It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who ISN'T a charlatan in the "UFO community"?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Another one that has lost my respect is Brian O'Leary is a likeable but when he said, “The laws of thermodynamics are not laws, they are only theories. “(00:49:50) he completely lost me. He obviously has no idea what scientific theories are. Later he refers to science (00:52:21) as a religion, really?




www.youtube.com...




posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I just go with my Charlatan theory

If they try to make money off the truth/disclosure they're a charlatan and making alot of stuff up whilst including enough truth to make it somewhat believable

If they aren't trying to make money then chances are they're telling the truth and are good people.

The pegasus project guys I believe are good honest researchers. Nick Pope seems like a decent honest guy too. The Disclosure Project folk especially Greer however, I believe to be charlatans, especially when they offer a membership for $100k+ added to their stupidly expensive seminars and field trips to call down conveniently invisible UFO's



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by BartS
 


That's hilarious, telling someone of Brian O'Leary's stature that he doesn't understand science


All of our so-called "Laws" of Physics are really only approximations. Models. All it takes is for one person to come up with some experimental data that refutes these "Laws" and then the "Laws" have to be rewritten!



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by ROTJ6
reply to post by BartS
 


That's hilarious, telling someone of Brian O'Leary's stature that he doesn't understand science


All of our so-called "Laws" of Physics are really only approximations. Models. All it takes is for one person to come up with some experimental data that refutes these "Laws" and then the "Laws" have to be rewritten!


To me that's the difference between an ignorant person and a charlatan. The ignorant person just doesn't understand, and they don't know any better.

The charlatan DOES understand and yet chooses to deceive us with lies for their own profitable ends.

Than goodness you're not a charlatan, because if you were you would know that it's impossible for one person's data to change the laws of thermodynamics. Any data not fitting our current models would have to be replicated, to change our theories, so one person's data just wouldn't do it, contrary to your claim.

You do have a point though that models are subject to change based on additional evidence (though with the replication you suggested wasn't necessary), but even though we now know that Einstein proved that Newtonian physics was incomplete, our predictions based on Newtonian physics were only adjusted slightly for extreme cases such as the accuracy of time measurement needed for GPS, etc. So I wouldn't say Newtonian physics isn't still a pretty good model, it was a fairly good model for its time, even though we now know of its imperfections. Likewise I would expect refinements to other models like the laws of thermodynamics with lots of experimental evidence to support them to possibly be subject to refinements, but not completely dismissed, as some charlatans might suggest.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
All it takes is for one person to come up with a replicable experiment, that produces data that disproves the "Law".


[edit on 16-8-2009 by MajorDisaster]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ROTJ6
reply to post by BartS
 


That's hilarious, telling someone of Brian O'Leary's stature that he doesn't understand science


All of our so-called "Laws" of Physics are really only approximations. Models. All it takes is for one person to come up with some experimental data that refutes these "Laws" and then the "Laws" have to be rewritten!


He may understand it but if he is making a stand with “it’s only a theory” there is something wrong. A scientific theory comes from many observations and repeatable tests. If the theory is wrong than it will be modified or corrected. If he can prove the theory to be wrong a Nobel Prize is awaiting him.

I’m not saying that theories can’t be wrong or incorrect but you have to prove it. If you do that then everyone goes back to the drawing board and try to figure it out.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by BartS
Maybe he's just trying to explain that, though. There's a lot of people that assume, because it's a "law", that it's 100% accurate. He's not talking to people who already understand how this stuff works with that statement.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Discotech
I just go with my Charlatan theory

If they try to make money off the truth/disclosure they're a charlatan and making alot of stuff up whilst including enough truth to make it somewhat believable

If they aren't trying to make money then chances are they're telling the truth and are good people.

The pegasus project guys I believe are good honest researchers. Nick Pope seems like a decent honest guy too. The Disclosure Project folk especially Greer however, I believe to be charlatans, especially when they offer a membership for $100k+ added to their stupidly expensive seminars and field trips to call down conveniently invisible UFO's


I somewhat agree with you.

But I personally don’t care if they make money from it; after all they need some sort of backing to do significant research and have to eat after all (especially if they do this full time). However any findings should be made public to be analyzed.

On the other hand I do see the danger of money corrupting the truth to sell more books. My red flags for these are religion, new age philosophy and love bombing.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clickfoot
reply to post by BartS
Maybe he's just trying to explain that, though. There's a lot of people that assume, because it's a "law", that it's 100% accurate. He's not talking to people who already understand how this stuff works with that statement.



Perhaps, but if the research is to be taken seriously he should choose his words better. I’m not a writer or particularly articulate (or in the public eye) so for me to say something like that means nothing. But for someone being a front man, scientist will just distance themselves from him.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by BartS
 


I think that there already is enough experimental data to support the concept that spacetime is actually full of energy, and you can make machines that draw from this energy. John Bedini's motors, Randell Mills' "Blacklight Process" etc.

The problem isn't lack of data; the problem is that the scientific community is also under massive pressure from the geopolitical PTB to keep a lid on this. So you have the "Priests" of Science going around saying, "That's impossible, that violates the 'Laws' of physics, so we won't even look at that". Which is completely bass-ackwards from what Science is supposed to be!

I think this is what Brian O'Leary was referring to when he said that Science has become a "Religion".



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I know a lot of the best, most objective UFO investigators have long since passed away, but they do leave a library of books to read. I highly recommend anything written by Donald Keyhoe.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorDisaster
reply to post by BartS
 


I think that there already is enough experimental data to support the concept that spacetime is actually full of energy, and you can make machines that draw from this energy. John Bedini's motors, Randell Mills' "Blacklight Process" etc.

The problem isn't lack of data; the problem is that the scientific community is also under massive pressure from the geopolitical PTB to keep a lid on this. So you have the "Priests" of Science going around saying, "That's impossible, that violates the 'Laws' of physics, so we won't even look at that". Which is completely bass-ackwards from what Science is supposed to be!

I think this is what Brian O'Leary was referring to when he said that Science has become a "Religion".


In my judgment you have expressed your opinion better than O'Leary in that video. I only centered him out on this as an example. We live in a sound bite world and we need better speakers.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
A degree of skepticism is actually healthy in areas which can easily be exploited. As you mentioned, Ufology is one of 'em. Also, anything commercially-orientated in the psychic/spirit world is also dangerous if you're dealing with frauds, which is the case 90% of the time. Basically, almost anything that is NOT accepted as universal truth by the general population can be used for the commercial gain of certain greedy persons, and that includes religion...

[edit on 16-8-2009 by VergeofObscene]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Stanton Friedman is straight up legit - I've corresponded with him some - I have some disagreement's about his old school approach to disclosure however...

(I don't feel he really "gets" the new media and it's potential)

The guy/s who made Out of the Blue have done some great things...

Several of the amateur UFOlogist regulars here at ATS are extremely well versed and sincere.

I completely disagree with those who insist you have to take an oath of poverty to be a UFOLogist or any kind of legit researcher - if we insist on that level of martyrdom - then good luck having any progress in this field or any other.

(that's partially why some of the good muckraking movements of the 60's eventually came to naught imho)

We definately could use some new blood in this field - but again - unless your independantly wealthy then it's hard to gain traction.

UFO hunters did some reasonable work on a few cold cases - but I think if we were to use Eric Nordstroms money bomb approach to funding the top new UFOlogists out there - well - we could have some HUGE advances in the field...

Of course MUFON does a great - if geographically inconsistant - job with their legions of part and full time volunteers...



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I humbly apologise for not mentioning Jacques Vallée, definately one of the best.
Also regarding our residents i agree with Chadwickus: free_spirit deserves to be mentioned together with our best researchers, because he IS: i had to disagreee with him more than once, but he has always been fair with me, and fairness is all: whenever he posts he's detailed and always able to provide exact and well sourced informations. Also Pegasus Research Consortium, Zorgon in particular do an incrediblle work of both data gathering and sharing, i will never be able to thank him enough for the huge amount of papers and other documentation he shared. I also forgot to mention Phage, wo always gives a precious contribute to the research, he's one of my favourite posters.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
I have concluded that most aliens doesn't have a clue about what OUR life is all about. Really. They are in fact not advanced as they claim to be for advancement is not measured by the level of technology.
That's why the information that you can find out there seemed so wacky. It does, because it is.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
I found Bob Lazar very credible and he never tries to make a career out of it like many of them. He had a lie detector test organised for him and there was no signs of him lying. He also said to go to a part of the desert and look in a certain direction at a certain time and day and you will see ufo's being test flown. Many journalists and friends of his did this and got footage of ufo's in the sky. So I find him very reliable.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by SpaceMonkeys]



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
I don't think anyone's mentioned Richard Dolan yet. He's a careful researcher who wrties extremely lucidly.

He also makes a living from writing about a subject that fascinates him. What the HELL is wrong with that? And if, therefore, someone has had some experiences that are unusual and noteworthy, why should they be barred from making money from that?

Logically, the fact that someone's trying to make money from what they do does not necessarily mean they're a charlatan. It's a subjective judgement.

There's also the question of whether someone is only in it for the money... which I addressed in this thread. I had a lot of fun being just as skeptical as the most hard-boiled skeptic, but turning their own tactics back on them. They didn't like it, but as I said, I had an absolute ball.

And, yes, it's about time someone mentioned Jacques Vallee.

As for "science being a religion", mentioned earlier in this thread: those trained in the practice of science are apt to view it with rose-tinted spectacles. "Objectivity" is an utterly spurious notion. Our every perception is actually a construction using sense data and our internal model of the world.

The idea that the scientific method is infallible is an example of a faith-based belief that the observable data support about as much as they support the earth being 6,000 years old.

In fact, the analogy is not inapt. The guy who first figured out that bats navigate using their ears was ridiculed by the scientific establishment of his day. It was over a hundred years later that the mainstream caught up with him. At the time, no-one could understand that there might be sounds we couldn't hear. It's kind of like the pope finally admitting Galileo was right centuries after the fact. Neither the Pope nor the scientific method is infallible, unless you take the really long view that a few hundred years barking up the wrong tree doesn't make a difference.

Anyone who looks into the history of science knows that scientists are just as apt to fall prey to personal animosity, arrogance, and greed as anyone else, and this can affect their work. Corporations have done a lot of damage to the scientific method by hiding or denying data that might affect their bottom line. Moreover, the evaluation of different hypotheses is a subjective process (were it not, scientists woudl agree on everything): and experiments are designed to confirm or refute a hypothesis that alerady exists.

There are scientific fundamentalists just as there are religious ones.



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I highly recommend heading over to the Paracast Archives, they eat charlatans and frauds and spit 'em out live on air


Paracast kicks ass, I listen to them all the time! After listening to (S)Noory for so many years, these guys are a refreshing change of pace. They're the only people I know to have actually confronted Greer on his mounds of steaming BS, after that, I was a listener for life




Dr. Steven Greer returns to talk about The Orion Project, an organization researching “free energy” and his UFO movement, The Disclosure Project. Also participating will be Jeremy Vaeni, And don’t miss a special 15-minute no-holds-barred wrap-up session.

Link here for Greer smack down



posted on Aug, 16 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
A few guys over here in the UK who are worth mentioning in a positve light.
Graham Birdsall founder of UFO Magazine. Sadly passed away in 2003.
Gary Hesaltine a serving policeman who founded prufos website.
Russell Callaghan.
All very genuine and passionate.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join