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.

 

Veritas Show

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Of course that it depends on exactly who you're referring to but if I just wanted to listen to the guest tell his stories and sell whatever he has to sell without being questioned and pressed on the hard and controversial issues, then I'd just go read the guest's website/blog or books, since everyone has one these days.


I think there is a subtle way of doing this that few interviewers master, but Veritas does IMO. The usual way of doing this is constantly interrupting and being openly challenging. As any NLP practitioner will yell you, you don't really get very far doing that. Guests clam up, get defensive, tell their friends and colleagues to avoid the show, etc etc.

As I say, there are more subtle ways. For poor guests you can either decapitate them, or give them enough rope, and if they are full of BS, they hang themselves.... For excellent guests they feel comfortable and share more than they usually do - and agree to return because they enjoyed it so much. Some people have appeared on that show who would NEVER appear on any other, precisely because of the hosts style.

But some people like a public execution LOL. That's not Veritas's style. Think Aikido rather than Karate LOL. Everyone has a preferred style I suppose and I find Veritas unique in it's approach and that it achivies far more with it than most shows do.

So, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
But I wouldn't hesitate to recommend the show to anyone - unless they like a belligerent style and think that achieves the best results. They won't get that at Veritas and if that's their preferred style they likely wouldn't fit in or last long on the forum anyway, which is as unlike ATS as day is from night.

People are actually required to be civil there - can you imagine?



[edit on 25-1-2010 by Malcram]




posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by _R4t_
Don't know if any of you guys seen the BS from P.Camelot that Dan Burish exposed on his site after the incident at the conferent about the vacines... P.Camelot site was black out of all of the facts exposed by Burish

See, that's your mistake right there—you think Dan Burisch is a credible character. Not that you should listen to Project Camelot either, they are just as bad.

Apparently Veritas has Kerry Cassidy and Bill Ryan of Project Camelot on their last episode. I'm sure that's fun... One of these days that I don't have anything useful to do and I want a laugh I'll give it a listen.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by _R4t_
Don't know if any of you guys seen the BS from P.Camelot that Dan Burish exposed on his site after the incident at the conferent about the vacines... P.Camelot site was black out of all of the facts exposed by Burish

See, that's your mistake right there—you think Dan Burisch is a credible character. Not that you should listen to Project Camelot either, they are just as bad.

Apparently Veritas has Kerry Cassidy and Bill Ryan of Project Camelot on their last episode. I'm sure that's fun... One of these days that I don't have anything useful to do and I want a laugh I'll give it a listen.


You seem a bit (pre)judgmental C. And while the people recommending the shows have listened to many, many hours of them, you haven't. You're all primed and ready to laugh at a Veritas show you haven't heard yet (The Project Camelot show).

I think maybe there's some cynicism behind your comments.

I agree though, Veritas clearly ain't the show for you. Thank goodness for variety



[edit on 25-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Yeah here's more on Hurtak as tied to the NSA and HAARP from Dan Eden aka "Gary Vey" who had to go underground after his expose on HAARP --

viewzone.com...

It's tied to occult research on the Ark and ancient civilization, etc.

Anyway Hurtak is a "favorite" of the Veritas host.

Yeah I'll LISTEN (to the first hour for free) but I feel sorry for the host lacking much critical skills.



posted on Jan, 25 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram

Originally posted by converge


I think there is a subtle way of doing this that few interviewers master, but Veritas does IMO. The usual way of doing this is constantly interrupting and being openly challenging. As any NLP practitioner will yell you, you don't really get very far doing that. Guests clam up, get defensive, tell their friends and colleagues to avoid the show, etc etc.




AGREED! There's way of challenging someone and oppose even aggressively to something that is said in a interview WHILE remaining professional and respectful...

Regardless of who your interviewing or talking to there's "ways" of doing things professionally. I work in telecommunication and on a daily basis my job's to question people and at time literally put them on the spot to get some facts right and i swear... if I would speak to people the way Kerry Cassidy does I would get my head ripped of by them... the only thing saving her ass is the camera rolling... On the other hand Mel Fabregas knows how to speak to people even though you are in complete opposition with the interviewed person's point of view, oppinion and/or ideas...

Here's an example... no flame intended regardless of who the interviewed person is... forget who it is and who they are and imagine your in their seat... and who would you like to speak to more??? Mel or Kerry

P.Camelot - Stephen Greer (spain interview)

Veritas Show - Sanni Ceto


edited: quoted wrong quote


[edit on 25-1-2010 by _R4t_]

[edit on 25-1-2010 by _R4t_]

[edit on 25-1-2010 by _R4t_]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
You seem a bit (pre)judgmental C.

You are right, I am judgmental. I'm judgmental about things that hurt a field that deserves much better than this circus it has become.



And while the people recommending the shows have listened to many, many hours of them, you haven't. You're all ready to laugh at a show you haven't heard (The Project Camelot show).

I've listened to a handful of Veritas shows and it's from those that I listened that I constructed my opinion. No, I didn't listen to the Project Camelot show yet, but I didn't say I was laughing either, I said I would. If the show doesn't make me laugh—as I expect it will—it's a good sign, and I'll admit to that then.



I think maybe there's some unwarranted cynicism behind your comments.

I don't see why since all my comments were based on having listened to the show, and the ones about Burisch, quite frankly, don't even deserve a justification at this point.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by _R4t_
On the other hand Mel Fabregas knows how to speak to people even though you are in complete opposition with the interviewed person's point of view, oppinion and/or ideas...

Can you give a name of someone Fabregas has been "in complete opposition with the interviewed person's point of view, opinion and/or ideas"? During the shows I heard he didn't seem to have a problem with anything he was being told.



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Sorry im not pre-judmental man, im not talking about the people in the interview or the person interviewing im talking about the WAY they do interviews... and just FYI there's NO video/audio file found on www.projectcamelot.org that i have not heard at least couple times... Neither on Veritas Show im subscribed and downloaded everything that can be downloaded on both site and listen to them often... I pass entire nights programming and its all I listen to.


And when i did talk about kerry its because of her new found "attitude" during interview... I believe there's ways to speak to people that took time out of their lifes to spend with you... there's a minimum of respect and boundaries not to cross that she did repeatedly lately... and i don't find it acceptable sorry...

And i Strongly suggest you to read that... there was an entire page dedicated to this with email screenshots from kerry and ryan and david wilcock and it SHOCKED me... trust me it wasnt only allegations Burish and hard material and proof of the stuff he was saying.. and P.Camelot NEVER said anything on their side/site to defend themselve of what Burish was saying... they blacked it out completly... It was removed from Burish site now thats all I could find that remains from it... but trust me... I which you could of see that...



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


That's where my Aikido vs Karate analogy comes in. Just because he's not smashing a guests face in - metaphorically - doesn't mean he agrees. If he doesn't agree that becomes more evident after the shows because there is a good deal of 'post game' analysis with the membership


I gather you have a very exacting attitude because you are protective of the purity of the subject, as you see it, and I admire that. You also have some very fixed views which were no doubt earned through careful research. However, there are people at various levels of understanding and research and they often demand certain guests (Veritas takes guest suggestions from members and tries to fill them). I think you have to trust people to make up their own mind and sift the wheat from chaff for themselves, over time. The need to go through their own process.

To me, it's a shows job to aid this process by providing a platform open-mindedly for everyone in the field and for the listeners to make up their own mind and use their own reasoning. It's not a host's job - IMO - to do that for his guests by excluding those he personally may not agree with, nor is it his job to get them there just to haul them over the coals. But that's my opinion. As I said, thank goodness for variety.


[edit on 26-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by converge
 


lol..EXACTLY...thats my point... instead of throwing is oppinion of people's face he stick to the interview... cmon with the variety of people he interviewed he CANNOT have agreed 100% with them all... but he remained professional listen to what they had to say and did the show...

How can you conduct a good interview if you have already made your mind about whats true and not... as example again.. Kerry and Greer both were arguing about who was right... there's NO WAYS to know right now who's right and who's not... hence the point of interview is to stay neutral and expose the information and let people make their own mind and decide what they believe is right or not and not "imposing" your belief on the person your interviewing..

[edit on 26-1-2010 by _R4t_]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by _R4t_
 


Hey there R4t. I think you misunderstand me - I wasn't replying to you, but to Converge. I don't know anything about the Burish and PC issue, but I do know and agree that Kerry has been far from professional a number of times.

Apologies if I created the confusion.


[edit on 26-1-2010 by Malcram]



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


No prob man, I had figured out hehe... sorry i didnt want to come across as judmental people... but im all for the preservation of the information raw/unedited and completely voided from opinion of the interviewer... It be be easy to turn an interview around and made the outcome of an interview appear the way you want it to with the right question asked...

Thats why i respect Mel's abilities and professionalism...



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:41 AM
link   
There's quite a bit on Burisch being a fake online

www.sott.net...

reply to post by Malcram
 



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by drew hempel
 


Indeed there is odd stuff in Burish stories... however the screenshots i've seen about P.Camelot who were asking for donations from people on one hand so they "could" have enough cash to rent hotels for the invited speakers and their expense. But on the other was saying in an email that an "investor" had took care of everything and the hotels/food was "GIVEN" to her by an hotel an so on... likely due to the publicity it would do to the hotel... whatever... the fact was shocking that she was asking money for something that she already had money for....

All emails screenshot were there... the scans from papers and stuff it was UNdisputable from P.C and I think the mere fact that they NEVER mentioned anything on their site and pretty much "ended" their attack on Burish cuz of the vacine story pretty much speak for itself IMO



posted on Jan, 26 2010 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
Just because he's not smashing a guests face in - metaphorically - doesn't mean he agrees. If he doesn't agree that becomes more evident after the shows because there is a good deal of 'post game' analysis with the membership

I asked _R4t_ but received no reply. Can you then mention a couple of names of people Veritas had on and Mel Fabregas didn't agree with?



I think you have to trust people to make up their own mind and sift the wheat from chaff for themselves, over time. The need to go through their own process.

Please don't misunderstand me. I don't want to prevent people from listening or believing whatever they want and like. I will, however, be critical when those people, acting on those beliefs—and usually it's nothing more than that—defend and support people that do more harm than good to the field.

I'm in no way saying people should take my comments and opinions as the definitive word on these matters—far from it! But I believe I'm allowed to express those comments and opinions, harsh as they may be, just as people are allowed to defend and support people I believe hurt the field. I hope you understand, however, that I can't let things go unaddressed that I think hurt the cause of making this a respectful and serious field.



It's not a host's job - IMO - to do that for his guests by excluding those he personally may not agree with, nor is it his job to get them there just to haul them over the coals.

That's a false dichotomy because you don't have to exclude people you disagree with and you don't have to "haul them over the coals." You can have people you disagree with and go over those disagreements while being respectful.

I think the job of a host is more than inviting someone and giving them free air time—I expect a discussion with the guests, and that might include going over their controversial positions the host disagrees with. It's the host's show after all, otherwise he's not just an announcer.

I would agree more with the notion of just giving a platform to these people if we weren't in the age of the internet where everyone can make their voices heard. It's also much easier to publish books these days.

There's so much crap in the field that I don't see any problem with people questioning and be demanding of these so personalities and so called "UFO researchers." If their material stands up to scrutiny, great. If it doesn't, we have weeded out material that would only distract us from the real stuff. Either way, it's a win-win.



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Malcram
The hosts job is just to give a platform to as many prominent people in the field - and those requested by guests - as possible

That's the difference between some people, then. I understand how some people want to hear the 'prominent' people in the field, as most people are willing to believe anything.

I'm sure many of the people who listen to the Veritas show and C2C think highly of Steven Greer, Stephen Bassett or Michael Salla and likely think of them as "prominent people in the field," when personally I don't think they are in the field at all. They might be in some field, maybe the "I'll say anything to make money" field, but I can assure you it's not the UFO research field.

Again, if I simply wanted access to a platform for these personalities grandiose tales I would just read their websites or books.

The UFO field, unfortunately, already has enough noise and pollution. Giving even more platforms to clowns like Greer and Salla without questioning or pressing them on their tales and actions, is just adding to that noise and pollution.

[edit on 25-1-2010 by converge]


Michael Salla made an appearance on Veritas once, when the show had just started, and that makes you grade the entire show? He also interviewed Edgar Mitchell even before Salla. I don't see you comment on that. I don't know any other show that interviews an astronaut who went to the moon when the show is virtually unknown. Have you listened to any shows lately? Judging by what you write, I conclude you have not. I wouldn't judge by the first few shows. That was a learning curve, in my opinion.

Look at the list of guests and you will find, I hope, someone who you think is worthy: www.veritasshow.com...

By the way, no one is forcing you to listen. There is a free hour available to anyone. I wish I had that available to me at the movies. How many times would I have wanted my money back. And yes, the host gives free subscriptions to the less fortunate. $6 is enough to cover the expenses that go into producing this show.

Just because the host likes someone's work doesn't mean he endorses them. Looking at different perspectives is important to avoid tunnel vision. It makes you wonder why he was banned from this very forum immediately after he created the show.

No show will be exempt from the questionable guests. It happens. However, there are great people like Richard Dolan (interviewed yesterday for the second time); Dr. Brooks Agnew, etc. It's not a UFO show. It covers all areas. G. Edward Griffin, Catherine Austin Fitts, Timothy Good, you name it. Mel listens to the audience. Members submit their favorite guest suggestions and even questions for guests. Try doing that elsewhere.

But the most beautiful aspect is: NO INTERRUPTIONS. That goes for the host and no commercials. The show is as long as it should be and has no limitations, no censorship and no alliances to the mainstream media. If you want to criticize a show because one of its first guests was questionable, from over 60, then there is nothing that will convince you.

Stanton Friedman, Grant Cameron, Edgar Mitchell, Richard Dolan, James Fox, Clif High, Nick Pope, Timothy Good, Colin Andrews, Dr. Paul LaViolette, Dr. Judy Wood, Dr. Nick Begich, Zecharia Sitchin (doesn't grant interview to hardly anyone), Nick Redfern, Jordan Maxwell, etc. Take a pick. Are these not good enough? Again, like many who are supporting the show, they also have the option of not renewing their subscriptions. The burden lies on the host, and so far in one year, the show is compared to very reputable ones. Not bad for someone without any experience in the media field.

One last thing. The host had never interviewed anyone before he started the show. Yes, he was pretty robotic and even joked with people signing his name at the end of e-mail messages Mel "Mr Roboto". However, that is his own style and obviously it's resonating with people.

How great to live in a world where you choose what and what not to listen to. Try getting a no-commercial show with great guests and pristine 128 kps (CD quality sound). Find me one, JUST ONE show that does that.

I'll be waiting! Actually, I'd like to see you create your own show. I, for one, would listen to a few shows before I would rate you the way you have here.

Cheers,

Exo

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Exopolitico]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by _R4t_
On the other hand Mel Fabregas knows how to speak to people even though you are in complete opposition with the interviewed person's point of view, oppinion and/or ideas...

Can you give a name of someone Fabregas has been "in complete opposition with the interviewed person's point of view, opinion and/or ideas"? During the shows I heard he didn't seem to have a problem with anything he was being told.

Try the Dr. David Jacobs show. Once again, obviously you just have a shot gun and are here just to criticize without facts. Listen to that show and you will hear how Jacobs backpedals at almost every question.

Actually, here's a taste of that interview:




posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by _R4t_
reply to post by Malcram
 


No prob man, I had figured out hehe... sorry i didnt want to come across as judmental people... but im all for the preservation of the information raw/unedited and completely voided from opinion of the interviewer... It be be easy to turn an interview around and made the outcome of an interview appear the way you want it to with the right question asked...

Thats why i respect Mel's abilities and professionalism...

I like your thought process. In my world that's called JOURNALISM. True journalism is something you don' see anymore. I hear Mel doesn't even have experience in broadcasting or journalism, and yet, he asks the right questions (the questions the audience really wants to ask) and is able to let the guest express their opinion so that people can draw their own conclusions. If I wanted to listen to someone bark and byte at the guest, I'll listen to Bill O'Reilly.

Other shows are all about the hosts cult of personality. How edgy he or she is and how much humiliation or "public execution", as Malcram said, is done. No ego. That is key to the getting the information out. Truth should be devoid of ego.

If I didn't know any better, I'd say some of the Paracast guys are inundating this thread on purpose... I'd like to see them start a subscription service and see how many people would line up. I'm just saying.

Cheers,

Exo

[edit on 29-1-2010 by Exopolitico]



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by converge

Originally posted by Malcram
Just because he's not smashing a guests face in - metaphorically - doesn't mean he agrees. If he doesn't agree that becomes more evident after the shows because there is a good deal of 'post game' analysis with the membership

I asked _R4t_ but received no reply. Can you then mention a couple of names of people Veritas had on and Mel Fabregas didn't agree with?

Either way, it's a win-win.


I don't know where you learned your logic C, but just because you have someone over at your house and treat them with respect doesn't mean you agree with them. That is the case here. You are equating professionalism with weakness. Don't confuse kindness with weakness.

Are you saying that if the host disagrees with the guest he/she should make it rudely and obnoxiously obvious? You obviously like a different style. Why are you even wasting your time here? Move on to other styles that you enjoy. We are so fortunate to have variety and options. In the meantime, I would suggest that you don't come to unfounded conclusions (i.e., agreeing with every guest). I'm sure if you wrote to the host privately he'll tell you. Otherwise, I respect his style and the way he conducts himself even with people he doesn't agree with (i.e., David Jacobs).

Exo



posted on Jan, 29 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
By the way, I heard that a former and respected radio host proposed interviewing Mel Fabregas and David Biedny (The Paracast). I heard Mel said "name the time and the place" and instead, David kicked Mel off his forum and closed the thread without saying one more word about it.

What happened there?

Exo



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join