My point is that to doubt something means that one has good reasons to doubt, or has good evidence to doubt. In my epistemology one doesn't just need a justification for knowledge, but one needs a good justification for doubt, the two go hand-in-hand. So I'm not sure what it would mean to doubt that you're sitting at your pc. I'm sure that you might be able to construct a scenario in which it would make sense to doubt it, but what would it mean to doubt it in normal everyday circumstances. Do we normally doubt such things? — Sam26

I have good evidence that during the experience conveniently described as “I am sitting at my pc” this is not in fact what is occurring.


What is occurring is the experience of sitting at “my” pc.


I (me) can only logically and fundamentally be the entire experience (the room, the chair, sounds, sensations of all kinds). “I am sitting at my pc” is merely a description for sake of convenient transmission during an experience of a conversation about the previous “pc” event.

You're like a dog that keeps sniffing his own ass and the asses of other dogs. You need to get a different view and some fresh air! — tim wood

Tim got wood for dog’s asses.

How about answering a simple - almost simple - question: On a prima facie basis, do you think Trump is acting as a Russian agent? That is, while a final determination of fact comes from trial, do you think that, for now, there is enough and more than enough evidence to compel, as reasonable, the conclusion that Trump is acting as a Russian agent?

No argument, because you use argument as obfuscation. Just Yes or No. — tim wood

Very simply, no.

Your evidence he has been (or will you be obfuscating)?

I listed some crimes that Trump has possibly committed. Criminal investigation starts with suspicion, followed by investigation to see if there is a case. You can't demand proof of a crime prior to the investigation. Why should Trump not be investigated?”

And has he been? If not why not? Maybe the FBI should be talking to you to get direction.

The BBC are non-profit and held accountable by independent regulating bodies, which are required to rationally debate issues of bias and can impose punitive measures for any bias discovered. Not a perfect system, but it's one that tends to produce stories that are tied to fact and when they are not consequences ensue. — Baden

They also do hit pieces rather than interview the subjects and protected for many years their favourite pedophile, Jimmy Saville.

They are certainly not free of bias.

Uh huh.

So how about this question I posted or has it been relegated to the untouchable category?

To accept military action is to accept the violent deaths of many and the continued suffering of many more from the social and economic chaos created by war, and from the loss of loves ones. To accept the horror of war is clearly immoral. — frank

“Is this suggestive, in the positive, for diplomatic engagement with historically defined state foes?”

To accept military action is to accept the violent deaths of many and the continued suffering of many more from the social and economic chaos created by war, and from the loss of loves ones. To accept the horror of war is clearly immoral — frank

Is this suggestive, in the positive, for diplomatic engagement with historically defined state foes?

The only moral path is pacifism. Comments? — frank

If I am violently attacked I shall likely resist as personally militaristic-ally as possible.

Am I therefore immoral?

The BBC does not equal Alex Jones — Baden

What the BBC is equal with is the CBC. I don't trust tax funded media. They can be subject to government-speak, merely lends itself to another propaganda arm. They don't have to compete in the "market place of ideas".

He was directed by the FBI not to answer those questions, which they determined compromised the investigation (your opinion on their import isn't relevant here) and consulted his lawyers when he was asked as is his right, which was confirmed by members of the congress at the hearing. — Baden

I see that as legally challenge-able.

The FBI are not above being legally challenged.

I agree he's a nobody and this is a distraction, but my point is that speculation about him getting life in prison as the video title suggests (basically for not liking Donald Trump) is beyond the realms of rational consideration. — Baden

It is hyperbole. Personally I have never liked Fox news. They are opportunist. Alex Jones is opportunist and comedy at best, but too repetitive to watch (although I watch "real news with david knight" because he is sane and comes across as independent of his boss and he is not hyperbolic. I think Jones appears to at least respect independence of his senior crew. BUT, he also maintains a business model of hyperbole, which is not anything that attracts me).

He may get Arkancided before singing begins.

How are the text messages evidence he lied under oath? — Baden

It maybe his refusal to answer questions that DO NOT actually compromise an investigation.

So non cooperation with a tribunal while under oath.

My speculation.

He's a nobody anyway. The best one could get from him maybe his ability to eventually sing.

The "source" above is not particularly avoiding a fact that they are speculating.

So it is "proper" for speculation. And sure, it is news/entertainment.......like practically every other video platform "news" site.

Give a proper source — Baden

Define "proper".

Totally incomparable. McCarthyism had Truman sign into law screening of civil servants for loyalty and led to a stifling of freedom of speech of US citizens and had McCarthy pursue the whole unamerican nonsense — Benkei

The comparable difference between the two examples is that the current day "McCarthyists" are not of the elected administration.

My position is that you "don't know that you're sitting at the PC writing," i.e., that proposition is a foundational belief. What I mean by foundational is that the belief doesn't fall within any epistemological construct, i.e., it doesn't make sense that it would need justification, and it doesn't make sense that it can or could be doubted (at least generally). — Sam26

I am doubting the claim "I am sitting at my pc" due to it's unreality. It is a belief rather than real, I contend (although, in reality, there is merely the experience of a "contend" thought).

The reality is that there is an experience of "sitting at my pc".

That it is not the growing hurricane it appears to be. The round-up of undocumented residents by ICE (or as they might be called: American Revival Storm Enforcement, or ARSE) is unsettling for a lot of people, even those that believe something must be done about immigration — 0 thru 9

The creation of sanctuary cities began before Trump took office.

Do you not think that those who implemented such a plan did so based on what they felt was happening at the time during whoever was Commander-in-Chief?

A traitor! — tim wood

A traitor to who? The intelligence officials who claim evidence of a dnc hack by Putin?

First of all: they are un-elected.

Secondly: they represent the military-industrial complex and not Americans.

Third: no Russia, no NATO.

Maintaining an enemy maintains military-industrial complex industry.........and it is huge.

A cold war is fantastic business.

Your feelings on John Pilger?

They're all part of a Shallow State conspiracy against America, being Russian and/or Big Business shills. — Michael

Not surprised you believe that.

one of the stories Obedient Media invented: — Benkei

Mr Craddick did not write that piece. Piece was written by Adam Carter. And it is Disobedient media not "Obedient" media.

You might have been thinking of your preferred news sites where you are happy to just obey your masters.

There are usually various contributors to sites. Often they differ on their angles within the same organization.

Or you have an infected computer now. — Benkei

Nup.

Is it completely irrelevant to you if Trump actually committed a serious crime?is it that you simply think it is so extremely unlikely that he committed a serious crime? is it that you think all politicians are criminals, so it doesn't really matter as long as Trump does the things you want done? I'd really like to understand where you're coming from. — Relativist

Insert Trump's crime here >........< and then there is something to discuss on this topic.

Congratulations for getting your news from a site that contains malware. I couldn't read it as a result. — Benkei

Suggestion.

You perhaps need better security software. And the free stuff, if you use it, doesn't work particularly well.

"I thought 'C' stood for an order in the alphabet", "Bleahcbit?" Is that when you wipe it with a cloth?'

So how believable are these statements?

Congratulations for getting your news from a site that contains malware. I couldn't read it as a result. — Benkei

I encountered no malware.

Ah. The protection racket that first lets Trump win only to then beschmirch him. Totally logical. How do you come up with this shit? — Benkei

They didn't take into account the voters. It was felt it was all sewn up.

Essentially the non-sophisticates were the DNC with characters such as John Podesta.
They were celebrating winning long before the election.

The non-sophistication is evidenced by Hillary's sloppy private unlawful server and evidenced by her dealings with Classified material ("I thought 'C' stood for an order in the alphabet", "Bleahcbit?" Is that when you wipe it with a cloth?'). I mean, Jesus! Only the moronic or those that treat the intel squads as the priesthood would by that crap defense.

Why so sloppy? Because she thought she was untouchable.

So who had to mop up their mess? The sophisticated ultra-resourced intel spy agencies.

Yesterday saw the publication of an English language version of an article written by Huib Modderkolk by Dutch news site the Volkskrant, titled “Dutch agencies provide crucial intel about Russia’s interference in US-elections.”

https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dutch-agencies-provide-crucial-intel-about-russia-s-interference-in-us-elections~b4f8111b/ — Benkei

https://disobedientmedia.com/2018/01/dutch-cozy-bear-farce-does-not-show-dnc-emails-were-hacked-by-russians/

No facebook account held by me to view this, btw.

The protection racket is bipartisan. Obamas and Clintons were mere extensions of Bush Sr and Jr.

that even if YOUR intelligence agencies would be part of some deep state conspiracy, the European ones aren't and they corroborate the facts independently as well — Benkei

This is a belief of yours.

Conspiracy theorists do not see independence. And it is evident that the supposed conspirators collaborated with British intelligence agencies. The Steele "dossier" is merely one example of non-independence of US agencies.

since Republicans control Congress and the Senate and are uncritical of Trump — Benkei

Ah, no. Only particular Republican congress-persons back Trump on this one. There is quite an array of never-trumpers in the Repub party.

Don't be fooled by the dog and pony show that Washington theatrically demonstrates.

Are any of these Forensicator? — Benkei

Who is the "Forensicator"? Does this person or persons have a name or are they in a category you mentioned earlier, that of "unknown"?

Bush already made the decision to go to war and Colin Powell had to defend it in the UN based on material they and Congress believed to be true but which wasn't supported by the intelligence community. It was the CIA who debunked the WMD story in the first place. — Benkei

So you do not think that Trump's opposition had also "already made the decision to go into war" against his bid for presidency before he won election?

There still remain people in the world that agree with the discrimination of other human beings just because their preferences are not the same as those doing the discriminating. Even politicians - Trump - are still evoking the idea that homosexuality is unclean.

Instead, they believe the best way to deal with it is to boycott it entirely. — GreyScorpio

Is Trump doing this?

Insert evidence here >.....................<

(Just addressing possible hyperbole. Your possibly intended message would be helped without it, I feel)

Following from this:
Should Bush had, as he did, put all his faith in the conclusions of these intelligence agencies?

Who is the Commander-in-chief?

Is it various intelligence agency officials or is it the United States President?

more trustworthy than various intelligence agencies — Benkei

How trustworthy were these agencies over "weapons of mass destruction" conclusions about Saddam Hussein?

Should Bush had, as he did, put all his faith in the conclusions of these intelligence agencies?

As usual, the idea some unknown internet troll is more trustworthy than various intelligence agencies — Benkei

Here are three of these "unknown internet trolls".

1. Former National Security Agency official, William Binney.
2. Former CIA analyst, Ray McGovern.
3. Former CIA officer and current executive director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Giraldi.


Whistleblower William Binney, a former National Security Agency official, is speaking out against the Central Intelligence Agency’s claims that Russia hacked the Democratic Party

Binney, a cryptanalyst-mathematician and a Russia specialist at one point during his 30 years with the NSA, is a signatory of an open letter released Monday from six retired intelligence officials, calling themselves the “Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity,” who assert that the allegations that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) are baseless.

Binney details points clarifying that the WikiLeaks email releases are not hacks at all, but actually insider leaks.
“In order to get to the servers, they [hackers] would have to come across the network and go into the servers, penetrate them, and then extract data out of the servers and bring it back across the network,” Binney explained. “If it were the Russians, it would then go to Russia, and it would have to go from there across the network again to get to WikiLeaks.”

Binney explained that “anything doing that would be picked up by the NSA’s vast surveillance system, both in terms of collecting the data as it transits the fiber optics inside the US, as well as internationally.”

The retired intelligence analyst also noted that traceroute packets are embedded in hundreds of switchers around the world, and that email messages are easily traced.

“With all the billions of dollars we spend on this collection access system that the NSA has, there’s no way that could have missed all the packets being transferred from those servers to the Russians,” Binney said. “I mean, they should know exactly how and when those packets left those servers and went to the Russians, and where specifically in Russia it went. There’s no excuse for not knowing that.”

If it was a hack, Binney reveals, the NSA would know who the sender and recipients of the data are, thanks to mass internet surveillance programs. The intelligence apparatus does not depend on “circumstantial evidence,” as has been reported.

“My point is really pretty simple. There should be no guessing here at all, they should be able to show the traceroutes of all the packets, or some of them anyways, going to the Russians and then from the Russians to WikiLeaks,” Binney explained. “There is no excuse for not being able to do that — and that would be the basic evidence to prove it. Otherwise, it could be any hacker in the world, or any other government in the world, who knows.”

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern also signed the letter, and has been outspoken about his disbelief that the information came from a Russian hack — or that the breach was, indeed, a hack.

“Today they are talking about having ‘overwhelming circumstantial evidence.’ Now we have overwhelming technical evidence. We have the former technical director of the National Security Agency that tells us that this is really just drivel.”

“This is really just an operation to blacken the Russians and to blame the defeat of Hillary Clinton on the Russians.”

Former CIA officer and current executive director of the Council for the National Interest, Philip Giraldi, has come to the same conclusion as Binney and McGovern.

“If the intelligence community is nevertheless claiming that they know enough to conclude that it was directed from the top levels of the Russian government, then they should be able to produce documentary or other evidence of officials’ ordering the operation to take place,” Giraldi wrote. “Do they have that kind of information? It is clear that they do not, in spite of their assertion of ‘high confidence,’ and there is a suggestion by Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, a persistent critic of Russian spying who is on the House Intelligence Committee, that the information they do have consists of innuendo and is largely circumstantial.

original Guccifer Romanian hacker

When WikiLeaks were getting ready to publish emails Guccifer 2 appeared

Guccifer 1 regards gucc 2 as a fabrication

Guccifer 2 claimed gucc 1 hacked dnc for the Russians

Guccifer 2 put data for supposed hack on web

Data shows amount of bytes, or bits, + timestamp at end of the file

- timestamp after timestamp. You can take between any 2 timestamps and calculate the number of bytes involved and also, then, the rate of transfer of the data. With every file this can be done.

The rate of transfer to make web transfer of these files possible was 49.1 megabytes per second.

It is known that this rate cannot go across the network

Some claimed it could, so tests were done of this.

Tests were to send this size data from the US to places such as Belgrade, Netherlands, Albania, UK.

The fastest rate achieved was between a data center in New Jersey and a data center in the UK.

This rate, of 12 megabytes per second, is less than a 4th the speed required as listed by gucc 2.

So, an impossible transfer at that rate (the highest rate possible, 12 megabytes per second).

But it is the perfect download rate for a thumb drive.

This makes it technically and scientifically provable that it cannot have been a hack from an overseas location, thereby including Russia.

The transfer of this data had to be local from computer to another physical device.

Gucc 2 put out 2 sets of data, on the 5th July 2016 and the 1st September 2016.

When analysing Guccifer 2’s data and ignoring the hour and the date and instead concentrating on minutes, seconds and milliseconds these two data sets merge.

This means Guccifer 2 manipulated the data - by taking one file down (the complete download into a physical device), splitting it into two parts, then issuing one for the 5th of July and one for the 1st of September.

So the upshot is that intelligence officials are using data to make a decision that has been tampered with.

This “rate of transfer” is in relation to the length of time the “hack” was designated to have taken.

Data’s transference consists within it ‘timestamps’ which determines time of download or hack.

Most of the "servers" were cloud based to start with and not owned by the DNC — Benkei

Here is a little investigative exercise for you, because it would be unfair of me to assume you already have this information.

How large are the Guccifer 2 files, megabytes, and what rate of transfer would be required to send such sized files to “the cloud” and therefore also to “hack” from the “cloud”?

Whatever tin-foiled shill. I might be replying to you but it's obviously for the benefit for other intelligent readers. You don't need to reply to me, I'll just continue to correct all your inane comments as I see fit. — Benkei

Do your best, although on the scale of things is a pretty low bar.

Stop spouting stupid conspiracy theories here. — Benkei

Is that an order?

I have information to the contrary.