FAC515-Ab, Matti, Faye, Tom, Rollo

likes this

The is discussed, Psyopticon affair


No tags for this post.

12 thoughts on “FAC515-Ab, Matti, Faye, Tom, Rollo

  1. Unreal

    It is ironic to labelled as extreme and polarising when being one of few alternative researchers who have produced factual research, articles and a forum topic around the technology and implementation of voice disguise – both electronic and mechanic*.

    It is rather childish to first go on air making sensational claims and thereafter hide behind other researchers contending they somehow are to blame for a question you have raised yourself.

    If Faye wants to air her suspicions about Ab, that is up to her – but i do not in any way accept being scapegoated for Faye’s accusations and demeanor and would like to make it clear how my effort so far has been and still is on the factual research on voice disguise as a topic in itself – not merely dramatising my personal views.

    In written material on voice disguise (article, forum) i have focused on the history, technology and implentation of voice disguise – not individual cases (20 000 words on research, not hearsay). Misportrayel of these efforts as Faye postulates in this adiochat (from the 17min mark) is untasteful and above all misleading. Nobody who have read my aforementionned material will contend there is any form of extremism or sensationalism in what is presented in intelligible, referenced form*.

    Once a question is asked (here by Faye in FAK511) and everyone seems entitled to an opinion, i should be able to voice also mine – and without being labelled any more “polarising” or “extreme” than anyone else. And least of all to be the used by the person making these claims in the first place as an excuse for their own behaviour.

    “Disguising a voice is not a modern phenomenon; it could be reasonably argued that it probably began in pre-historic times as a natural result of the human social evolution. From the earliest writings we find stories with examples of the use of voice disguises. For example in the biblical book of Genesis, Chapter 27, we read a story about inheritance and deceit. Jacob, aided by his mother Rebekah, tricks his elderly and blind father Isaac into pronouncing the socially significant patriarchal blessing upon him instead of the legitimate heir, his brother Esau.”
    Eliud Bonilla 2017 thesis

    Voice Vices (article)

    Voice Disguise Deception (forum topic)

    *any factual points or remarks about voice disguise research would get ample coverage in the dedicated Fakeologist forum on voice disguise – but clearly there are few members invested in this topic overall who engage in open, argumented discussion.

    1. misom

      Unreal, for me it is extreme to take speculations as facts. In some way in all research here in the realm of fakeology, this difference is important, but because in most cases, e.g. when we talk about media hoaxes, etc., nobody “disagrees”, it has become usus to state speculations as facts.

      In the topic of voice disguise as a general theoretical approach it seems also not problematic to come to some good hypotheses and your research about the alternative concpiracy scene, which results in the hypothesis that virtually all outlets and influencing agencies are funded and lead by professional PR is not disputed or even questioned afaik. This includes all forms of disguise, visual and acustical.

      Your research in this field as well as your research in EGI are imo groundbreaking pioneerwork which one can not negate even if examples of experimental studies in concrete cases might be not provable, not convincing or even disputed.

      I am sorry if my way of thinking makes you unhappy.

      1. Unreal

        Your “way of thinking” (Faye-Misom) seems to include include making false accusations and hasty generalisations – so in order to make sense you need to state explicitly what speculation you accuse me of considering to be a fact. As it is, your claims are biased hearsay with a nametag.

        If anything is to be considered “extreme” it is your lack of integrity (Faye-Misom) as you opiniate erratically and misrepresent original research* that require efforts to produce and integrity to present in a biased environment – and where the rate of speculation simply is not the basis of the arguments developped about voice disguise and where opinions are rare exemples* (presented as opinion – not facts).

        *the exemples cited in the article ‘Voice Vices’ and on the dedicated Fakeologist forum topic Voice Disguise Deception are Bobby/Kendall (published 17th september here) and more recently after your (Faye-Misom) loud opionions & debackle in FAK511, a possible case of electronic voice disguise by ‘Dante from NY’ (published 22nd november here)

        *by research it is meant written articles and topical forum-posts – i take it as given anyone will understand a blog comment as just what it is – personal opinion.

        1. ab Post author

          Unreal, I think you’re being too harsh with Faye. Why don’t you come engage her in an audio? Faye is trying hard to decode deception, and is not your enemy. She is not a deceiver, and has made many valuable contributions here, as you have. Engage her, don’t belittle and attack. You’ll get farther in convincing those of your point of view. Peace.

          1. Unreal

            To make an audio on Voice Disguise is a good idea (Ab), and if i’m invited* i would not mind Faye coming on air despite she has done little research on voice disguise as a topic to my knowledge and have not posted referenced written material on the subject.

            And to put the order straight here – it is Faye that accuse me of taking speculation as facts in the audio above (FAK515), and it is Faye that do not procede factually and prove her claims in this case. If my dislike of Faye’s false accusations come across as too harsh – it was not the intention, but to be misrepresented for the benefit of Faye’s backpedalling confort is just not acceptable nor fair.

            *if you
            (Ab) propose a date and time i will do my best to come on air

  2. xileffilex

    Faye/Tom Good to hear the Vicsim report discussed. I see it as something akin to the Copernican model of the universe – there it is, do not disturb. As I have made clear on several occasions, the ‘misdirection’ is to steer us away from realising that the ‘witness protection’ recirculation of fictims from various events , be they staged transport crashes, drownings, stabbings or fake terror events, is widespread. I have also made clear that it is perverse to think that all the 2900 plus 9/11 names are all synthetic whilst in other events we have hard evidence that real living people are ‘disappeared’.
    And Faye, you also ignore the attacks carried on on me [and Antipodean] for suggesting that the few names from the fictim list of 9/11 have quite a lot of back story. That goes counter to your interpretation of the vicsim report, that it , in your eyes, allows real people to have been reassigned at 9/11. Moreover, it is impossible to prove a negative, so it would seem the way to prove the vicsim report is not to go looking…. imagine if we checked up on some of those oh -so-funny 9/11 names and found a plethora of relatives. Might they be surprised to find they had a fictitious relative from the year dot? It’s no more difficult to disappear a real person, and then you have two classes of friend and relative – the useful idiots who are out of the loop and the insiders, the gatekeepers of the secret.
    And, as I have said before, if you invent a so-called sim, then you also have to invent a whole family tree [because there are 2900 plus life stories made available to us] for each one. So, a starting point would be to pick one of those oh-so-funny 9/11 names and then work through all the relatives who may be listed on tribute sites and perhaps even contact them on facebook or twitter. I just don’t have the time to look through the US lists of names. However, unlike at Cluesforum, my work on 9/11 is not done, because the hoax management must continue, as it must do for every psy-op involving strategic relocation of fictims.
    And since you or Tom mentioned Jo Cox [in connection with Brexit] do you think
    a) she was a real person?
    b). the killing of her was real?
    c). if the answer to b is no, then how is her life and relationship with her children and friends being managed?

    The fascinating aspect of 9/11, which makes it a lot more complex than 100 times the [vicsim count] of Tunisian beach ‘attack’ was the complicity of many more companies and organisations involved, the use of a higher proportion of working age vicsims ** and the much longer timescale of the planning.

    ** a recurring theme of fake events is the widespread use of the young, footloose. adolescents even, the elderly and near-retirees as vicsims. There is usually a large lacuna of vicsims from the middle-class, 35-50 year old settled professionals.

    The ‘don’t look here’ agenda seems to prevent us from questioning how these fictims are recruited for newsworthy events. Don’t believe that all those reported ‘happy families’ and ‘infectious smiles’ in the tributes are as false as the events they ‘die’ in.

    1. misom

      Thank you Xile for your so insidefull and critical feedback. My apologies for misinterpreting things in that story, which i not even have a full overview yet, it was sureley not with bad intent but out of lack of knowledge.

      As you hopefully could take from my thoughts in the discussion with Tom, i find it important to continue the work on 9/11.

      This is just to give you feedback that i take your research serious and appreciate it very much.
      I will have to write a longer post, maybe even on the fakeologist/forum in order to discuss the many points you are raising in your comment as well as in your yearlong research.

  3. JohnnyClues

    Now why would I even listen to a bunch of paid stooges yammer nonsense – as they all join fake forces to try to make Paolo aka fakeologist innocent – standard protocol at fakeologist.com – they have being doing this “schtick” for yrs 🙂 completely see through dribble 🙂 Hey Paolo aka Ab irato – I think you owe me a refund for 100 dollars ? or shall I call the Toronto Police to start an investigation into you? Make your Choice! 🙂

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.