Pegasus Research Consortium

well here in rural boonies America we have lost two papers this week..not a good sign imo
when all we have left is the internet we can be channeled faster to what "THEY" want  us to know because the truth of what is happening is so well buried  and there are no other opinions being seen in print   ..sure wish I had an answer besides 'don't believe anything."

fact checkers for that dependable institution  nat geo have been eliminated by murdocks need for more money
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/forum/index.php?topic=8907.0



and this article about the rich guys taking over Puerto Rico (it's long)is even more of a confirmation that we are in deep
deep s h I t


The Shady, Billion-Dollar Battle For Puerto Rico's Future
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/20/us/politics/puerto-rico-money-debt.html



and here is yet another human walking away because no one seems to care.

whoa.. maybe I should just go find some vampire romances  now.. they're about as real as anything being published..aren't they..
sad sad day  :'(



Columnist Who Debunks Internet Hoaxes Gives Up Because People Don't Care



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/12/18/what-was-fake-on-the-internet-this-week-why-this-is-the-final-column/

By Caitlin Dewey December 18
The Intersect

What was fake on the Internet this week: Why this is the final column

There is nothing — NOTHING — too crazy for the Internet hoax beat. Pregnancy by flu shot? Six days of total darkness? In the past 82 weeks, I'm prettyyyy sure I've seen just about everything.

We launched "What was Fake" in May 2014 in response to what seemed, at the time, like an epidemic of urban legends and Internet pranks: light-hearted, silly things, for the most part, like new flavors of Oreos and babies with absurd names.

Since then, those sorts of rumors and pranks haven't slowed down, exactly, but the pace and tenor of fake news has changed. Where debunking an Internet fake once involved some research, it's now often as simple as clicking around for an "about" or "disclaimer" page. And where a willingness to believe hoaxes once seemed to come from a place of honest ignorance or misunderstanding, that's frequently no longer the case. Headlines like "Casey Anthony found dismembered in truck" go viral via old-fashioned schadenfreude — even hate.

There's a simple, economic explanation for this shift: If you're a hoaxer, it's more profitable. Since early 2014, a series of Internet entrepreneurs have realized that not much drives traffic as effectively as stories that vindicate and/or inflame the biases of their readers. Where many once wrote celebrity death hoaxes or "satires," they now run entire, successful websites that do nothing but troll convenient minorities or exploit gross stereotypes. Paul Horner, the proprietor of Nbc.com.co and a string of other very profitable fake-news sites, once told me he specifically tries to invent stories that will provoke strong reactions in middle-aged conservatives. They share a lot on Facebook, he explained; they're the ideal audience.

[Meet Paul Horner, one of the Internet's most prolific hoaxers]

As manipulative as that may seem, many other sites are worse: there's Now8News, which runs outrageous crime stories next to the stolen mugshots of poor, often black, people; or World News Daily Report, which delights in inventing items about foreigners, often Muslims, having sex with or killing animals.


Needless to say, there are also more complicated, non-economic reasons for the change on the Internet hoax beat. For evidence, just look at some of the viral stories we've debunked in recent weeks: American Muslims rallying for ISIS, for instance, or Syrians invading New Orleans. Those items didn't even come from outright fake-news sites: They originated with partisan bloggers who know how easy it is to profit off fear-mongering.

Frankly, this column wasn't designed to address the current environment. This format doesn't make sense. I've spoken to several researchers and academics about this lately, because it's started to feel a little pointless. Walter Quattrociocchi, the head of the Laboratory of Computational Social Science at IMT Lucca in Italy, has spent several years studying how conspiracy theories and misinformation spread online, and he confirmed some of my fears: Essentially, he explained, institutional distrust is so high right now, and cognitive bias so strong always, that the people who fall for hoax news stories are frequently only interested in consuming information that conforms with their views — even when it's demonstrably fake.

[A researcher explains why hoaxes flourish on the social Web]

Had I written this column as normal this week, I probably would have included, say, this widely shared post on Before It's News that claimed an Alaska judge called for Obama's arrest. But Quattrociocchi has found (and this is perhaps intuitive) that the sort of readers who would unskeptically share such a far-fetched story site are exactly the readers who will not be convinced by The Washington Post's debunking.

To me, at least, that represents a very weird moment in Internet discourse — an issue I also addressed earlier this week. At which point does society become utterly irrational? Is it the point at which we start segmenting off into alternate realities?

"What Was Fake" has had a good run, but the nature of Internet misinformation has changed — so as the year winds up, we're going to change, as well. Thanks for reading over the past year and a half! And remember: If in doubt about a news item on an unfamiliar source, please click the "about" or "disclaimer" tab.

Unfortunately, most people don't want facts or even the truth, they want to be right, so they accept any thing that supports their own ideas.

Perhaps its time we try a different approach here

Not sure yet what or how  but something

On the PLUS side  about this time last year we were getting 35,000ish unique monthly hits on the website

Today it is over 110,000   

(https://scontent.flas1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10152510_548285315348016_580078917390245235_n.jpg?oh=ce03977002455226efaae4de860618b6&oe=56D4C3C2)


These numbers are starting to attract advertisers without me asking

So maybe a new direction for the forum in January   I have some ideas  Will run them by ya

OH BTW Little Enki has requested to be allowed back in  He says he will play nice :D I posted it here so I can get opinions

hey Z
I vote yes for dave..and I have been thinking that maybe a second opening for the folks that left (not of their own choice and not all of them  :( ) would be a nice Christmas gift...there were  some good ideas tossed around as long as you were here to babysit any infringement

maybe as I went from sky otter to space otter.. they could add something so we would id them
as friends coming back
no I'm not stupid about it.. one out of line step ( your rules) and it's off with their heads..bwhahahahah

I do miss some of those guys


and I vote for a magic section....all kinds of magic from basic kindness to hocus pocus to poof other stuff...

ok steelers are finally winning so I is smiling and full of  seasonal spirits



oh yeah.. that's pretty cool news about the numbers  8)

I say yep for anyone that wants a do over.

I know, I know... that's a pretty broad brush but that's my take.

Quote from: zorgon on December 21, 2015, 12:44:31 AM
On the PLUS side  about this time last year we were getting 35,000ish unique monthly hits on the website

Today it is over 110,000   

(https://scontent.flas1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10152510_548285315348016_580078917390245235_n.jpg?oh=ce03977002455226efaae4de860618b6&oe=56D4C3C2)

There's something wrong either with the numbers, the chart or me, I can't see that information on that chart. ???

QuoteThese numbers are starting to attract advertisers without me asking

That's good. :)

QuoteOH BTW Little Enki has requested to be allowed back in  He says he will play nice :D I posted it here so I can get opinions

If he plays nice, why not? :)

Articles such as the above frustrate me as to the distraction and diversion they encourage. People seem to uncritically equate one inaccuracy with another, without thinking of what's really important.

Thinking that Paul McCartney was dead and replaced is trivial. Realizing that the 9/11 common narrative is not credible is important. So are serious allegations that the White House ignored CIA warning of 9/11 and that they went to war with Iraq for fraudulent reasons. Of course, those discussions require a strength and independence the mainstream media do not possess. Hence, 'the fringe' ..... and polls that say the public doesn't trust the media.

In addition, I get appalled at academics who persist in ignoring the plain, straight out of a dictionary, definition of "conspiracy" as if the word or concept doesn't exist.  If rich folk get together and plan something in secret 'cause it's illegal or repellent, that's a conspiracy.  Duh....

 I will say that some former members should get a second chance; some it would be a waste of time but we can always shorten them again.  8) 

There are certain ones that I don't have to name that hopefully are banned forever; not until hell freezes over, but forever.


seeker