Web Bot

Web Bot

Craft (guest) 26 Oct 2010 06:06

Hey guys!

Yea i'm new to the site so i'm not sure if this topic has been covered on this forum yet so if it has I apologize.

I've heard alot about 2012 lately, done some research on this site and some others and it seems pretty clear that the end of the world will not be happening in 2012. Although i'm not sure if i missed it in your column on the left, but i have found that the "web bot" predictions are fairly interesting, especially since its been claimed to have predicted some past events (Supposivly 9/11 and the Space Shuttle Columbia Incident) Just wondering if you guys have an article that i missed that debunks this and if not, what your thoughts are.

Thanks!

Moo (guest) 26 Oct 2010 06:41

Alright, let's get one thing straight about the web.bot, or spider bots. Do you know how they function and gather their information? Let me briefly explain, if not.

Basically, web.bot gathers information by collecting data over the entire whole of the world wide web, with a few filters in place. Anything that mentions web.bot is filtered out.

Now, basically, I can pretty much tell you flat out how this works with that in mind. Consider the fact 2012 is becoming a major topic now. web.bot will show a spike in 'activity' in 2012, especially on the 12/21/2012 date. This is because of how often it's being spoken about.

web.bot doesn't really give you 'predictions' per-say. It just shows a spike in 'activity' on dates that are largely talked about. For example, the Space Shuttle Columbia Incident is easy to explain: it was a widely talked about subject. Space shuttle launches back then were exciting news. Thus, it got around a lot, and web.bot showed spiked activity.

As for 9/11, I call BS on that one. Unless people are going by web.bot getting the spike of information on the day itself, I call this one to be total nonsense. Again, web.bot only 'predicts' events through how often they are spoken of on the internet. Unless 9/11 had significance aside from the WTC tragedy, I'm sure people are just full of it. Prior to 9/11, the date supposedly did have some talk about it, which web.bot picked up on.

Ultimately, here is a good video about it. http://www.endlessyoutube.com/watch?v=HJBVtMK-6Iw I put this on EndlessYoutube so you can avoid the stupid Suggestions sidebar of Woo Videos. This guy gives you a good idea of what the program can do.

Ultimately, web.bot is not 'psychic', it can not 'predict' anything. It simply takes information off the internet and adds it to spiked activity in the near future. This is not a prediction, this is simply investigative work.

komickaze (guest) 26 Oct 2010 22:42

Moo,

As a frequent visitor to www.urbansurvival.com and www.halfpasthuman.com, the sites run by the web bot guys George Ure and Cliff High, repectively, I can tell you obviously haven't read their explanation of how the technology works. I suggest reading http://urbansurvival.com/simplebots.htm and http://www.halfpasthuman.com/altaprocess.html to get the facts before you criticize it. I also suggest listening to the July 4, 2007 broadcast of Coast to Coast AM where Cliff gives a very good summary of how the technology works.

I quote, "…the technology doesn't come out and say "go look for a terrorist attack over there" What it does is gives phrases that would be associated with how people talk about an event, or more accurately, how they change their speech to reflect their thought processes because of an event (after)."

A lot can be inferred from the language and grammar people use. Ask any English professor or politician and they'll tell you the same. It is the nuances in language that the web bot technology looks at. These nuances can be used intentionally for various things, such as sensationalizing the news, exagerating prophecy, and even to convince people the events surrounding 2012 are a hoax. (Keep that in mind when you read around this site).

Astrogeek 26 Oct 2010 22:53

I don't know if Moo has read the web.bot site or not.

I have.

It's nonsense. Their basic premise is that "everybody is psychic", and that by parsing the web for search terms which they categorize in various ways, they can make these predictions.

Clif High said¹:

From 1997 to 2001 I deduced some of the following principals: All people are psychic. Most don’t know it. Even if you do know it, it does not impact the next statement I’m going to make, which is: That all humans leak out these psychic impressions in the language that they choose to use in ordinary conversation. And that was my basic premise to begin with.

My working theory from that point was that if one could sample enough of the conversations going on around the planet and sift for the nuance between why one word might be chosen in an ordinary conversation as opposed to another word for the same conversation that basically you’d had a week ago, then one could determine what is moving us, if you will, at an unconscious level and be able to make some forecasts from that in a very interesting way. Sort of an extension, if you will, of my work, of the focus of it in 1997, which was commercial.

From all appearances, they make their living by selling these predictions. I have not been able to obtain any independent confirmation of their past 'hits', and regardless of their statements, their predictions are so vague that they can mean just about anything.

Footnotes

1. http://projectcamelot.org/lang/en/clif_high_half_past_human_26_sept_2008_en.html

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Astrogeek 26 Oct 2010 22:55

Also, note the following in bold print on the 'halfpasthuman' link you posted:

Please note that our interpretations are provided as entertainment only. We are to be held harmless for universe placing substance behind our words. Or not, as it so chooses.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

mike1986 26 Oct 2010 22:59

Possibly a Web Bot page is in order.

Astrogeek 26 Oct 2010 23:21

we have an unfinished one at web.bot

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Komickaze (guest) 27 Oct 2010 03:20

Although Cliff admits that his presumption that everyone is psychic was the premise that started the project, this doesn't change the fact that the technology works and proves his hypothesis.

And as far as the disclaimer on their web site (see astrogeek's comment below), there is a legitimate legal reason for this. Cliff originally developed this software as a way for HIM to make money on the stock market. By analyzing the language people were using in forums around the Internet, he was able to successfully profit from the market. Because it was designed for this purpose, sharing of the information in the ALTA reports for the purpose of allowing others to profit from securities trading is illegal if you are not a financial advisor. The disclaimer is to keep the SEC off their back even though the technology isn't being used for that anymore.

But if you actually read the sites and listened to their interviews you would already know that.

Not knowing the facts makes you uninformed. Disregarding the facts makes you ignorant.

Moo (guest) 27 Oct 2010 03:49

Except it doesn't prove the technology works or his hypothesis was correct. You can look at it from how he 'says' it works, or you can look at it from how I say it 'works'.

My version makes perfect sense, plain and simple.

His versions involves magical powers.

Amongst all this, he is also committing fraud? Nice, nice.

Komickaze (guest) 27 Oct 2010 04:07

Moo,

You didn't create the software so you are in no position to say how it does or doesn't work. You are obviously ignoring the facts and making false claims about something you clearly know nothing about. Ignorance like that is more dangerous and destructive than the claims made on the homepage of this site. You are practicing the same destructive tactics you accuse 2012 proponents of, which makes you even less credible than they are.

Unlike you, they are capable of providing evidence to prove their claims.

Komickaze (guest) 27 Oct 2010 04:35

Let me revise my last statement:

They are capable of providing evidence to SUPPORT their claims.

It was not my intention to imply the claims of 2012 proponents were proven and factual.

This little slip-up does prove Cliff's theory, though. My personal belief in the 2012 phenomenon led me to inadvertently use the word "prove" when I really meant "support". My choice of one over the other was based in emotion because of frustration over Moo's comment and thus a stronger word was chosen. It wasn't a conscious decision, it just happened that way.

And that's part of the basis for his hypothesis. Emotional changes result in a shift in language that the individual may not be aware of and sometimes these emotional changes occur before the event occurs.

Want some more evidence? Some people get headaches that precede earthquakes. This is a biological response to an event that hasn't happened yet. This biological response can lead to an emotional response (ever get cranky when you have a headache?) and a shift in language that, if analyzed linguistically, may allude to an impending earthquake.

Astrogeek 27 Oct 2010 05:07

I can agree with the linguistics portion of this statement. People can use different words at different times, and analyzing why such words are chosen can be interesting.

I would like to see some data (i.e., not a news report or a claim on somebody's website) on the headaches preceding earthquakes. People get headaches all of the time. I have one now. If an earthquake happens in the next few hours (an unremarkable likelihood, I live nearly on top of the San Andreas) should I count that as a hit? How far ahead of the earthquake does the headache occur? When does a headache not predict an earthquake? How far away from the epicenter should be counted as a 'miss' or a 'hit'?

Seriously, you can't simply toss these things off and not support them.

I have read the text of one of the ALTA reports before (about a year ago, IIRC)… to call it 'nonspecific' would be a massive understatement. There's a bit of a sample at http://www.rense.com/general69/webbotrun806.htm

What about that prediction for August/September 2006? What happened? Anything significant?

Is that a hit or a miss?

As far as I can tell, Ure and High simply churn out these things and then let people run through and pick out the 'hits'. I asked this question elsewhere: Is anyone counting the 'misses'?

You do know what 'enumeration of favorable circumstances' means, right? This human tendency is why casinos announce big wins with sirens and lights, and a big to-do, while the losing continues on in silence.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Komickaze (guest) 27 Oct 2010 06:06

I am so glad you posted that Rense.com link! That is a reposting of the 2-2-06 update to urbansurvival.com, George Ure's site. In it he talks about his hits and misses and is a good read for everyone.

I remember this day clearly, because it was the following day I began investing in silver due to his comments. I've since made quite a bit of money on my silver investments (silver was at around $12/oz then and is nearing $24/oz today).

The August/September 2006 window? This was the beginning of the economic collapse we are in the middle of now. The precursor events began to shed light at this time. By December, talk of the problems became mainstream when Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, Inc, said in an interview on Fox News that in 2007, "real estate prices would come crashing down to Earth." George said the events for that time would be "100 times the emotional impact of Katrina and Rita combined." Considering we are still in the middle of this economic crisis, with thousand of lost jobs, homes, broken families, and bank fiascos, this qualifies as a hit.

Astrogeek 27 Oct 2010 06:18

No, the 'beginning of the economic collapse' occurred (as reflected in the DJIA) in late 2007 to early 2008. Unless you're talking about the housing market which began to decline in late 2005. Of course both of those occurred due to decisions made back as far as the Clinton administration.

Try again.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

komickaze (guest) 28 Oct 2010 16:53

The economic collapse began with the bursting of the housing bubble that began in 2005 with a gradual increase in subprime mortgage defaults and housing prices peaking in the second quarter of 2006. The decline in housing prices began that summer. By the middle of the following quarter (July-September) many people started to realize what was occurring and tensions started to mount about the consequences. This tension and the language leading up to it is what the web bots picked up on.

Having read their interviews and articles yourself, you know that the software doesn't pickup on any specific event. Rather, it picks up the emotional shift in language that alludes to a possible event. Sometimes, events happen within the timeframe given by a specific "descriptor set", as they call it, that match other details within the same set. This is what they call a "hit".

Their own "woo" description for the process is not a reference to how it works, but why it works. How it works is purely technical. They are just making their own assumption as to why. Hence George Ure's qualifying word "apparently" in the quote you referenced regarding "preconcious awareness". Cliff High's assumption sounds quite matter-of-fact, but it is just an assumption and an opinion.

In some ways I believe them, but because of the nature of the technology you have to take into account that some people that post stuff on the internet that the web bots pickup actually know what is happening.

Going back to the financial crisis, there were many economists and others in the industry that knew this was coming long before the rest of us did. Not because they were psychic, but because they were connected or involved. Some of these people posted information on the internet that either blatently mentioned it or alluded to it and the web bots picked it up.

Because there were fewer references early on, the web bots took into account the frequency of words used and was able to estimate a timeframe as things progressed. Thus we have a "perceived" prediction of things to come. It's not magic. It's not "preconcious awareness". It's math and some VERY creative and intelligent linguistic processing and computer programming.

Astrogeek 28 Oct 2010 17:48

The "woo" is not only the proposed mechanism (picking up on "psychic" or "precognitive" use of language) but also on the way it is used, where people go through the ALTA reports after the fact and pick out the 'hits'.

I think Ben Tremblay's critique is to the point:

Being in the computer engineering domain, I think I can see where the Web Bots will succeed and where it will fail. There are fields I believe the Web Bots can predict stuff and there are field they can’t. What are these fields? Well, essentially, anything “man-made” could be predicted in some way and anything man has no control over can’t be predicted. This is for the plain and simple reason that the Web Bots crawl the Internet for data and the Internet is actually man-made. So, the only data that can be collected is data written by people/government/companies,etc. I don’t see how you can predict a natural disaster or anything like that by simply crawling the Web. The only thing you can get by crawling is facts or opinions, nothing else. The only way I can see predicting natural disasters or anything not man related is if the Web Bots actually crawls 3 000 blogs/websites written by specialists of a certain domain and that they are pointing towards a similar conclusion.¹

In addition, the web.bot influences the very 'internet chatter' it is supposed to be basing its analysis on.

So, the mechanism is suspect, the use is suspect, and the information it gathers is tainted by their own publications.

Footnotes

1. http://www.dailycommonsense.com/web-bot-what-is-it-can-it-predict-stuff/

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Last edited on 28 Oct 2010 18:09 by Astrogeek Show more

komickaze (guest) 28 Oct 2010 20:38

The ALTA reports and the process that generated them are not woo. The individual reader's interpretation and understanding is what creates woo in their own mind.

Are you familiar with Arthur C. Clarke's laws of prediction? Specifically the third one which states, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." You presume the technology is magic. I presume the technology is sufficiently advanced.

In any case, no one, not even Cliff High, knows exactly WHY it works the way it does, or why it "appears" to be woo.

Astrogeek 27 Oct 2010 04:13

technology works and proves his hypothesis.

No, it doesn't do that.

Again, the 'predictions' are vague and non-specific. Have you read them? I have. I have listened to Clif and George in interviews, and read their papers. As far as I am concerned it's all bafflegab.

Second of all, Ure and High's proposed mechanism is woo. Ure says:

The web bot technology apparently taps in to an area of preconscious awareness.

and High says:

… all humans leak out these psychic impressions in the language that they choose to use in ordinary conversation.

I can accept that the spiders can gather information from the web and that the data can be processed to form contextual relationships. Big deal. The basic premise of the web.bot is still flawed, and I do not accept the ability of the populace to form "preconscious awareness" or "psychic impressions".

It is nonsense.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Komickaze (guest) 27 Oct 2010 05:25

Well that sums it up right there. You can't believe it therefore it's nonsense. Whether you believe or not doesn't change how the
software works, and the reports that come from it do appear
to be forecasting future events.

As I said, I'm a frequent visitor to their websites. I've read many ALTA reports since 2007, listened to every interview they've done on Coast to Coast AM and a few others, and I understand on a technical level how the whole system works. I can say with confidence that I know more about it than most people.

You are correct that the reports are vague, but it's near impossible to be specific when you are dealing with subtle subconscious shifts in language across tens of thousands of forums.

You believe that psychic abilities aren't possible and I know through personal experience that they are. In either case our beliefs have no bearing on the validity of the web bot technology, which works as designed regardless of what we believe.

If Bill Gates said he got the idea for Windows when he was abducted by aliens and given the technology telepathically, would that change the fact that it's running on your computer and allowing you to read this in the first place? Of course it doesn't. Not any more than the woo explanation Cliff and George gave for the predictions gleaned from the ALTA reports.

Astrogeek 27 Oct 2010 05:42

You can't believe it therefore it's nonsense.

That is a serious mis-statement of my position.

I do not believe the claims of psychic mass prediction because the authors have failed to show that it is real. In addition, I question the validity of their results, based on the fact that people comb through them and pick out the 'hits' after the fact.

I understand on a technical level how the whole system works

Great. Then you won't mind describing the mechanism behind the 'psychic' bit?

In either case our beliefs have no bearing on the validity of the web bot technology, which works as designed regardless of what we believe.

Perhaps it does work as designed. It certainly seems to work on you.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Moo (guest) 27 Oct 2010 05:50

"If Bill Gates said he got the idea for Windows when he was abducted by aliens and given the technology telepathically, would that change the fact that it's running on your computer and allowing you to read this in the first place? Of course it doesn't. Not any more than the woo explanation Cliff and George gave for the predictions gleaned from the ALTA reports."

That was a weak way to try to justify the two, and completely dodge every statement and question Astrogeek asked in both his posts. You used fantasy to try to justify, well… fantasy. That really damages the case you're trying to support. Please use a real-life scenario to justify the Web.Bot, please.

The core problem with this psychic mumbo-jumbo isn't that it can't exist (even if I firmly believe it's hogwash), but you're expecting me to believe a machine, a 'being' with no soul, no true mind, and no 'feelings', is able to do so. It doesn't work this way.

A machine cannot look 'between the lines' to seek out 'the psychic truth'. A machine can only process what it is shown. Again, it cannot feel, it has no soul, and it has no true mind. A machine is not capable of these things, at least not on the scale they expect us to accept the Web.Bot is on.

"Well that sums it up right there. You can't believe it therefore it's nonsense. Whether you believe or not doesn't change how the software works, and the reports that come from it do appear to be forecasting future events."

Actually, I'm pretty sure Astrogeek is looking at this from a skeptics point of you. You're doing the perfect example of Woo Defense here, however. It's not a matter of 'can't believe'. It's a matter of 'won't believe unless some actual proof is presented'. I agree with this logic. To accept something at face value with no evidence is ludicrous.

This is just like modern prophecy, really. Be as vague as possible and let someone else make you famous. Go go Web.Bot!

Regardless, I've said how the Web.Bot really works, or in reality how Spider Bots work, which is exactly what the Web.Bot is. It is not a magical robot of immense depth. It is a Spider Bot with a different name, with two Woo-Artists making it out to do things it clearly does not, and allows the populace at large who have fallen for it's lies to make it out to be more than meets the eye.

On a final note, it is not difficult to look at an entire text based conversation to see how one's mood shifts during it. This is what Spiders do. This is what they were designed for. In fact, for someone who has done text-based roleplaying for years? This is EXTREMELY easy for me to do.

But, ultimately, the true way the Web.Bot works is by looking at Spider Bots. End of story.

Komickaze (guest) 27 Oct 2010 03:54

Astrogeek,

They dont make their living from these predictions. Cliff is an IT Professional and George is a financial advisor and a farmer, among other things.

And it's not predictions they are selling. The software gathers the text, assigns numeric values to the words based on an emotional quotient, dumps it into a 3D model space (a CAD application), and the data is analyzed by Cliff and his associate manually to try and make sense of the word groupings. Their analysis is organized and put into what they call an ALTA report (the acronym escapes me at this late hour). The report itself predicts nothing, and in fact is just their analysis of the word groupings and how the appear in the 3D modelspace.

It becomes a prediction in the hands of a reader of the report who may find some similarity to an event after the fact. It's because of these historical and repeated similarities ("hits") that they, as well as others, have recognized it as a means to predict the future.

Had they not been successful and accurate, we wouldn't be talking about it here. If you want confirmation of past hits, all previous ALTA reports are available for purchase from Www.halfpasthuman.com.

Astrogeek 27 Oct 2010 04:15

It's because of these historical and repeated similarities ("hits") that they, as well as others, have recognized it as a means to predict the future.

Have they counted the misses?

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

TheGreatJuju 27 Oct 2010 06:33

If you want confirmation of past hits, all previous ALTA reports are available for purchase from Www.halfpasthuman.com.

But of course!

And it's not predictions they are selling.

They are ultimately selling the claim that they can make predictions, regardless of what you claim about that claim.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Last edited on 27 Oct 2010 06:40 by TheGreatJuju Show more

komickaze (guest) 28 Oct 2010 20:10

You failed to read his comment properly. He said he "deduced", which means he came to the conclusion after the fact. He didn't develop the technology because he assumed everyone was psychic. He assumed everyone was psychic because of the results he was getting from the software.

You also conveniently left out the preceeding paragraphs, which clearly show how he developed the software and prove my point:

komickaze (guest) 28 Oct 2010 20:11

Forgot to include the text:

I’ll give you the basic spiel on the thing and we’ll go from there. And in 1994 I came across this idea that I called “The Language Model for Storing Data” while working for some of the high-tech… well, the largest software companies on the planet.

And finally over time I wrote some software to support the idea, in an attempt to mine the internet for emotions around the idea of stocks and bonds, with the idea that, if I knew how people felt about them, I could predict what their reaction would be to developing news, ahead of their being able to make that actual reaction themselves…with the idea that this could be sold as a profit-making kind of a venture.

And in 1997 I came across something that totally flipped my mind about this whole idea, in the sense that I went looking for Stanford University Network, a stock at the time, and came across “suns” because… in terms of the fuller energy source we’ve got for us… and noticed that there were some really interesting things going on in the language I was picking up.

Moo (guest) 26 Oct 2010 23:38

Don't care, because both sites are dumb and have clauses to prevent me from ripping them open by exposing their LIES.

If you're telling the truth, you don't need a liability clause. :|

komickaze (guest) 28 Oct 2010 17:28

Craft,

Instead of learning about it second hand, check out the sites of the web bot guys themselves:

http://urbansurvival.com/simplebots.htm
http://www.halfpasthuman.com/altaprocess.html

These two links will tell you everything you need to know about how the technology actually works. Also, if you visit www.urbansurvival.com/week.htm every day you can follow some of the updates that come from the reports. If you read it frequently enough, you'll quickly learn that it's not magic or psychic or anything like that. It's just software doing what it was designed to do.

Craft (guest) 26 Oct 2010 06:50

Aight cool, didn't know too much about it so i figured i wld ask you guys, thanks for the info!

Moo (guest) 26 Oct 2010 07:19

No problem, Craft. It's what we're here for. As I've said before, and web.bot proves, 'we' are the cause of 2012. Not some fake prophecy. The date would be as insignificant in the grand scheme of things to us as it was to the Maya if some people didn't blow it out of the scope of reality.

And, honestly, we can barely make A.I. in video games remotely intelligent in a fashion that deems the process worthwhile in the long run. You want me to believe that some computer program is 'psychic', 'omnipotent', and can flawlessly read every language?

Har. Har. Har. The concept that web.bot is fluent in every language is ludicrous at absolute best. Machines cannot go beyond our own level of intelligence at this time. Find me someone who has mastered EVERY language on this earth, for example. And I mean absolutely mastered.

'tis one of the many reasons why web.bot is dumb.

mike1986 27 Oct 2010 23:39

Colbert Report did a piece on the Web Bot and it was on the show earlier today If anyone cares.

Moo (guest) 28 Oct 2010 01:00

Care to give a summary on it?

3WMElliott 28 Oct 2010 01:53

Or a link. Must be online somewhere. I really should go Google me some Colbert Report…

komickaze (guest) 28 Oct 2010 17:23

Moo,

You're saying web bot is dumb because you believe that a computer program is incapable of flawlessly reading every language. Ever heard of Rosetta Stone? They run commercials for it on multiple TV stations around the country hundreds, if not thousands of times a day. You know what it is? It's a computer program that not only is capable of reading every language, it teaches you how to do it, too.

One of the other computer programs developed by Cliff High is a speed reading program. Some of the technology developed in this program was also used in the web bot software. If you read the history of the project you would know this. To translate and incorporate other languages into it is actually quite easy and only takes time. It doesn't require the programmer to actually know the language.

Do you know what it actually takes to create A.I.? Do you realize the processing power and storage requirements needed to make it actually appear intelligent? Not to mention the cost of paying the staff to create it. These resources are well beyond what a game developer is willing to spend and exceed the capabilities of the platform they are developing for (PC, XBox360, PS3, etc).

You're basically just trying to discredit the technology because you don't understand it. Next time try doing a little bit of research first.

UngaMan (guest) 28 Oct 2010 18:30

Hello,

interesting discussion you have here.

About the Rosetta Stone: that is not a computer program. Is a tablet containing a the same passage written in 3 different languages. Just like the multi-lingual sings we find everywhere where population is mixed. (I actually found funny to read English and Spanish signs in the subway from Alewife to Harvard)

As an computer and systems engineer, I KNOW there is NO WAY for a computer to understand the semantics of a conversation. Natural language is not meant for computers, no matter how hard SciFi movies and books sell this idea to us. Even us, humans, fail to understand text conversations like chats or Play by Email games (go Starbase 118!). We humans tend to imprint our own mood and emotions to the written text. How many time we failed in understanding one simple message sent by mail? We have to ask for confirmation and clarification.

A web bot program collects data and that's it. The interpretation of this collection is deeply attached to the reader's mood and interest.

i.e.: People that believes in UFO will always see them EVERYWHERE… even in the soup bowl… no matter how hard the evidence showing the contrary is presented to them. They just… "want to believe…"

Clear skies!

Moo (guest) 28 Oct 2010 19:40

Huh. I really should have researched Rosetta Stone. I honestly didn't even care to do that. My mistake, that's amateur of a debunker for me to do. Thanks for the assist, UngaMan.

komickaze (guest) 28 Oct 2010 19:57

Wrong Rosetta Stone UngaMan. Here's what I'm talking about:

http://www.rosettastone.com/

I'm also a computer and systems engineer. I'm also a keen listener and an avid reader. If you LISTEN to Cliff High's interviews and READ the description of the technology on http://urbansurvival.com/simplebots.htm and http://www.halfpasthuman.com/altaprocess.html, you'll understand how it works. Ever heard of Prolog? It's a programming language DESIGNED to be used for "understand the semantics of a conversation" and has been around since the early 70's. It's based on computational linguistics principles that have been around since the 50's. We're talking about 60 year old technology here!

The web bot technology developed by Cliff High is unlike any spider bot software and uses these principles. It crawls over 100,000 forums, pulls the information into a custom prolog app, assigns values to words based on tense and emotional impact (and a few other criteria), models them in a 3D application to look for word groupings, and then it's analysed manually by Cliff and Igor.

Read the sites. Understand the technology. THEN form your opinion.

Moo (guest) 28 Oct 2010 18:09

No, I am not saying the ability of a machine understanding, flawlessly, every written and spoken language is impossible. I am saying to do this, and OTHER tasks, is beyond to be accepted. You are telling me Web.Bot can do all this, AND read psychic messages, AND read 'energy', AND predict natural disasters, AND AND AND AND AND…

YOU are giving too much credit to something that is easily explained from a technological point of view. Nothing more.

Convince me Web.Bot can do what Rosetta Stone can do, and more. As well as pick up on make-believe fantasy psychic powers. Sorry, they don't exist. As much as you want them to.

And go ahead and call me out on not accepting them. They flat out do not exist. The closest thing you can get to 'psychic power' is simple awareness.

komickaze (guest) 28 Oct 2010 19:41

Once again you continue to show that you know nothing about how the web bot software works, even though the creators explain it in great detail on their web sites.

The web bit software CANT read psychic messages or energy. Your assumption that it can is false and based in your own ignorance.

Describing the web bot technology from a technological point of view is exactly what I have been doing. My point for you, Moo, is that your assumptions for how it works from a technological point of view is wrong. Your initial reply to Craft's post has you assuming that the web bot technology picks up the information after the fact or during the event and that's where the "predictions" come from. This assumption is false and I felt it appropriate to correct you and point you in the right direction for the right information. It's not my point to make you believe it or not, only to make sure you have your facts straight.

Moo (guest) 28 Oct 2010 19:48

No, I corrected that assumption. That was flawed logic on my half. I don't need you repeating this when I even corrected it in a future posting, or even in the same post I'm too damn lazy to check.

Regardless, the given logic by Web.Bot's creators is flawed. End of story. Also, I didn't REALLY assume the thing could read psychic messages or energy or some nonsense, I just felt like sounding crazy for a while. Why? Because the whole logical behind the Web.Bot is about as stable sounding as that logic is.

It's a spider bot, nothing more.

komickaze (guest) 28 Oct 2010 20:21

In a public forum on a site that is trying to convince people that proponents of 2012 are frauds kooks, and crazies, the last thing you or anyone else here needs to be doing is sounding crazy and ignorant.

If you want the visitors to this site to take you and the information seriously, say it straight with facts and evidence to support your position and leave the "sounding crazy" out of it. You only discredit yourself and your position when you don't.

Moo (guest) 28 Oct 2010 21:30

Actually, I do it for the lulz. Turning it back around on me won't work because, frankly, everyone here knows that I'm silly. Also, this is the discussion forum section, not the official databank. People are advised to read the sidebar, not read what goes on here.

For the record, I don't write the articles. I just point and laugh at people. I'm also comic relief and the Attack Dog of the website. By the way, I haven't ripped your neck out yet, have I?

Woof.