You seem to be suggesting that we should not trust Benjamin Fulford. I very much agree with this sentiment. The problem I have with your statement however is twofold:

1. It suggests (implicitly) that there are others that we can trust.
2. It suggests that the rhetoric and the conclusions (what you are calling "predictions") are important parts of someone's research.

Research is not about "trust." Trust is the opposite of Critical Thinking. Commonly there is a problem in the general application of the word "trust" with not appreciating what it means to listen to someone v. trusting them.

If you listen to what someone has to say, you can see what facts they state, what analysis they give, and what rhetoric they use to persuade beliefs (propaganda). Everyone uses all three of those things in any investigatory report. It is essential to be able to separate these out from anyone's presentation. Every presentation (report) of an investigation has these three components that have (imo) the following hierarchy of importance (2 and 3 are both "analysis" but separated for a reason):

1. The evidence someone provides, and their sources (to see if they have presented their evidence in context) are the most important part of any report.
2. Secondary is their analysis (logic).
3. Next in line is their conclusion (the end of analysis). Conclusions are so far down the list because they rely on axioms. However, many of the axioms that are relied on in an argument are not explicitly stated. Rather people rely on what is "common knowledge" or "what is obvious." These injected but not stated axioms are so common in our method of reporting (in all areas, including in science), that it is essential to learn the skill of rooting out these hidden axioms in order to advance your own investigation. They are the largest flaw in any report, and where the most fuckery is hidden (intentional or not).
4. Last on the list of importance for any report is a persons rhetoric AKA propaganda; the words laid on top of analysis and evidence to attempt to sway the audience to a particular belief. Beyond just swaying belief, a persons rhetoric can be used to bridge the gaps of evidence and logic and is often misleading. I'm not saying it's always bad, or even intentional, but it's always there, and is the least important part of what anyone has to say.

Thus, there is nothing wrong with listening to Benjamin Fulford, or anyone else in an investigation. The caution is the same for this person as it is for anyone. Listen, separate out the statements of facts, the sources, what can be corroborated, etc., from the logical analysis, and finally from the rhetoric added on top.

This applies to every single source of information, no matter what their name is, or what side of the fence they land on, and is an essential skill for any investigation.

You seem to be suggesting that we should not trust Benjamin Fulford. I very much agree with this sentiment. The problem I have with your statement however is twofold:

1. It suggests (implicitly) that there are others that we can trust.
2. It suggests that the rhetoric and the conclusions (what you are calling "predictions") are important parts of someone's research.

Research is not about "trust." Trust is the opposite of Critical Thinking. Commonly there is a problem in the general application of the word "trust" with not appreciating what it means to listen to someone v. trusting them.

If you listen to what someone has to say, you can see what facts they state, what analysis they give, and what rhetoric they use to persuade beliefs (propaganda). Everyone uses all three of those things in any investigatory report. It is essential to be able to separate these out from anyone's presentation. Every presentation (report) of an investigation has these three components that have (imo) the following hierarchy of importance (2 and 3 are both "analysis" but separated for a reason):

1. The evidence someone provides, and their sources (to see if they have presented their evidence in context) are the most important of any report.
2. Secondary is their analysis (logic).
3. Next in line is their conclusion (the end of analysis). Conclusions are so far down the list because they rely on axioms. However, many of the axioms that are relied on in an argument are not explicitly stated. Rather people rely on what is "common knowledge" or "what is obvious." These injected but not stated axioms are so common in our method of reporting (in all areas, including in science), that it is essential to learn the skill of rooting out these hidden axioms in order to advance your own investigation. They are the largest flaw in any report, and where the most fuckery is hidden (intentional or not).
4. Last on the list of importance for any report is a persons rhetoric AKA propaganda; the words laid on top of analysis and evidence to attempt to sway the audience to a particular belief. Beyond just swaying belief, a persons rhetoric can be used to bridge the gaps of evidence and logic and is often misleading. I'm not saying it's always bad, or even intentional, but it's always there, and is the least important part of what anyone has to say.

Thus, there is nothing wrong with listening to Benjamin Fulford, or anyone else in an investigation. The caution is the same for this person as it is for anyone. Listen, separate out the statements of facts, the sources, what can be corroborated, etc., from the logical analysis, and finally from the rhetoric added on top.

This applies to every single source of information, no matter what their name is, or what side of the fence they land on, and is an essential skill for any investigation.

You seem to be suggesting that we should not trust Benjamin Fulford. I very much agree with this sentiment. The problem I have with your statement however is twofold:

1. It suggests (implicitly) that there are others that we can trust.
2. It suggests that the rhetoric and the conclusions (what you are calling "predictions") are important parts of someone's research.

Research is not about "trust." Trust is the opposite of Critical Thinking. Commonly there is a problem in the general application of the word "trust" with not appreciating what it means to listen to someone v. trusting them.

If you listen to what someone has to say, you can see what facts they state, what analysis they give, and what rhetoric they use to persuade beliefs (propaganda). Everyone uses all three of those things in any investigatory report. It is essential to be able to separate these out from anyone's presentation. Every presentation (report) of an investigation has these three components that have (imo) the following hierarchy of importance (2 and 3 are both "analysis" but separated for a reason):

1. The evidence someone provides, and their sources (to see if they have presented their evidence in context) are the most important of any report.
2. Secondary is their analysis (logic).
3. Next in line is their conclusion (the end of analysis). Conclusions are so far down the list because they rely on axioms. However, many of the axioms that are relied on in an argument are not explicitly stated. Rather people rely on what is "common knowledge" or "what is obvious." These injected but not stated axioms are so common in our method of reporting (in all areas, including in science), that it is essential to learn the skill of rooting out these hidden axioms in order to advance your own investigation. They are the largest flaw in any report, and where the most fuckery is hidden (intentional or not).
4. Last on the list of importance for any report is a persons rhetoric AKA propaganda; the words used to attempt to sway the audience to a particular belief. Beyond just swaying belief, a persons rhetoric can be used to bridge the gaps of evidence and logic and is often misleading. I'm not saying it's always bad, or even intentional, but it's always there, and is the least important part of what anyone has to say.

Thus, there is nothing wrong with listening to Benjamin Fulford, or anyone else in an investigation. The caution is the same for this person as it is for anyone. Listen, separate out the statements of facts, the sources, what can be corroborated, etc., from the logical analysis, and finally from the rhetoric added on top.

This applies to every single source of information, no matter what their name is, or what side of the fence they land on, and is an essential skill for any investigation.

You seem to be suggesting that we should not trust Benjamin Fulford. I very much agree with this sentiment. The problem I have with your statement however is twofold:

1. It suggests (implicitly) that there are others that we can trust.
2. It suggests that the rhetoric and the conclusions (what you are calling "predictions") are important parts of someone's research.

Research is not about "trust." Trust is the opposite of Critical Thinking. Commonly there is a problem in the general application of the word "trust" with not appreciating what it means to listen to someone v. trusting them.

If you listen to what someone has to say, you can see what facts they state, what analysis they give, and what rhetoric they use to persuade beliefs (propaganda). Everyone uses all three of those things in any investigatory report. It is essential to be able to separate these out from anyone's presentation. Every presentation (report) of an investigation has these three components that have (imo) the following hierarchy of importance (2 and 3 are both "analysis" but separated for a reason):

1. The evidence someone provides, and their sources (to see if they have presented their evidence in context) are the most important of any report.
2. Secondary is their analysis (logic).
3. Next in line is their conclusion (the end of analysis). Conclusions are so far down the list because they rely on axioms. However, many of the axioms that are relied on in an argument are not explicitly stated. Rather people rely on what is "common knowledge" or "what is obvious." These injected but not stated axioms are so common in our method of reporting (in all areas, including in science), that it is essential to learn the skill of rooting out these hidden axioms in order to advance your own investigation. They are the largest flaw in any report, and where the most fuckery is hidden (intentional or not).
4. Last on the list of importance for any report is a persons rhetoric AKA propaganda. The words used to attempt to sway the audience to a particular belief. Beyond just swaying belief, a persons rhetoric can be used to bridge the gaps of evidence and logic and is often misleading. I'm not saying it's always bad, or even intentional, but it's always there, and is the least important part of what anyone has to say.

Thus, there is nothing wrong with listening to Benjamin Fulford, or anyone else in an investigation. The caution is the same for this person as it is for anyone. Listen, separate out the statements of facts, the sources, what can be corroborated, etc., from the logical analysis, and finally from the rhetoric added on top.

This applies to every single source of information, no matter what their name is, or what side of the fence they land on, and is an essential skill for any investigation.