cover such cases up.
It is also recurrent that those who do proffer blanket statements, such as Tom Dalpra or Zallian have not even read the material presented in the EGI thread – or elsewhere. Still many feel we owe it to these “researchers” with no factual insight or documented contribution to believe them when they claim “EGI is Bullshit / EGI is Crazy Speculation”. I think not highly of such moral and ethical deficiency.
So in summary, to claim EGI does not exist or that EGI is BS cannot be more factually wrong.
*a transgender will have to spend considerable time and money to appear as the opposite gender, 100K$ is considered standard which leave average Joe out of the equation and reserves this practice to Elite individuals – despite current incentives to lower the price and access for gender related hormone treatments, plastic and genital surgeries. And further back in time gender transition would be even moreso unaffordable for average income households, which is why these practices have been pioneered by Elite individuals
*the list of celebrities and Elite individuals who have “come out” is extensive, wiki here
*i would nevertheless caution about the official Transgender community timeline – and Christ…
[ hereunder Discord chat screen capture of Tom Dalpra caught lying as he invents a personal testimony in his case against EGI – a big mouth doesn’t mean someone is right, despite Tom does his best as often he can ]
December 4, 2018 at 9:32 am #856590
Fuck that. I helped build these forums here at Fakeologist, I don’t need your
You accuse me of openly lying. I’m not.
If you want a highly motivated person on your case pulling apart your crap, then just keep winding me up and I’ll just keep saying how I see it.
This is your last warning here, from me, UNreal.
Shut the fuck up with your false accusations that I am a liar or I’ll actually really start getting on your case. I really don’t like that sort of false accusation.
Don’t mention me again on this thread and I’ll leave it alone.
Is that clear ?
I repeat, don’t mention me again on this thread and I’ll leave it alone.
You have falsely accused me of lying and then shown no sign of any value at all, as a real honest researcher, by completely ignoring the fact you’re wrong about something.
You failed the test UNreal.
Now, as I said. Shut the fuck up about me being a liar, and I’ll leave it alone. This will be my last word on this thread unless
you wanna drag this out. If you want to, fine, I’m highly motivated and I’ll be all over you like a rash.
Your choice, fool.
Wow Tom Dalpra – are you going to tell me what to think and do now, and electronically threaten me ? You behave just as compulsive liars and sociopaths behave when they are exposed, all rage and emotion, no facts or meaning. Just like Brian Stavelie, Markus Allen etc. ad infinitum.
The concrete facts i base my opinion are very clear and accessible for everyone to read and interpret as they freely want to as they read the Discord dialogue (above or here) on Jasmine Jae aka Jennifer Chalmers.
I’m aware compulsive liars with a superiority syndrome will never admit to lying even when it as unmistakable as in this case (imo) – what is expected from your ilk would be that you try distract attention by making a lot of noise and now threats in order to appear (in your eyes) like you are innocent.
Sorry to inform you Tom Dalpra, but someone truly innocent do not make nonsensical, un-intelligible threats and claims. Innocent individuals actually look for intelligible dialogue, exactly unlike yourself.
The now proven fact you (Tom Dalpra) keep on derailing the K Hammad topic with your self-centered griefs further emphasize your lack of decency and ill motivated action de facto. Not a very bright idea to insist, but i count on the fact you will, as liars do despise being caught – especially by a fool like me.December 4, 2018 at 11:35 am #856594
For the record with the possibility someone finds themselves reading this thread, I just want to assure you that I actually do know the person who plays pornstar, Jasmine Jae ! She was the girlfriend of the Best Man at my wedding and I was good friends with her and spent a lot of time with her for three years, ’99 -’02.
Regardless of that, UNreal shows himself to be a pretty weak researcher here as he jumps to the conclusion that I’m lying having found a newspaper article stating the girl’s name is Jennifer.
Now, woah there a moment, whilst this doesn’t prove I’m not lying, it certainly doesn’t prove I am lying
and if UNreal is a researcher worth his salt, he should know this.
I knew that girl well, as Lorraine, 16 years ago when she was just starting work at the Spearmint Rhino Strip Club. I haven’t seen her since.
If I was a pornstar, I’d change my name too.
I suggest it’s common practice. It appears she’s got her obviously contrived pornstar name and then she calls herself Jennifer for things like a Mainstream newspaper articles.
This strikes me as quite understandable in that line of work (it’s common across show business, of course) and I’m just slightly bemused that UNreal, who I thought was intelligent, can’t seem to grip that simple concept and rather rushes to make the bold accusation that I am obviously lying.
This is palpably bad form and not the behaviour of someone truly investigating these things in an intelligent manner.
I’m always impressed when people can converse and research in a second, sometimes third, language. UNreal does a great job of communicating his thoughts in English as I have often commented.
I can’t excuse UNreal with the language card here, though. What he’s done here, though, I think, is not take-in the story properly and gone jumping to a false conclusion, based on the evidence of his false impression.
I originally put up a picture of Jasmine Jae on the EGI thread. I’d just found out that it was someone I knew and in looking at pictures of her I was struck that she looked a little quirky. Satire with a message was my intention.
I posted her picture and said something like ”mmm broad shoulders, male hands..”
UNreal took me seriously, i think, saying it was good to see me coming round to his way of thinking and that she did indeed look like a prime candidate for having been Gender Inverted.
At that point, I announced that I knew her and that she was definitely a girl.
UNreal instantly said ”No you don’t, what’s her name then ?” and I said , Lorraine. He then produced the newspaper article in which the person is called Jennifer and claimed proof that I was lying.
This can really boil down to one simple question.
Does a newspaper article which names a porn star Jennifer, prove that I’m a liar, when I say that she’s a girl I know as Lorraine from 16 years ago ?
Come on. There’s intelligent people around here. It doesn’t does it ?
If I’d wanted to lay a trap to expose UNreal’s shortcomings, I couldn’t have made a better job of it, could I? It wasn’t my intention, but it seems to have happened, as far as I can see.
DalTampraDecember 4, 2018 at 1:55 pm #856596
Good to see Tom Dalpra finally not spamming the “K Shooting” forum topic and also that the threat level and emotion is turned off as he now seems to converse in an understandable fashion.
Now, why would the Fakeologist members not read this particular forum topic like every other topic? Maybe Tom Dalpra is of the opinion the K Hammad investigation is rather more interesting than discussing hearsay like “EGI is BS” as Tom Dalpra managed to derail on in the dedicated K Hammad Muckleshoot Casino shooting thread. And where Tom Dalpra contributed with… No research.
“The liar was the hottest to defend his veracity, the coward his courage, the ill-bred his gentlemanliness, and the cad his honor”
My personal opinion about Tom Dalpra being a disruptive agent has less to do with the fact he can lie about a case like Jasmine Jae (opinion based on the above Discord discussion, press references and company records), and moreso with how Tom Dalpra never contributes with anything concrete when when it really matters (recent examples: John Adams, K Hammad) and instead chooses to inject non-related material and ridicule as other Fakeologists uncover paid intelligence operators* and explore new topics of alternative research in general – to Tom’s undocumented, vocal dislike.
Of course, Tom Dalpra’s attitude* makes it a bit curious he chooses to expose himself so blatantly in the case of Jasmine Jae (my opinion, as i’m entitled to and however see fit). Despite the change of tone, Tom Dalpra still provides no further supportive evidence that Jennifer Margaret Chalmers changed her name at any other occasion than when she became an adult actress and choose – as custom has it in that business – a name derived from her given name Jennifer (Jen/Jasmine J/Jae).
There is no chance a compulsive liar will ever admit to lying, so after using threats, insults and anger, Tom Dalpra now tones down his message and still include no facts! Just more subjective storytelling while asking me to do more research! lol
Sure Tom, you’re the boss!
The inversion of the burden of evidence is an interesting point, as Tom Dalpra qualifies me as a poor researcher whereas i’m the one who actually have dug up business records, addresses and press coverage of Chalmers, thus proving my points. Tom on the other hand, contends his hearsay weigh in more heavily as he considers himself an authority on truth, i presume. Being a natural English speaker and all.
Tom Dalpra has shown no ability or will to support his claims with neither facts, reason or decency on neither JJ nor regarding EGI being BS.
Oh – and throwing out a strip club name with no employee record or any other factual link is just more storytelling – much easier now of course with some time to think about a new strategy. At the time, Tom Dalpra’s strategy was to prove his good intentions by taking a lie detector test and meet up in Paris… Sure,,, lol
Discord Lie Detector proposition…
Now Tom Dalpra isn’t being quite honest when he faints to genuinely participate in the Discord #EGI thread, where repeatedly have attacked EGI research and insisted on how Elite Gender Inversion is ridiculous and a waste of time. Tom Dalpra attempts to deceptively disguise his disruptive efforts on EGI as a research topic by insinuating he participated in the #EGI discussion as a contributor, which could not be further from the facts.
Not only did Tom Dalpra participate in the #EGI to belittle the research conducted in that section – he brought with him an example that he felt would “disprove” EGI as a research topic. There are of course no good intentions at play here from Tom, and questioned about his most recent monkey-wrench example, the authority fallacy of knowing the the person in question (Jasmine Jae) clearly was intended to serve his efforts to invalidate EGI research.
So here we have Tom with a proven motive of ridiculing EGI research and an example that only works with his “personal” knowledge… And as any other deceptive agent, Tom Dalpra clearly dislikes to be caught in his act as this would undermine his both his person and his anti-EGI intentions. So here we are.
Not only does Tom Dalpra need to prove Jennifer Chalmers name being Lorraine with verifiable facts, he also needs to properly justify his derogatory statements about EGI being bunk – as my previous post explains in detail (here).
Other Fakeologists also notice Tom Dalpra’s disruptive behavior on Discord
No professional liar will ever admit to his lies, so i expect no “confession” from Tom Dalpra on Jasmine Jae’s real name (Jennifer Margaret Chalmers) – nor do i expect Tom to change his tactics of asking me for more research. As it is however, the factual evidence is provided only from my contributions while Tom Dalpra asks for yet more trust in his personal narrative and unsupported story.
Anyone is free to make their own choice between facts and storytelling, and i make no qualms about not believing Tom Dalpra’s word and calmly place my opinion in the hands of existing documentation. Well – there is also the typical guilty behavior and repetitive bullying as circumstantial evidence, but I count on Tom that he’ll work hard on a new scheme to prove his good intentions – as lie detectors and Paris meetings is true BS…
*by their behavior, association and cover up of now proven (K & Adams) agents also other researchers like Chris Kendall, NotSoFreemason, Rollo, Roch3llo, Hoi Polloi, Patrix, Simon Shack prove to be controlled opposition
“I’m always impressed when people can converse and research in a second, sometimes third, language. UNreal does a great job of communicating his thoughts in English”
Does Tom Dalpra get bonus points on logic for being British? lol – thanks for your well disguised sophism, Tom !
Screen capture of Tom Dalpra caught red handed live on DiscordDecember 5, 2018 at 5:00 am #856608
On bully-like behaviour, all I can say is that in these areas of research, I think it’s our duty to call bullshit when we see it.
I apologise for anything personal I’ve said, fair point, text bickering can be so catty, however, in the main, what I’ve been calling bullshit on is the information and latterly what I’ve been doing is defending my honour.
You are directly calling me a liar.
Let’s meet in audiochat and talk it out? Anytime.
I’ll certainly be civil and merely want to defend my honour and make, what I think, is a valid point and perhaps a worthwhile lesson for us all, in this field of research.
When someone defend their honor dishonorably, are we not speaking of vanity?
What matters to me is not personal intrigue and unverifiable stories, but rather checkable facts, documented and referenced research. If anything should stand as a lesson for us all it would be to make verifiable contributions and diligent, courageous research. In order to properly reference and share such research – written records remains essential and the base for any shared information.
Despite the change of tone, your insistence on controlling my opinion is still unbecoming. I am in my full right to hold my own opinions, and to think and say exactly what that opinion is. As it is in this case, you (Tom Dalpra) have yet to produce any document to the effect of fact-proving your claims.
The irrational position in this case is yours, Tom Dalpra. So less you produce factual research and valid proof of your claims – what reason do i have to discuss anything with you* in this case? And generally speaking, you have done nothing but disrupt any topic i’ve researched lately – such as Voice Disguise, The Conspiracy Conspiracy and the K Shooting : at the origin of this derailing debacle.
Regarding your civil response here-over so it that something i do welcome – despite that i find your arguments and proposition uninteresting. I’m not all that enthusiastic about the trivial aspect of current FAC broadcasts, but remain available for audio and interviews topically on the research i conduct (blog articles & forum topics).
*have no interest in discussing hearsay and personal stories i cannot verify, and regarding your honor you should start with proving what you say with facts, and while it’s too late for that – not act as a bully caught red-handedDecember 5, 2018 at 6:10 am #856609
When it comes to facts in alternative research, we all will be accustomed to how deception is closely matched with falsified documents. The importance of an event will determine if such material is produced or not, as such fabrications demand time and expertise.
If an intended deception or hoax does not require falsified documents and papers in order to be believed, this type of production will evidently not take place.
In the occasion where no false documents have been produced to accompany a deception, lie or false narrative and at the same time it becomes impossible to maintain believability in said deception/lie/narrative without proper sources – then after-production may be necessary.
So when ducuments and references are asked, the time it takes to produce relevant material is an important aspect. In the particular case of Jasmine Jae, it is important to point out how the necessary facts and verifiable papers are of very basic nature and should require only minimal efforts and time to produce.December 7, 2018 at 1:18 pm #856624
There’s no proof here, at all, that I’m lying.
Ab and I are fine. I was wound up and having a rare moment. He knows that, it was ages ago.
As I said here. I apologise if I’ve said anything personal. From this point I intend to go forward taking care not to. I don’t want to be rude.
The thing is, we have to call the information as we see it.
If I think research is ridiculous, then I can only say so. I’d want someone to tell me if they thought my research was ridiculous.
Surely one thing we can be around here is honest?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.