Apology Faux Pas 101

In my last post, I noted that Jason Goodman had to consult his attorney before he gave his personal details to a Vedic astrologer who desired to do his birth chart.  The counsel he received from this unknown lawyer, was that Goodman was to state only the month, day, year and location of his birth.  No matter what, he was advised to keep silent as to exact time of birth. Keeping silent  is difficult for Jason Goodman, as viewers of his videos have observed in recent weeks how often he had targeted Defango with his unfounded criticisms.

I was just about to examine in detail, the July 13, 2017 YouTube video on Defango’s site, Crowdsource the Backlash/Defango is a Dangerous Criminal/RICO Case? when I noticed another video which had been put up today called, An Apology from Jason Goodman of Crowdsource the Truth/Defango’s Reply.

As I began to view this apology, which begins at the 3:41 minute mark, we hear Jason Goodman speak these words: I’ve got something to share that I think might blow both of your minds and may blow the minds of the Crowdsource Community. OK? I do owe an official apology to Manuel Chavez…

Now seldom do I point out the hand gestures which attend the spoken words of a person in a video. But at the 3:41 mark, we first see Jason Goodman look to his left, away from George Webb. As he begins his apology he gives a very prominent salute to Satan hand signal with his right hand, and from this, his hand makes several finger changes within his first two sentences. If you view these 9 seconds, the hand change between the 3:49 to the 3:50 marks is interesting.

Was a detailed, written apology sent to Defango?  It does not appear that Defango knew that an apology had been made until someone else had first viewed the Crowdsource The Truth video and advised him that Goodman had made these remarks.

While Defango is being gracious about this, this so-called apology is really no apology at all.  It would appear that someone has advised Jason Goodman that he has been digging himself a deep pit by attacking Defango. His excuse that all of his Skype texts before June 3d were deleted, and not by him, is difficult to believe because Goodman has done nothing to convince his viewing audience that he is a man of integrity.  Defango, on the other hand, has provided very detailed videos with facts and evidence which support his side of this story.

There is something going on with this matter that needs a deeper look. The exchange of words between these two men has moved so quickly, it has been hard to keep up; but as I follow it, I keep looking for that insight that has not already been expressed by the participants, other bloggers, video makers, and commenters.

In the meantime, here are some screenshots which show the four quick but distinct hand changes used to express the general apology given.

Jason Goodman looks to his left as he says, “I’ve got something to share…”

 

He holds the Satanic salute for several seconds, speaking the phrase twice “blow your minds”

He replaces the common Satan salute sign for a hand gesture with lowered thumb and third finger with 3 fingers raised

 

 

Between the 3:49 and 3:50 frame the eye catches the hand change movement between the two frames. There are four distinct hand changes within 9 seconds.

In this last frame, the real name of Defango is mentioned as he looks into the screen.

An apology which is no apology…one must wonder what the true motive is for this….

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Apology Faux Pas 101

  1. Honestly, Jason caught a lot of flack for being as undiplomatic as he was in the early days of this phenomenon. I think, or at least I took it at the time, as an effort to be a little more magnanimous. As for the hand signals, I don’t think Jason is “one of those”. Though he has never publicly claimed to be anything but a non-observant Jew, he once lightly chided George for using “Jesus Christ” in an exclamatory manner. Yeah, I guess I’m apologizing for them a bit. I don’t claim to know their thoughts or their full agenda (especially the Sweigert’s) but I like them.

    • I have no idea what Jason Goodman believes in his heart. Some find him, as well as George Webb and Trish Negron to be interesting and personable. However, there is so much drama in the manner in which they present their topics, and so little journalistic integrity, that one has to question what the purpose of all their activity is. Their antics could be laughed off as comedy, except that the Maersk Memphis dirty bomb incident was a serious and costly matter, and it was based on a false report of one of George Webb’s secret sources. Jason Goodman made one of the phone calls while on camera to the Coast Guard on June 14, 2017. I have set aside their likeability as just showmanship.

      What motivates these so-called researchers and reporters to lower the standards of investigative journalism to such a low level, that the younger generations will never have a sense of what real journalistic integrity is?

      • Define “false”. The jury is not out on that count. Maybe officially discounted. All FOIA requests of the report of any inspection, if any were actually accomplished, have been denied. I’m going to say a couple things in regard to your reporting here, and I say them as an admirer of your thoroughness and astute observation of facts. I think you may want to consider that you are on the wrong side of this. Just consider it. I like the fact that in later articles you describe Dave “Acton” Sweigert as a liar. Personally, I think he is protecting, not the establishment(s) that he has been involved with, but perhaps some of his friends within those establishment(s). Defango is a turd. Now, as to journalistic integrity: as we know, journalistic integrity does not exist (on important matters) within the MSM. So, if NYT or CNN writes an article defaming George Webb as a right wing conspiracy theorist (Bernie, Bill Clinton, and Obama supporter) and omits half of their testimony, then who is the liar? Perhaps you recognize the language of deception better than most, but are your instincts correct here? The journalistic method being employed here are a bit revolutionary and maybe a bit messy, but the claims are based on trusted sources and fact-finding by a wide group of researchers. I suppose that approach is ripe for corruption, if the “crowd” is working against the collator, but as they often say (paraphrasing), “If we say something that isn’t true, or in error, the crowd quickly corrects us.” Yes, it’s a new paradigm in journalism. Yes, it might be a little messy. Yes, it may be less structured. But it isn’t one thing, and that is: controlled by information gatekeepers looking to financially survive in a world of liars. I love that you have this “check” on the world of conspiracy. I’ll continue to take a look at your commentary. And if I’m wrong about these folks, as I’ve been wrong before, I’ll congratulate you on your foresight.

      • You ask me to define “false”. OK, I used this word in this context, “false report of one of George Webb’s secret sources”. I used the word “false” to mean “not according with truth or fact”.
        Pentagon officials made the statement, “Four containers at a shipping terminal in South Carolina were examined and cleared after a false threat of a “dirty bomb”.

        So I assume that what you are questioning with regard to the veracity of George Webb’s source, is whether there is a possibility that the report was in fact true, but official government sources lied about the evidence, and covertly dismantled and removed a dirty bomb from the Maersk Memphis. And if that is the case, then George Webb would be discredited in the public eye.

        Rest assured on one point. I have no problem putting into writing on this blog, facts and evidence which show that I came to a wrong conclusion. This is not an issue with me. That is why I have no problem printing comments from my readers that differ from my viewpoint. What I am interested in, is how one can come to a right judgment on issues, where the totality of facts and evidence is not public. The purpose of being able to ‘weigh’ what IS known, is to avoid becoming entrapped in PSYOPs, whether the manipulator is a government agency, a church, some other organization, or an individual, such as one’s mother-in-law.

        I agree that Mainstream Media is suspect because those involved have sold their souls for a fat paycheck. However, a while back when the Oregon standoff was occurring, there were several reporters connected to local newspapers that were putting out genuine news reports. Later on, they appeared on a round table to tell their tales of reporting on this event, and it was both fascinating and highly encouraging. The video I saw of their discussion was not widely seen, as it was done by local, small newspapers. It was clear from their discussion, that this group had personal integrity which allowed truth to be told with an impartiality that is rarely seen in this day and age.

        If MSM omits the testimony of George Webb, Jason Goodman, etc. on the dirty bomb report, these persons still have their YouTube platform in which to speak, and there is of course the fact that one can write testimony on a blog. The problem is that George Webb and Jason Goodman did not establish their own journalistic integrity PRIOR to this incident. And what made their testimony seem false was the fact that they made a show out of it. If someone really did have access to a credible secret source, one whose veracity was well established, a secret phone call or calls could have been made to the Coast Guard giving this information to them, without making a public show and spectacle of it.

        I have found interesting “leads” left by commenters on various blogs and videos. I make note of them, and see if there is anything there. However, the mass of comments made on the Alt news internet sites are worthless, and there is little respect shown for truth, facts, evidence, sound reasoning, comparison to sound standards….Journalism is in a sorry state and I hate that it is so.

        I always appreciate your comments, Karl. You bring a different insight into whatever subject matter you choose to speak on, so thanks very much for that.

      • Mother-in-law. That one cracked me up.

        I wrote another long and complimentary article in response and “a webpage error” occurred three seconds before I hit the “Post Comment” button, completely obliterating it. I’m not writing it again. So, take my word for it. 😉

        I don’t think it was a dirty bomb. Could have been tennis shoes or “martial arts equipment”. Or something more sinister. Who knows? Did the Pentagon say what WAS in the containers? I’m not convinced the truth of the identity of the contents of the Awan containers, if there were Awan containers on the ship, will ever be disclosed. Cleared could simply mean that they were allowed to pass under diplomatic rules. Keeping an open mind on it, and not discounting anything, from either the Government or the GW/CSTT folks.

        I do have a (don’t want to say) “fear” that the end result of this exercise will be a spectacular Deep State diversion. And if that is the point of this exercise, then I have not been fooled, but maybe manipulated a bit.

        I will continue to cheer on the exposure of the Clinton cabal.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s