I am glad you have watched the Dodd video. That doesn't address the two other huge problems with what you have stated is your research approach.
The first is a key element in investigation that your scholastic training has given you, which is a fraud.
You can't do research if you reject what someone says because of who you think they are. I can't really stress this enough. Rejecting what someone says, because you don't like them for whatever reason, in no way is a refutation of their evidence or logic. I'm not suggesting we need to listen to every source. What I'm saying is, rejecting a person, instead of addressing their evidence is not an argument against their evidence. Vetting sources as "reliable" is a fraud during the argument stage. It allows for anyone who has been shat on by the greater community to be ignored, no matter what they have to say. It is a primary tool of The Matrix, and built into our education by design.
Many of the greatest pieces of evidence I have found have been from people who are completely discredited by other sources. I am not suggesting that person in the video I linked is some great source. I don't actually understand why that video has even become some meaningful topic of conversation. It was added as an afterthought (which i stated explicitly). For some reason you took that to mean something important to what I was saying. I never implied that it was. Regardless though, in no way whatsoever did you address a single thing I stated, or was stated in the video you seem to think is so important to me.
What you did was give me your take on the "real history" (without any evidence). Fine, great, but that's not a refutation of evidence or even the statements in the video at all. Your "refutation" of the evidence was solely an ad hominem attack. You never even addressed the argument itself.
The other problem is, in no way have you given me any information I can use. If you honestly believe that pointing to hundreds of hours of research on what? I don't even know what because you have provided no context for me to begin investigating. You didn't even keep the url's so I could get context from that. You completely eliminated all of the tools a person would use to start digging.
If you actually want to help people learn, you must do work yourself. I have shown you the way in how I presented evidence. That is the best way I have found to help spread evidence. Your method is completely useless for those of us who are spending thousands of hours doing our own investigations to help people. There simply does not exist the time to both help other people by presenting evidence, and dig through all of everyone elses shit. If you have seen something, narrow it down for me. Give me a quote. Give me the approximate time where the evidential support is. Give me a brief explanation, even a couple words would make all the difference.
If you wish to become part of the solution, please learn how to both address arguments directly and how to present your evidence. Someone with your knowledge could be helpful if you learn how to unlearn the fraudulent training your education in The Matrix gave you.
This was one of the hardest and most important lesson I had to learn as well for the same reason.
You've wasted plenty of time posting argumentative comments here that could have easily been spent reviewing the sample of sources provided above. You're wanting me to spoon feed you everything because you don't want to research on your own or have time to because you're so busy researching so much on your own?
Either follow the crumbs or don't. Up to you fren. Happy reading. Good luck.
You could be an asset, if you learn to present evidence in a helpful way. As it is, you will reach far fewer people. The choice of how helpful you can be is of course yours. I am only trying to show you how to be more helpful (and do better research by not ignoring evidence for the wrong reasons).
I am glad you have watched the Dodd video. That doesn't address the two other huge problems with what you have stated is your research approach.
The first is a key element in investigation that your scholastic training has given you, which is a fraud.
You can't do research if you reject what someone says because of who you think they are. I can't really stress this enough. Rejecting what someone says, because you don't like them for whatever reason, in no way is a refutation of their evidence or logic. I'm not suggesting we need to listen to every source. What I'm saying is, rejecting a person, instead of addressing their evidence is not an argument against their evidence. Vetting sources as "reliable" is a fraud during the argument stage. It allows for anyone who has been shat on by the greater community to be ignored, no matter what they have to say. It is a primary tool of The Matrix, and built into our education by design.
Many of the greatest pieces of evidence I have found have been from people who are completely discredited by other sources. I am not suggesting that person in the video I linked is some great source. I don't actually understand why that video has even become some meaningful topic of conversation. It was added as an afterthought (which i stated explicitly). For some reason you took that to mean something important to what I was saying. I never implied that it was. Regardless though, in no way whatsoever did you address a single thing I stated, or was stated in the video you seem to think is so important to me.
What you did was give me your take on the "real history" (without any evidence). Fine, great, but that's not a refutation of evidence or even the statements in the video at all. Your "refutation" of the evidence was solely an ad hominem attack. You never even addressed the argument itself.
The other problem is, in no way have you given me any information I can use. If you honestly believe that pointing to hundreds of hours of research on what? I don't even know what because you have provided no context for me to begin investigating. You didn't even keep the url's so I could get context from that. You completely eliminated all of the tools a person would use to start digging.
If you actually want to help people learn, you must do work yourself. I have shown you the way in how I presented evidence. That is the best way I have found to help spread evidence. Your method is completely useless for those of us who are spending thousands of hours doing our own investigations to help people. There simply does not exist the time to both help other people by presenting evidence, and dig through all of everyone elses shit. If you have seen something, narrow it down for me. Give me a quote. Give me the approximate time where the evidential support is. Give me a brief explanation, even a couple words would make all the difference.
If you wish to become part of the solution, please learn how to both address arguments directly and how to present your evidence. Someone with your knowledge could be helpful if you learn how to unlearn the fraudulent training your education in The Matrix gave you.
This was one of the hardest and most important lesson I had to learn as well for the same reason.
You've wasted plenty of time posting argumentative comments here that could have easily been spent reviewing the sample of sources provided above. You're wanting me to spoon feed you everything because you don't want to research on your own or have time to because you're so busy researching so much on your own?
Either follow the crumbs or don't. Up to you fren. Happy reading. Good luck.
You could be an asset, if you learn to present evidence in a helpful way. As it is, you will reach far fewer people. The choice of how helpful you can be is of course yours. I am only trying to show you how to be more helpful (and do better research by not ignoring evidence for the wrong reasons).