<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"><html lang="de" xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /><title></title><style type="text/css">html,body{background-color:#fff;color:#333;line-height:1.4;font-family:sans-serif,Arial,Verdana,Trebuchet MS;}</style></head><body><p> </p>
<div ></div>
<p>iang via cryptography schrieb am 28.03.2025 05:33 (GMT +01:00):</p>
<blockquote cite="mid:909e4424-b370-4065-8007-1f8c331dddf2@iang.org">
<p> </p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 28/03/2025 02:45, Anthony Martin wrote:</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:Z-XVFyNDn6TGjy13@alice">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre">Ray Dillinger <a href="mailto:bear@sonic.net" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener"><bear@sonic.net></a> once said:
</pre>
<blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre">colossal screwup
[...]
number of fundamental mistakes
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre">Where's the evidence this was a mistake? Smells more like a limited
hangout to me. The people involved want everyone to know they have no
problem using the Zionist tactic of destroying entire buildings full
of civilians to target one guy. They also want everyone to think the
terror bombings against Yemen are done to protect, so called, "freedom
of navigation" when all signs point to preparations for war against
Iran.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Conspiracy theories are fun, but occam's razor says this was a mistake. Bear in mind these guys aren't really capable of carrying out such an exotic deception plan without everyone in DC gossiping about how smart they are, and without chat including some obvious tells.<br><br>FATE - Focus Authority Tribe Emotion<br><br>How do you now the easiest explaination, when you are not able to perceive the easiest explaination, Sir? Through a extreme amount of "noise" - selling another esiest explaination.<br><br>You said conspiracy theories are fun [to be entertained with], but a lot of them are true. I do know the Celler Loch (Celler Hole). Occam's Razor was wrong there, and the exotic plan made a lot of peoples life worse. When your stuff is wrong, why do I want to use it?<br><br>Celler Hole was two or three people knew everything. And they activated ~10 people with a function, just knowing a tiny bit of the action. (To have an exercise to blow a hole in a wall in a unknown place.) And afterwards they were isolated from media coverage by another nerve-wrecking mission. Every actions afterwards with the hole were take by functionarys, automatic, by not knowing about anything.<br><br>Here is a good point for your research: How do you want protect people by undermining their privacy by using pricacy techniques by deceptionists? And please, gossip is noise. A common intelligence practise is to spread gossips and false facts, when one true fact is revealed? When your adress is online and you do not want that, you just put a million fake addresses of you online. And when the easiest explaination is public you just spread another easy explaination a million times by functionarys.<br><br>This is shifting FOCUS by spamming you with hard noise of another easiest expaination. A million time.<br><br>And you are doing it with AUTHORITY: Yes, maybe we kill our TV sets, but who are we trusting. And who is intelligence looking for to pay? I think I am a weird bum, and you do not trust me. But I guess you trust the person who brought up the mistake stuff to you.<br><br>TRIBE is another marker of deception. Do you want to be the wild bum or the intelligent tech guy asked for respected interviews? Your run to your razor is a good example for tribal behaviour. <br><br>And you do not want that the exposed stupidity is not touching your EMOTIONS?<br><br>I did not make the 4 letters up. It is from a company with 3 letters.<br><br>---<br><br>We can put the Celler Hole behind us. Do you know how a soccer game story is produced? One producer is the director calling a spot. Everything else and everyone is following as a logical function. When the director is instructed to push player XYZ he is giving him more camera time in a higher proportion in the game. Player XYZ has a cramp, the camera is sticked to him and makes him the lamb of god. And next to him - in the game - 6 players had harder cramps, longer, with less tears. But we all do just see and remember player XYZ.<br><br>In my work I was learning how to make money out of nothing. Mostly my business is getting money for entertainment services. Betting is a entertaining subject. And you can make money by manipulation. F.E. by faking boxing fights. But one problem is, you can't communicate your manipulation open. Because your communication is controlled and the business is highly watched by regulators. So what manipulating promoters do, in a 7 fight event, they put a non-televised missmatch first. A fat guy (called "Fallobst") in one corner and a trained guy in the other corner. You can't bet on that fight. The fat guy is losing, because he is fat. Then you have 6 following fights. Just the last two are televised and you can just bet on the final fight. So every boxer brought to the fat guys corner is knowing he is getting a bonus payment and had to lay down. I saw those shows, and in another legal context I organized those shows. And in a more easier form it is just a relation between the Fallobst-fight and the final fight you can bet on. And there is no communication. Just the positioning in the corner. And just a few chosen better can make it out. Without communicated to them by speech and writing. </p>
<p>You can learn that behaviour in special schools. But first it is all about trust, creating by time and sinking in the swamp of corruption.<br><br>---<br><br>What the thing (the thing with the signal chat) was about, I do not know.<br><br>But sometimes there are well known patterns - like teasing spots, preperation spots and signature spots. And of course there are indicators for deception/manipulation like the FATE indicators.<br><br>Teading: <br><br>A-B-C-4(f)-radom-A-B-C-4(f)-random-A-B-C-4(f)-random-A-B-C-4(t)<br><br>Teasing with preperation: <br><br>A-B-C-@-4(f)-radom-A-B-C-@-4(f)-random-A-B-C-@-4(f)-random-A-B-C-@-4(t) <br><br>| @ = unique<br><br>I hope it is not so much offtopic!<br><br>Have fun!<br><br>Roland Ionas Bialke<br><br><br><br></p>
</blockquote></body></html>