Let's debunk Barbara Hand Clow and a few other remarks and questions...

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   
edit on 13-6-2011 by bossnoo1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bossnoo1
I am interested in debunking the woman who wrote "The Pleiadian Agenda", among other books.

I have reviewed her website and it seems that she is nothing more than a Pastor Bob Larson version of New Age Philosophy, which subsequently, is not real.

In fact, her products, workshops, and prices are very similar to other fakes who use impressionable people for money.

Now, the argument is made that she may very well be telling the truth. Really, then why does she use such an evasive, general language to sell cheap products. Why did she take her ideas from a Billy Meier (who made UFO's from pie tins and photographed them?)

Why doesn't she profess ideas and technology that no one can yet comprehend. Because it seems that all these supposed UFOologists can only speak to us on current or near-future terms and that's regading technology.

Recycling other human being's knowledge or taking their words will not impress anyone but inspire the have not's to buy a DVD for $30.

Televisions are some of the worst technology to use Barbara if you think anyone wants to pretend they are metaphysical. So, is the internet.

Televisions fry heads and brainwash.

edit on 12-6-2011 by bossnoo1 because: (no reason given)


Unfortunately I think it's sort of impossible to 'debunk' someone who is expressing their belief in something...unless she makes some scientific claim that can be proven wrong, then you will just be butting heads with her true believers ..I think you've done a good job though of making a case that it's nonsense...if she backs up her beliefs with the work of people like Billy Meier, who himself has had his own UFO videos debunked countless times, then it would tend to suggest she isn't all that credible.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
It's all well and good to have your own opinions. It's even good to share them here.

But, it isn't okay to desire to take someone down just because you disagree with them. So one must then ask what is the motivation behind that desire?

You make some specifically negative value-based comments about the validity of her work and the experiences others have. So one would have to ask what your experience is and whether it has provided you any clearer perception on reality than any other person... that you can demonstrate the effectiveness of. If the answer there is doubtful, then find something else you can positively effect in your life.

edit on 12-6-2011 by Tayesin because: dyslexia



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tayesin
It's all well and good to have your own opinions. It's even good to share them here.

But, it isn't okay to desire to take someone down just because you disagree with them. So one must then ask what is the motivation behind that desire?

You make some specifically negative value-based comments about the validity of her work and the experiences others have. So one would have to ask what your experience is and whether it has provided you any clearer perception on reality than any other person... that you can demonstrate the effectiveness of. If the answer there is doubtful, then find something else you can positively effect in your life.

edit on 12-6-2011 by Tayesin because: dyslexia


Would you be making the same argument that it's not OK to make "negative value-based comments about the validity of someones work" if he was talking about a Cult Group like Heaven's Gate? Sometimes it's necessary to make "negative value-based comments about the validity of [someone's] work"....that's what debate is all about...that's what these boards are all about. I WANT people to debate my own work...If I never consider other's may view a specific subject differently than I do, then I will never grow in my own understanding...the only people who don't welcome such debate are those that know that their own work can not stand up to logical debate....in other words people who have something to hide....whether they are hiding some sort of agenda, or simply are themselves wishing to hide their head in a self made hole of delusions and ignorance.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
Would you be making the same argument that it's not OK to make "negative value-based comments about the validity of someones work" if he was talking about a Cult Group like Heaven's Gate? Sometimes it's necessary to make "negative value-based comments about the validity of [someone's] work"....that's what debate is all about...that's what these boards are all about. I WANT people to debate my own work...If I never consider other's may view a specific subject differently than I do, then I will never grow in my own understanding...the only people who don't welcome such debate are those that know that their own work can not stand up to logical debate....in other words people who have something to hide....whether they are hiding some sort of agenda, or simply are themselves wishing to hide their head in a self made hole of delusions and ignorance.


Some things to do not bend to Logical Discussion/Argument, no matter how much we may prefer they do. Of course to a logical argumentist.. someone who prides themselves in their superior forms of argument... this will be thought of as very wrong.

If we have no parallel grounds for observation then we are like the OP offering only their personal Opinion as Fact. It is these statements made as Fact that I responded too.

The second although more important aspect of this discussion is to ascertain the OP's motivation for wanting to chop-down this person he refers to. I think that is the key factor here.

What if's do not apply. I see it here all the time with various assertions, which are usually a vastly different set of circumstances to the one first being discussed.

The things science cannot sense and quantify are many and varied in the experience of humanity. And this is because science is still only in it's infant stage being around for only a few hundred years. Over that small timeframe many theories and Beliefs held dear have been overturned as science gets more able to perceive what it previously could not. Hence we would be fools to think science is capable of explaining everything as it is right now.

I am not supporting the women mentioned in the first post.. so we can understand my approach is only with statements made as fact.. the "not real", etc. It simply shows the OP has no equal grounds to perceive from and thus falls short of fact... unless you also accept the limitations as being the whole picture and form a similar opinion... of which you are entitled to.

Yes.. I want people to discuss my own work too... but there are so few who have any idea let alone real experience of it themselves to be able to form anything other than a very limited personal opinion. How can they possibly debate it adequately without any experience of it?

And therein lay my whole point to my initial response.





new topics
 
0

log in

join