Comment: I'd appreciate it, If you do actually read all the links. Thanks

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: - (see in situ)

I'd appreciate it, If you do actually read all the links. Thanks

That said, I don't know where you got the idea that citing Jim Fetzer or Reynolds or their assertions would be relevant to this discussion, in any way. But I'll bite, as you seem to want to assert that Sibel may possibly be on par at their level. I wholly reject that based on all that I cited before and now; while I'm not gonna belabor that point too much, as it's irrelevant to our discussion, but let us proceed, nevertheless.

I'm intimately familiar with most who were and are involved in 9/11Truth, though I've long left 9/11Blogger around 2008 or 2009-ish(??).

If you know who Nico the 'Feces-pitcher' Haupt is, then you know how long I've been researching this issue.

And as for citing Reynolds? He has very little gravitas among any serious 9/11 researchers, along with Dr. Judy Wood, whose assertions are simply unverifiable, period; regardless of whether such technology exists or not is immaterial: the nano-thermate evidence 100% exists. But, Wood's direct energy beam? Because there are no significant past damages data from a directed energy weapon's effects one can analyze and compare against, you cannot verify for 100% certain. Worse, leap to a conclusion that, that IS HOW it happened, with immutable authority, as many in her camp often tend to do.

And Jim Fetzer, oh Jimmy Fetz...you mean the 'Mr. oBUSHma will save us all from Evil'-Jim Fetzer? Who 'toilet-flushed away any of his past JFK research reputation he may have amassed, up to that point'-Fetzer?

Don't know what your intent is by bringing up Reynolds and Fetzer: they're 100% irrelevant to Sibel Edmonds or ANY of the points I've raised, or even ones YOU've initially raised in this discussion.

Let me ask you this: do you think you're a better body language reader than Philip Giraldi (who BELIEVES Sibel's assertions, because he's able to verify them via his actual intel sources), the former CIA head of entire Western Europe's clandestine services, DURING the Cold War, when spies were REAL spies?

Giraldi LIVED having to deal with murderers, liars, thieves, world-class professional con-men, professionally, for over 20yrs. Do you know the amount of nuances that one in such field can pick up, that can NEVER be taught, as it must be lived??

Do you have 20yr+ of such experience that afforded you time and occasions to hone such skills, where risks were literally deaths?

Do you?

He believes her.

Of course, that is not to say that by mere fact of one's professional background alone should be enough, nor that no 'layman' can ever possibly match such skills usually exclusive to a particular line of work. But, considering the amount of interviews of Sibel I've personally seen, books of hers I've read, her very deposition in question in which you're asking me to re-watch, and the facts as she laid out, it's a lot easier to come to an educated, heavily-researched conclusion that she's telling the truth, than blindly believing some anonymous poster on my favorite forum asserting that his gut FEELINGS and UN-verifiable 'body-language reading skills' are telling him that "she's lying."

Given the two options, if 'anonymous poster on my favorite forum' weren't you, of the two, whom would you believe: a career CIA guy who's pissed off at lunatic/murderous American Foreign Policy that he became a pawn of, who became a whistleblower and became Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul's foreign policy advisor, whom publicly went out of his way to support Sibel, after looking into her assertions, with all of his past intel sources available to him to verify?

Or, an anonymous poster at DailyPaul, whom his sole basis for asserting that "she's a liar"...is his gut FEELINGs, alone??

Seriously, if you were given between Giraldi's informed analyses of Sibel, vs. a gut feeling and unverifiable bodylanguage-reading skills, which one of those two, do you suppose would represent a much more intelligent choice?

I'd submit, even you would pick Giraldi's skills, over your own.o)

Even at a 'layman's level, in my own personal life, both social and business, I frankly have rarely been wrong about 'reading faces/body languages.' Almost NEVER.

But, would I, even as confident as I am about my own 'people-reading skills' ever assert at a court of law that, that should be enough to convict or acquit someone?

No FCUCKING way.

When you've finished reading through the entire list, re-watch Sibel's deposition. And as I have already said, watch neutrally. Myself, I won't watch again. I don't trust her, don't want to listen to her.

So...you don't trust her. (a feeling, as you admit) And, "you don't want to listen to her." (a willful resistance to looking at facts)...and so you mean, you're NOT asking others to basically "trust" your equally publicly unverifiable people-reading skills??

Brother, seriously??? Come on now. Given such, you do realize anyone observing our back and fourth, if they had any discernment skills to speak of, you do know that I'm much more likely to convince them based on facts and publicly available data that I've presented, right?

So... you honestly don't think that your own following words are YOUR very own version of "Just Trust Me"??

My belief is also based on when I watched her deposition and was trying to corroborate a lot of what she said (and I am fast using the internet,) there wasn't supporting documentation or information for a lot of her claims. A lot of what she said was presented with a, “just trust me.” No thank you. If you feel so inclined, perhaps you could fact check then provide ALL supporting documentation for all of her many non-corroboratble claims. Good luck.

Thanks for defining irony. lol.

So, by your own 'logic,' I have ZERO reasons to 'believe' you, trust you, or ANY ONE of your assertions along with any claims to the veracity of your own supposed personal confidence in your own supposed people-reading skills; they simply have ZERO bearing to our discussion, as they're 100% your PURE FEELINGS and OPINIONS, not "facts."

So by that, you're basically asserting that if you yourself cannot find something online, it must not be true, or at the least, verifiable?

Right.

Not to retype all the points I already made about what Giraldi said in response to your EXACT type of criticism of her, here it is, again: Sibel gave file numbers IN FBI's own records. If she's lying, they could've easily arrested her under the ever asinine but often deployed 'lying to Federal Officials.' The fact that they haven't and as Giraldi asserts, FBI's own silence on the matter itself is a proof alone, in this particular case:

I would also note that there is a fundamental flaw to the criticism of Sibel, which is that she claims that every single statement made by her is backed up by actual documents in FBI investigative files dealing with the activities of foreign agents who were suborning our elected officials and senior bureaucrats. She has even provided the numbers of the files. At the end of the day, either the files and the evidence they contain are there or they are not. If they are not, then the government should make its case publicly that fraud is being committed by Sibel and her supporters and take whatever legal action they consider to be appropriate. I would suggest that the silence from the government over this matter in itself confirms that the allegations are true in EVERY detail.

The intel Sibel asserts, when cross-examined must be made public, or at the least, even by current fascist Kangaroo court 'standards,' must be made open to the Federal Judge ruling on the case. Though I suppose by oBUSHma admin and acquiescent Fed. judges as of late, NOT EVEN look at evidence and merely take govt lawyers words, alone. But even then, they at least GO AFTER the defendant, with trumped up "State Secretes Privileges" charge to gag and jail them. But, for 'whatever Godly unknown reason' the Govt intel services FEAR HER so much that they haven't even charged her with violating her gag order, which is exactly what she did, when she deposed. And, oBUSHma Admin has jailed MORE whistleblowers than any single POTUS in history! So either she fooled, Giraldi, 2 Senators and their entire staff, every single whistleblower and former intel individuals and spies who tried to debunk her. Or, as rare as it may be, she actually knows more applicable intel to 9/11 and everything surrounding it, that IGNORING her even AFTER she violated her gag order by having damn near every MSM outlet bar her from coming on, is obviously more 'preferable' than to actually go after her, sue her or jail her, risking exposing the 9/11 false flag and others, in the process.

So as Giraldi asserts, I too agree that the FBI's silence on it confirms the veracity of her accusations, and furthermore suggests that her intel expose will embarrass and indict the corporatist govt/intel services or whomever the frakk, even more than it would, if they were to indict/arrest/jail her.

So... given such? I'm with Giraldi's:

Listening to Sibel Edmonds

by Philip Giraldi, September 24, 2009

To those who claim that Sibel Edmonds is a fraud and that she is propagating lies for reasons of her own I would observe the following: Sibel has been interrogated by two US Senators, by the Justice Department’s Inspector General’s Office, and by suspicious fact checkers working for the television news program 60 Minutes, for the Times of London, and for Vanity Fair. She has been found to be a credible witness by everyone who has taken the time to talk to her and no one has ever been able to disprove any aspect of her story.

And, again, I repeat:

So, RonPaulWins2012, have YOU been vetted by 2 US Senators, DoJ IG's office, CBS 60min, Times of London, Vanity fair, and by anyone who has taken time to try to disprove ALL your assertions?

No... So by your logic, they just put massive history-breaking Federal Gag Order on Sibel, a 'lying nobody"...for absolutely no reason at all, right?

NOT!

Seriously. Anyone who can come to that conclusion should have their discernment skills and deductive reasoning as well as Socratic narrative sequence deductions, re-checked.

Now, the-'I just told you the file numbers in the FBI's own records!'-assertions, under any other circumstances, may be dismissible, if made in vacuum. But, even her own enemies DO NOT DENY the existence of the files. The Turks' defense are only to WHAT extent are they were/were not involved, not whether they are involved.

Because if not, then they would've been arguing back and forth over assertions recorded in FBI files that don't exist. No?

That, is the entire crux of the on-going lawsuits. If you missed that whole fact, you truly haven't looked into her case, AT ALL. And, I'm simply wasting my time replying to someone who professes he DOESN'T WANT TO LISTEN TO HER (a willful decision to deny reality).

Plus, all the body-language 'signifiers' you referenced? They're typical mistakes made by amateurs. They are common body-language reading myths in the same level as those who assert that if a given subject's eye moves to the right, they're lying. Some, say if their eyes move to the left. So which is it? Both or Neither?

REAL Answer?

It DOESN'T matter! Everyone's different! For investigative purposes, you MUST first establish 'baseline' stimuli responses; it's largely dependent on an 'establish-able' baseline response

Women tend to play with their body parts more: caress the hair, rubbing the back of the ear, etc. For someone like Sibel, you'd 1st have to be intimately familiar with an Azerbaijani female by way of Persia who were educated and grew up in those cultures AS WELL AS the Western ones, to know IF women in those native cultures with post-Western world influence tend to move and express in a particular manner.

If you don't know, you cannot know, no?

And yes, there's a reason why Academy Award-level actors can and do trick you, but they do so under multiple takes. No method actor lives his/her role for year on out, risking their lives as the ones Giraldi has interacted with during his clandestine services days.

REAL spies selectively LIVE a life based on a lie: they don't have director's cuts, multiple 15min-takes, or off-makeup and it's over time. Spies don't make love to, or trick the camera. They have to trick REAL people, with actual risks and your adrenaline always willing to betray you.

And, Giraldi was able to discern THOSE 'actors.' And, he believes Sibel, not only based on his people reading skills, but because his specialty was in the Turkey intel nexus, as he's FLUENT in Turkish, he could directly verify with his actual intel sources as to her assertions.

You honestly believe you can match Giraldi's 20yr+ skills?? Do you have old Cold War Turkish intel sources/buddies/assets who can verify or deny Sibel's assertions??

Do you?

Frankly, your assertions on body-reading 'skills' is why, for surveillance purposes, it can only be a premise to begin to apply circumstantial basis to pursue something or someone, but not used as a determinant tool, per-se.

Even as fcuked up as our current in-'justice' system is, even they don't admit 'body language experts' testimonies as evidence, though it doesn't stop prosecutors and attorneys from hiring them, repeatedly to paint a narrative, because court is about the 'Bench'/Banc/Bank and indeed, story telling to convince 12 fools, not about the truth.

When you institutionalize, in an attempt to 'teach' body language-reading 'skills' to spot liars and 'suspects,' you know what happens? You get the motherfcuking TSA morons. Literally:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman#Criticisms

For ANYONE interested in 'forensic people-reading' if you've never heard of the following name, you're not as informed on this as you think you are: Paul Ekman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ekman
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_Action_Coding_System
https://www.paulekman.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Paul-Ekman/e/B002FSXSVI

Ekman, in fact, proves my point: it's WHY these 'skills' cannot be 'taught' in an institutional manner, particularly with the goal of training state actors/agents/thugs in mind.

People reading is really more like a martial arts. You can teach someone the mechanics of movements, grappling, kicks, punches. You can even teach them the science of physiology, muscles, anatomical limits, etc. But you'll NEVER know the nuances of 'sensing' when your opponent will attack when you parry, or move to his right, whether he'll go for an arm bar, or simply pop your ocular cavities.

Body/face/people-reading, if it can be considered a 'skill' at all, it's more '6th sense' than 'science.'

Applying and teaching such 'skill' frankly exposes far more issues about our current political structure, govt funding/subsidies, utterly detached deductionist/reductionist nature of 'science,' not to mention, the politicized nature of science field, as a whole.

If you're actually interested in that point, check this out:
http://www.dailypaul.com/comment/2584955

Frankly, you want to hone your body-language/facial expression reading skills?

Learn to be a REAL pickup artist, aka PUA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seduction_community

LOL.

Yes, that's what I said.

Frankly if you've never done this, or are unable to do this, your entire frame of reference for 'reading people' is incomplete, let alone discerning whether Sibel Edmonds is telling the truth when a career CIA guy is telling you otherwise.

In closing, seeing as how you're a fellow official govt-9/11 fairytale skeptic, I truly DO think you mean well.

Perhaps, you initially being 'betrayed' or 'had' by other researchers in the movement has marred your lens somewhat...so when someone like Sibel comes along, you now presume the worst.

Can't say I blame ya, in the current state of the world, where the lie is the norm, and bigger the lie the more believable it seems and deeper the sheeple are asleep.

That said, no one can tell you to believe x, y, z, and guarantee that you'll change your views. At some point, beyond all the data, how we discern info are all dependent on how diverse one's life experiences are, how many different types of people one has dealt with socially to professionally, to various types of professionals, and for how long, and how often. Not to mention, all that experience itself is worthless if the person living through it were not paying as much attention or simply knew enough to know what TO look for.

But, seeing as how my point of reference is a skeptical former CIA Giraldi, whom Dr. Paul trusted enough to appoint as his foreign policy advisor, who made it a public point to support Sibel Edmonds, I must say, he certainly has much more gravitas with me, than no offense, someone's "feelings."

Especially, if one were to compare the very 'people-reading skills' in question, between yours or Giraldi's? Gotta say, his 20yrs+ in clandestine services and corporate security/intel is pretty hard to beat. No?

And, on a personal note, as someone who has interacted, lived ever so briefly in, and dated women from that part of the world, with similar diverse educational and cultural backgrounds, just enough to be able to gauge language, intonation, articulation, enunciation, point and place of vocal emphases, mannerism variances, etc., I gotta say, based on my own experience and personal life discernment skills I've personally honed to trust over the years, Sibel Edmonds seems credible to me.

For all those reasons cited above, I find Sibel Edmonds to be a credible person, as one CAN gauge any third party whom you do not know personally, in first person, could ever attest to, based on all publicly available info and visible public records.

- Cheers. This will be my final reply on the matter. Thanks.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul