Litmus Test

casseia's picture

This was a comment made by Erin S. Myers in Jon Gold's current (weekly?) Sibel Edmonds thread at apt911b.  I should note that I did not ask Erin for permission to repost this -- and if he has a problem I will remove it at once.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is the simplified version of a 'litmus test' developed over the
last several years which seems to work moderately well. However, just
remember that here, there are no real absolutes and the results should
be incorporated into a much larger intel gathering process and analysis
which continually affords the best benefits of doubt to the subject
BEFORE gravitating toward conclusions, and especially before any plans
of action are chosen or executed.

Also, this is a test which can only be expected to produce a
positive vs. inconclusive result. There is no such "negative" result
that can ever be fully trusted in some "final decision making" process.
So if one is searching for such, my advice would be to give up that
quest as soon as possible... and set off on a new one.

The administrator of the test can employ a vast multitude of varying
approaches, and multiplicity of combinations over time... while always
considering the stated, implied, apparent or possible position of the
subject. The greater the variety, combination, and time... the ever
increasing reliability one may expect. In other words, this activity
must be 'practiced', but there should never be an expectation of

The administrator of the test can choose to not, OR simultaneously,
tip the hand of the administrator's own personal opinions, yet should
be cautious and observant to hints that they may have injected their
own biases or inaccuracies into the subject's returning opinion. This
is a very natural dynamic as it can aid in the spread of good
information, but also carries the risks (or intention, by the willfully
manipulative) of spreading bad information.

The results of this ever continuing testing can be used in many
different ways, yet my personal interest in its application here is for
self-determinations of scheduling the best use of one's own precious
time. Also, the more important the subject matter is to one's quest,
the more time may be required toward reaching a tough but necessary
"cut-off" or "break-away" decision. This sets up a difficult Catch22,
so choices may very widely from one individual to the next.

At its core, this litmus testing seeks to understand if I'm working WITH someone, or effectively FOR someone.

x) Do I want to keep listening, talking with, or about this person?
(Sibel Edmonds makes a great example, since this is a blog about her.)

x) Does she genuinely seek results that could better BOTH of our
conditions? She says so, with carrots like "freedom of speech" and
"accountability in government", yet herself gestures to an intractable
condition while holding the very key to unlocking her own chains. Thus
the absurdity of her "poor me drama". She points to her ball-gag, and
tells us what a travesty it is. She invokes a vague fear of immoral
penalty, should she break the immoral bonds imposed by immoral bondage.
This has become outright silly.

x) Does she listen to others and incorporate differing perspectives,
or simply just enough to hear and respond from/for her own condition
and further her's back upon me? Responds by not responding. 9/11 study,
truth or justice seeking need no help from a person who's been invited
innumerable times to educate herself about the domestic components of
the 911 crime scene, and reciprocate sympathies by EITHER incorporating
the material, or critiquing it. Even if that is by simply gesturing
"hot" or "cold" in some drawn-out scavenger hunt. She's done little I
see as genuinely productive even/especially when asked point blank.
When advised that this particular failure of action might force a hand
"not in favor" of further support... the subject was simply changed. I
hold the names of at least two others having directly assisted in this

At this point, I reached my lowest opinion of this person, Sibel Edmonds.

Another option available to her, which she stunningly avoided as
well... would have been to indicate by any means that she 'couldn't',
'wouldn't' or 'not at this time'... almost anything. However changing
the subject, and not for the first time, became THE deal breaker. For
as much as this girl could talk and talk and talk... it's particularly
suspicious to me that she could not produce even a monosyllabic grunt
per such a request.

x) Does she actively seek new and improved information by asking
direct questions, as opposed to "asking questions to the air" which no
one present could be expected privy to reliable answers? She invites
sibelologists to search ENDLESSLY to hunt the labyrinth of dastardly
deeds in far off lands, and sneer at the walking edifices to U.S.
governmental corruption... yet kneels in prayer before its very
enablers. This, I can not figure out.

x) Does she display a desire and inclination to incorporate NEW
material into an ever evolving narrative, which improves its ability to
describe the world around us through reducing complexity in elucidation
formula? Does she PRODUCE solid and revelatory [introspective] points?
No. I have not heard from her a believably humble introspection, let
alone introspection as demonstrated leadership needed to actually
solving the deeply strayed character of her adopted land.

She may be hold-harmless in this continuing tragedy (a "benefit of
doubt" border-lining my personal embarrassment)... but if she can't
even help herself at this point... how could I retain some hope that
she could help me? Especially after offering my own hand so many times?

If, and I say again IF, sibelology was originally created or simply
hijacked for on of the most time consuming versions of
"MK-Cointelling-Bird" I've yet seen (a supposition I dare ANYONE to
accuse me of tossing about indiscriminately)... Sibel herself has
crossed a line very difficult to return from.

I told Sibel, with genuine sadness on my part, to permanently remove my details from her list of contacts.

Should you?

The 'stand-down' of constitutional defense, controlled demolition
[apparent], and the destruction of forensic evidence only possible
domestically... IS a keystone of understanding the full extent of the
"September 11th" crime against humanity. At this time, I must also
reluctantly inform you, Jon Gold... I'm personally placing you on
notice too, should you fail to evolve your narrative.

Erin S. Myers


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tahooey's picture

great post and i hope

Erin would feel comfortable enough to join us and make such excellent posts on this here blog, once the 'notice' on Jon Gold's failed evolution expires, if not sooner!

Alek Hidell's picture

Siebel is a waste of time

Thanks Erin.  I gave up on Siebel years ago when I noticed the same people pushing her story were those tools who pushed Patrick Fitzgerald as the savior of the republic.  And we know how little came of that.  Most people figured out long ago that Tom Flocco and Wayne Madsen were tools.  Why does anyone pay attention to Jon Gold at all?  Because he is a bear?  Because he has attached himself to the families and first responders like a barnacle?

Annoymouse's picture


"Why does anyone pay attention to Jon Gold at all? Because he has attached himself to the families and first responders like a barnacle?"


Alek Hidell's picture

double post removed


Big_D's picture

Excellent analysis.

very nice.

gretavo's picture

a superb statement by Erin Myers

I think the behavior of limited hangout and/or misleading distractors like Sibel and Jon Gold has to be examined in the context of the growing awareness in the mainstream that 9/11 Truth is here to stay.  As we go critical, they are scrambling to solidify what they see as a united front of feigned consensus.  What they are hoping, I think, is that once the "national debate on 9/11" starts, their team will have a head start and pre-empt any real truth from being aired.  A "shocking new revelation" here and a "previously unknown detail" there and they hope the people will say "Ohhhhh, I see what the big deal was, PAKISTAN was involved!  AND Saudi Arabia!" But wait, you say--doesn't Sibel implicate Turkey?  Sure, she hints at that for now.  I think Sibel may be part of a Zionist squeeze play on Turkey to warn them that they could become a target of American ire if they do not play ball with Israel in the region.  Turkey is being told--you want to go down with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as the next 9/11 scapegoats?  (after afghanistan and iraq?)


Divide and conquer the muslims, whether they be turks, pakistanis, or arabs.


Except that we say NO.


There is going to be a showdown--count on it--between the real and fake truth movements.  We don't have to agree on everything, but we do as real truthers have to hang together and expose any attempt at presenting a fake consensus when the truth goes mainstream.  We must fight together against limited hangout and muslim scapegoating.  This it folks, all the marbles are now in play.

Annoymouse's picture

Sibels Gold

I would vote that blog a 10 now, if i could vote again.
Lets see if it stays up. Id suggest we all keep an offline copy.
Its about time that tedybear-actor Gold and his hangout stories gets exposed. And that thread does a pretty good job at that.